Economic burden associated with adverse events of special interest in patients with relapsed Philadelphia chromosome-negative B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the United States

Health Care Resource Utilization and Total Costs of Care for Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States: A Retrospective Claims Analysis

PURPOSE

Although immunotherapies such as blinatumomab and inotuzumab have led to improved outcomes, financial burden and health resource utilization (HRU) have increased for adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). This study assessed real-world HRU and costs of care among adult patients with R/R B-ALL by line of therapy (LoT) in the United States.

METHODS

We selected patients from the MarketScanⓇ Database (January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020) as follows: ≥1 claims of ALL-indicated first-line (1L) therapies, ≥1 diagnosis of ALL before the index date (1L initiation date), 6-month continuous enrollment before the index date, second-line (2L) therapy initiation, ≥18 years old at 2L, no clinical trial enrollment, no diagnosis of other forms of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and no claim for daratumumab or nelarabine during the study period. Outcome measures included claim-based time to next treatment (TTNT), all-cause and adverse event (AE)-related HRU, and all-cause and AE-related costs.

FINDINGS

The R/R B-ALL cohort (N = 203) was 60% male, median age of 41 years, and median Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 3.0. Mean (SD) follow-up was 17.8 (11.8) months. Of those who received 2L, 55.7% (113/203) required 3L, and 15% (30/203) initiated 4L+. Patients relapsed quickly, with a median TTNT of 170 days, 169 days, and 205 days for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively. Hospitalization rates were high across each LoT (2L, 88%; 3L, 73%; 4L+, 73%), and the mean (SD) inpatient length of stay increased by LoT as follows: 8.6 (6.8) days for 2L, 10.6 (13.3) for 3L, and 11.6 (13.6) for 4L+. Mean (SD) overall costs were substantial within each LoT at $513,279 ($599,209), $340,419 ($333,555), and $390,327 ($332,068) for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively. The mean (SD) overall/per-patient-per-month AE-related costs were $358,676 ($497,998) for 2L, $202,621 ($272,788) for 3L, and $210,539 ($267,814) for 4L+. Among those receiving blinatumomab or inotuzumab within each LoT, the mean (SD) total costs were $566,373 ($621,179), $498,070 ($376,260), and $512,908 ($159,525) for 2L, 3L, and 4L+, respectively.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings suggest that adult patients with R/R B-ALL relapse frequently with standard of care and incur a substantial HRU and cost burden with each LoT. Those treated with blinatumomab or inotuzumab incurred higher total costs within each LoT compared with the overall R/R B-ALL cohort. Alternative therapies with longer duration of remission are urgently needed, and HRU should be considered for future studies examining the optimal sequencing of therapy.

Costs associated with adverse events from remission induction for children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Background

ALL is the most frequent hematological tumor in children, so during remission induction chemotherapy protocol (RICP) adverse events (AEs) may appear. The public program in Mexico in charge of financial support to oncologic children without social security delivered a fix amount for ALL chemotherapy, but additional money needed to treat any other unexpected condition should be taken from the budget of the oncologic healthcare providers. So the purpose of our study was to estimate and evaluate the direct medical costs associated to EAs during RICP in children with ALL.

Methods

This study was retrospective, longitudinal, and observational based on medical records review of patients in RICP. The CTCAE was used to identify and classify AEs according to a SOC category. We focused on extracting resources data that were consumed both for inpatients and outpatients AEs. A micro-costing approach was adopted which involve quantification of each healthcare resource consumed by the hospital multiplying them by unit cost. The probability distributions of data were evaluated to identify the appropriated statistical tests to be used for comparisons between groups that were performed with Wilcoxon rank sum test. Generalized linear models (GLM) were adjusted to evaluate the effects of patient characteristics on total cost.

Results

Forty patients accumulated 204 inpatient and 81 outpatient AEs during RICP. Comparison of total costs between groups showed an incremental cost of $7,460.23 likewise attributable to AEs. The total cost of a pediatric patient undergoing RICP without adverse events was $3,078.36 and the total cost of a patient with AEs exceeds it threefold.

Conclusions

The costs associated with AEs during RICP in Mexican children with ALL representing a high burden for the healthcare provider. Generalized linear models showed that variables such as sex, risk category and alive status are associated with the total costs of AEs. This is the first study aiming to analyze the effect of ALL-related AEs on health care costs in pediatric population, so our results may help not only to local decision making but also it may contribute to the research agenda in this field.

Cost-Effectiveness of KTE-X19 for Adults with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States

Introduction

Despite currently available treatments for adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL), survival outcomes remain poor, highlighting the need for new therapeutic strategies. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of KTE-X19 to treat adults with R/R ALL from a US payer perspective.

Methods

The model had two components: a decision-tree, where pre-infusion costs for patients who ultimately did not receive KTE-X19 are accounted for, followed by a partitioned survival analysis, where all KTE-X19 infused patients would enter the three-state (pre-progression, progressed disease, death) model. Comparators included current standard of care treatments, i.e., blinatumomab (BLIN), inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO), and salvage chemotherapy (CHEMO). Both standard parametric and mixture cure models were used to model survival. Efficacy, safety, healthcare resource utilization, and health state utility inputs were derived from the ZUMA-3 trial (NCT02614066) and literature. Cost inputs were derived from literature or publicly available sources. Outcomes and costs were discounted 3% annually. Results of KTE-X19 versus comparators are reported as total and incremental life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) and key scenario analyses were also performed.

Results

In the base case, incremental QALYs for KTE-X19 were 2.44, 3.26, and 4.61 versus BLIN, INO, and CHEMO, respectively. Incremental costs were $50,913, $251,532, and $432,027, respectively, resulting in ICERs of $20,843/QALY (versus BLIN), $77,271/QALY (versus INO), and $93,768/QALY (versus CHEMO). Deterministic sensitivity analysis results were most sensitive to subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplant rates and post-progression utilities. PSA found that KTE-X19 is 78.4%, 74.0%, and 75.4% likely to be cost-effective versus BLIN, INO, and CHEMO, respectively. Across most scenarios, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, KTE-X19 was cost-effective versus all treatments.

Conclusions

Compared to current options for adults with R/R ALL, KTE-X19 is cost-effective, driven primarily by improved survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02201-6.

Several treatments for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) have been approved in the past decade in the US, including blinatumomab (BLIN) and inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO). However, despite the high costs associated with these treatments, survival for patients remains poor. KTE-X19, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2021, has potential to improve survival, but its economic value has not yet been determined. This model comprehensively evaluated the long-term clinical and economic value of KTE-X19 versus current treatments, including BLIN, INO, and salvage chemotherapy (CHEMO). Inputs were derived from key clinical trials, the literature, and other publicly available sources. The model used the perspective of a US third party payer over a patient lifetime. Compared to BLIN, INO and CHEMO, KTE-X19 resulted in improved quality of life as measured with incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 2.44 (vs BLIN), 3.26 (vs INO), and 4.61 (vs CHEMO). Treatment with KTE-X19 had incremental costs of $50,913 (vs BLIN), $251,532 (vs INO), and $432,027 (vs CHEMO). KTE-X19 was found to provide good value for money based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $20,843/QALY (vs BLIN), $77,271/QALY (vs INO), and $93,768/QALY (vs CHEMO). These values are well below the commonly accepted thresholds to determine economic value. Results were also found to be robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Economic evaluation of polatuzumab-bendamustine-rituximab vs. tafasitamab-lenalidomide in transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL

AIM

Polatuzumab vedotin-bendamustin-rituximab (PBR) and tafasitamab-lenalidomide (Tafa-L) were approved recently for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) ineligible patients. We performed an industry-independent pharmacoeconomic evaluation of both regimens over a 5-year (y) time horizon (US payer perspective; 2020 USD).

METHODS

Survival curves, treatment costs, and utility values were applied in a three-state Markov model (progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), death) to estimate the incremental follow-up (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). A novel metric of the incremental cost per 1% gain in the probability of achieving objective response (OR), PFS, and OS were estimated.

RESULTS

Five-year Tafa-L costs ($470,119) exceeded PBR's ($249,217) by $220,902 with incremental gains of 0.71 life-years (LY) and 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY); yielding ICER of $310,041/LYg and ICUR of $694,241/QALYg. Tafa-L had favorable PFS and OS rates over PBR with adjusted differences of +19.2 and +34.1%, respectively at trial follow-up (∼2 years), with corresponding 5 years differences in survival of +7.8% in PFS and +21.4% in OS. The incremental cost per 1% gain in the probability of achieving OR, PFS and OS at follow-up were $8,479, $6,359, and $3,583; and $28,321 and $10,323 for PFS and OS at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The sustained Tafa-L treatment demonstrated better survival outcomes than 6-cycle PBR though at a greater cost. The incremental costs to gain a 1% improvement in 2 and 5 years survival outcomes with Tafa-L over PBR were modest, underscoring the longer-term benefit of Tafa-L over PBR in patients ineligible for or opting out of ASCT.

Direct costs associated with the management of mucositis: A systematic review

Mucositis is one of the more frequent and costly adverse events following cancer treatment. To evaluate and report the direct economic outcomes associated with the management of mucositis across several cancer treatments we conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase were searched electronically and a total of 37 relevant studies were included. The costs attributable to mucositis in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation setting ranged from 1124,47 US dollars (USD) to 299 214,14 USD per patient. The radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy plus molecular targeted therapy accounted for mucositis costs that ranged from 51,23 USD to 33 560,58 USD per patient. Costs for mucositis in the chemotherapy setting ranged from 4,18 USD to 31 963,64 USD per patient. When the cancer treatment was not specified, costs of mucositis ranged from 565,85 USD to as high as 20 279, 12 USD per patient. Mucositis costs from multimodal therapy ranged from 12,42 USD to 5670,46 USD per patient. The molecular targeted therapy setting included only one study and depending on the healthcare providers' perspective of each country evaluated, mucositis' costs ranged from 45,78 USD to 3484,91 USD per patient. Mucositis is associated with increased resource use, consultations, hospitalizations and extended hospitalizations, leading to a substantial incremental cost that exacerbates the economic burden on the patient, health plan and health system across several cancer treatments and diagnosis. More studies with a prospective evaluation of the economic costs associated with mucositis management are needed.