Dataset Information

Real-world use of inotuzumab ozogamicin is associated with lower health care costs than blinatumomab in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the first relapsed/refractory setting.

ABSTRACT: Aim: To compare all-cause and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients receiving inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for ALL in the first relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Patients & methods: We studied retrospective claims for adult commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with ALL receiving InO (n = 29) or Blina (n = 23) from 1 January 2015 to 16 February 2021. Mean per-patient-per-month (PPPM) HCRU and total costs were described and multivariable-adjusted PPPM total all-cause and ALL-related predicted costs were calculated. Results: Mean monthly ALL-related hospitalizations were the same for patients receiving InO and Blina (PPPM = 0.8 stays); however, the length of ALL-related hospital stay was almost twice as long among patients receiving Blina versus InO (ALL-related: InO = 7.6 days; Blina = 14.1 days; p = 0.346). In multivariable models, total ALL-related costs were 43% lower for InO compared with Blina (PPPM costs: InO = $93,767; Blina = $163,470; p = 0.021). Conclusion: In the first R/R setting, patients who used InO had significantly lower all-cause and ALL-related costs compared with patients who used Blina, in part driven by hospitalization patterns.

SUBMITTER: Russell-Smith A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10842295 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-world use of inotuzumab ozogamicin is associated with lower health care costs than blinatumomab in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the first relapsed/refractory setting.

Russell-Smith Alexander A Murphy Louise L Nguyen Amy A Blauer-Peterson Cori C Terpenning Marilou M Cao Feng F Li Shiqiang S Bancroft Tim T Webb Noah N Dorman Stephanie S Shah Richa R

Journal of comparative effectiveness research 20231215 2

<b>Aim:</b> To compare all-cause and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients receiving inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for ALL in the first relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. <b>Patients & methods:</b> We studied retrospective claims for adult commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with ALL receiving InO (n = 29) or Blina (n = 23) from 1 January 2015 to 16 February 2021. Mean per-patient-per-month (PPPM) ...[more]

PMID: 38099517

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNo head-to-head studies have compared inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), namely network meta-analysis (NMA), anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC), were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these therapies.MethodsPatient-level data from a study that evaluated InO with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (INO-VATE-ALL) and published data from a study that evaluated Blina with SoC chemotherapy (TOWER) were used in the analyses. Endpoints evaluated included remission rate defined as complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). For each outcome, treatment-effect modifiers were adjusted for in the anchored MAIC and STC analyses.ResultsAnalyses showed statistically significant higher rates of remission and HSCT with InO compared to Blina irrespective of the ITC method used or measure of the effect (i.e., odds ratio [OR] or rate difference). The treatment effects derived from the MAIC and STC analyses were consistent and stronger than those estimated from the NMA. A trend favoring InO was detected for EFS. The ITC results for OS suggest no difference between InO and Blina.ConclusionResults from these ITCs indicated a statistically significant advantage for InO over Blina for rates of remission and HSCT in adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor ALL. It was not possible to fully adjust for all treatment-effect modifiers, and the similarity in chemotherapy regimens used in the SoC comparator arms of the INO-VATE-ALL and TOWER studies is worthy of further exploration. Both studies, however, used chemotherapy regimens that have a low response rate; therefore, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes are expected between SoC arms.FundingPfizer Inc, New York, NY. Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:Background and objectiveThe TOWER and INO-VATE-ALL trials demonstrated the efficacy and safety of blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (inotuzumab), respectively, versus standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab has not previously been examined.MethodsCost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL patients with one or no prior salvage therapy from a United States (US) payer perspective was estimated using a partitioned survival model. Health outcomes were estimated based on published aggregate data from INO-VATE-ALL and individual patient data from TOWER weighted to match patients in INO-VATE-ALL using matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Analyses were conducted using five approaches relating to use of anchored versus unanchored comparisons of health outcomes and, for the anchored comparisons, the reference treatment to which treatment effects on health outcomes were applied. Estimates from TOWER including the probabilities of complete remission and allogeneic stem-cell transplant (allo-SCT), overall and event-free survival, utilities, duration of therapy, and use of subsequent therapies were MAIC adjusted to match INO-VATE-ALL. Costs of treatment, adverse events, allo-SCT, subsequent therapies, and terminal care were from published sources. A 50-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate were used.ResultsIncremental costs for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$7023 to US$36,244, depending on the approach used for estimating relative effectiveness. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) ranged from 0.54 to 1.78. Cost effectiveness for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$4006 to US$20,737 per QALY gained.ConclusionsBlinatumomab is estimated to be cost effective versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL adults who have received one or no prior salvage therapy from a US payer perspective.

Dataset Information

Real-world use of inotuzumab ozogamicin is associated with lower health care costs than blinatumomab in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the first relapsed/refractory setting.

Publications

Real-world use of inotuzumab ozogamicin is associated with lower health care costs than blinatumomab in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the first relapsed/refractory setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets