Population Health Model Predicting the Long-Term Impact of Sotatercept on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH).

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare, progressive disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The phase 3 STELLAR trial tested sotatercept plus background therapy (BGT) versus placebo plus BGT. BGT was comprised of mono-, double-, or triple-PAH targeted therapy. Building on STELLAR findings, we employed a population health model to assess the potential long-term clinical impact of sotatercept. METHODS: Based on the well-established ESC/ERS 4-strata risk assessment approach, we developed a six-state Markov-type model (low risk, intermediate-low risk, intermediate-high risk, high risk, lung/heart-lung transplant, and death) to compare the clinical outcomes of sotatercept plus BGT versus BGT alone over a lifetime horizon. State-transition probabilities were obtained from STELLAR. Risk stratum-adjusted mortality and lung/heart-lung transplant probabilities were based on COMPERA PAH registry data, and the post-transplant mortality probability was obtained from existing literature. Model outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine model robustness. RESULTS: In the base case, sotatercept plus BGT was associated with longer life expectancy from model baseline (16.5 vs 5.1 years) versus BGT alone, leading to 11.5 years gained per patient. Compared with BGT alone, sotatercept plus BGT was further associated with a gain in infused prostacyclin-free life years per patient, along with 683 PAH hospitalizations and 4 lung/heart-lung transplant avoided per 1000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: According to this model, adding sotatercept to BGT increased life expectancy by roughly threefold among patients with PAH while reducing utilization of infused prostacyclin, PAH hospitalizations, and lung/heart-lung transplants. Real-world data are needed to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04576988 (STELLAR).

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus lisocabtagene maraleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the US.

AIMS: This study evaluated from a US payer perspective the cost-effectiveness of two chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell therapies, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) versus lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following two or more systemic therapy lines. METHODS: We developed a 3-state (i.e., pre-progression, post-progression, death) partitioned survival model to estimate patients' lifetime outcomes. Mixture cure models were used for survival extrapolation to account for long-term remission. Survival inputs were based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) that reweighted the ZUMA-1 population (receiving axi-cel) to match patient characteristics in TRANSCEND-NHL-001 (assessing liso-cel). Costs included apheresis, drug acquisition, and administration for conditioning chemotherapy and CAR T therapies, monitoring, transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care, per published literature and databases. Utilities were derived from ZUMA-1 and literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the base case, axi-cel was associated with more QALYs (7.76 vs. 5.94) and greater costs overall ($611,440 vs. $597,174) than liso-cel, at $7,843/QALY gained. The incremental costs (+$14,266) were largely driven by higher routine care costs (+$18,596) due to longer survival and hospitalization (+$10,993) but partially offset by reduced costs of CAR T acquisition (‒$11,300) and terminal care (‒$4,025). Sensitivity analyses consistently suggested robustness of base-case results. LIMITATIONS: This study relied on an MAIC in which trial design differences and unobserved confounders could not be accounted for. Future real-world studies for recently approved CAR T are warranted to validate our results. Due to a lack of data, we assumed equivalent use of transplants and treatment for B-cell aplasia between the two therapies based on clinicians' opinions. CONCLUSIONS: In the US, axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective treatment option compared with liso-cel for adult patients with r/r LBCL after two or more systemic therapy lines.