Two-year follow-up of KTE-X19 in patients with relapsed or refractory adult B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in ZUMA-3 and its contextualization with SCHOLAR-3, an external historical control study.

BACKGROUND: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (KTE-X19) is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy approved in the USA to treat adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) based on ZUMA-3 study results. We report updated ZUMA-3 outcomes with longer follow-up and an extended data set along with contextualization of outcomes to historical standard of care. METHODS: Adults with R/R B-ALL received a single infusion of KTE-X19 (1 × 106 CAR T cells/kg). Long-term post hoc subgroup assessments of ZUMA-3 were conducted. Outcomes from matched patients between historical clinical trials and ZUMA-3 patients were assessed in the retrospective historical control study SCHOLAR-3. RESULTS: After 26.8-months median follow-up, the overall complete remission (CR) rate (CR + CR with incomplete hematological recovery) among treated patients (N = 55) in phase 2 was 71% (56% CR rate); medians for duration of remission and overall survival (OS) were 14.6 and 25.4 months, respectively. Most patients responded to KTE-X19 regardless of age or baseline bone marrow blast percentage, but less so in patients with > 75% blasts. No new safety signals were observed. Similar outcomes were observed in a pooled analysis of phase 1 and 2 patients (N = 78). In SCHOLAR-3, the median OS for treated patients from ZUMA-3 (N = 49) and matched historical controls (N = 40) was 25.4 and 5.5 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data, representing the longest follow-up of CAR T-cell therapy in a multicenter study of adult R/R B-ALL, suggest that KTE-X19 provides a clinically meaningful survival benefit with manageable toxicity in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02614066.

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.

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.

Approaches to Selecting "Time Zero" in External Control Arms with Multiple Potential Entry Points: A Simulation Study of 8 Approaches.

BACKGROUND: When including data from an external control arm to estimate comparative effectiveness, there is a methodological choice of when to set "time zero," the point at which a patient would be eligible/enrolled in a contemporary study. Where patients receive multiple lines of eligible therapy and thus alternative points could be selected, this issue is complex. METHODS: A simulation study was conducted in which patients received multiple prior lines of therapy before entering either cohort. The results from the control and intervention data sets are compared using 8 methods for selecting time zero. The base-case comparison was set up to be biased against the intervention (which is generally received later), with methods compared in their ability to estimate the true intervention effectiveness. We further investigate the impact of key study attributes (such as sample size) and degree of overlap in time-varying covariates (such as prior lines of therapy) on study results. RESULTS: Of the 8 methods, 5 (all lines, random line, systematically selecting groups based on mean absolute error, root mean square error, or propensity scores) showed good performance in accounting for differences between the line at which patients were included. The first eligible line can be statistically inefficient in some situations. All lines (with censoring) cannot be used for survival outcomes. The last eligible line cannot be recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple methods are available for selecting the most appropriate time zero from an external control arm. Based on the simulation, we demonstrate that some methods frequently perform poorly, with several viable methods remaining. In selecting between the viable methods, analysts should consider the context of their analysis and justify the approach selected. HIGHLIGHTS: There are multiple methods available from which an analyst may select "time zero" in an external control cohort.This simulation study demonstrates that some methods perform poorly but most are viable options, depending on context and the degree of overlap in time zero across cohorts.Careful thought and clear justification should be used when selecting the strategy for a study.

Channeling effects in the prescription of new therapies: the case of emicizumab for hemophilia A.

Aim: To determine if emicizumab was channeled to clinically complex people with hemophilia A upon approval. Methods: Claims data (16 November 2017, through 31 December 2019) from US-based insurance databases were analyzed to compare the clinical complexity of people with hemophilia A initiating emicizumab with matched individuals receiving factor VIII (FVIII) episodically or prophylactically. People with hemophilia A with evidence of previous bypassing agent use (indicating FVIII inhibitors) were excluded. Outcomes included bleeding events, arthropathy, pain, comorbidities and healthcare costs. Results: A larger proportion of emicizumab users had bleeding events, comorbidities and arthropathy and greater healthcare costs in the year prior to starting emicizumab compared with FVIII users. Conclusion: Claims-based data limitations prevent an absolute conclusion. Nevertheless, emicizumab users appear more clinically complex than FVIII users, suggesting post-approval channeling.

Estimating the risk of thrombotic events in people with congenital hemophilia A using US claims data.

Aim: Compare thrombotic risk in people with congenital hemophilia A (PwcHA) to the general non-hemophilia A (HA) population. Patients & methods: US claims databases were analyzed to identify PwcHA. Incidence rates of myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, deep vein thrombosis and device-related thrombosis were compared with a matched cohort without HA. Results: Over 3490 PwcHA were identified and 16,380 individuals matched. PwcHA had a similar incidence of myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism compared with the non-HA population, but a slightly higher incidence of ischemic stroke and deep vein thrombosis. The incidence of device-related thrombosis was significantly higher in PwcHA. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that PwcHA are not protected against thrombosis, and provides context to evaluate thrombotic risk of HA treatments.