Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL); however, these therapies are associated with 2 CAR T cell–specific potentially severe adverse events (AEs): cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NEs). This study estimated the management costs associated with CRS/NEs among patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL using data from the pivotal TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial of lisocabtagene maraleucel, an investigational CD19-directed defined composition CAR T-cell product with a 4-1BB costimulation domain administered at equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells. This retrospective analysis of patients from TRANSCEND with prospectively identified CRS and/or NE episodes examined relevant trial-observed health care resource utilization (HCRU) associated with toxicity management based on the severity of the event from the health care system perspective. Cost estimates for this analysis were taken from publicly available databases and published literature. Of 268 treated patients as of April 2019, 127 (47.4%) experienced all-grade CRS and/or NEs, which were predominantly grade ≤2 (77.2%). Median total AE management costs ranged from $1930 (grade 1 NE) to $177 343 (concurrent grade ≥3 CRS and NE). Key drivers of cost were facility expenses, including intensive care unit and other inpatient hospitalization lengths of stay. HCRU and costs were significantly greater among patients with grade ≥3 AEs (22.8%). Therefore, CAR T-cell therapies with a low incidence of severe CRS/NEs will likely reduce HCRU and costs associated with managing patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy. This clinical trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02631044.

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is generally limited to inpatient settings; yet, exploration of outpatient infusion and monitoring is ongoing. Information on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with CAR T cell therapy administration is limited and may differ by postinfusion monitoring site. Liso-cel is an investigational, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells. An interim analysis from the OUTREACH study (NCT03744676) observed lower HCRU with outpatient vs inpatient administration (Bachier et al. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:8037). The patient journey after CAR T cell therapy administration may differ for patients with outpatient vs inpatient monitoring and may result in varying costs of care. This study estimated the cost of postinfusion monitoring by site of care for patients with R/R LBCL who received third-line or later treatment with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 (TRANSCEND; NCT02631044) and OUTREACH clinical trials. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed HCRU reported in clinical trial databases from TRANSCEND and OUTREACH. A 2-step microcosting method was used to identify key HCRU and to estimate postinfusion costs: (1) HCRU was analyzed from the index date (day of liso-cel infusion) through the 6-month follow-up; and (2) costs were applied to each HCRU. HCRU included standard inpatient and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), diagnostics (laboratory work and imaging), procedures (dialysis and intubation), and medications (supportive care, prophylactic treatment, and adverse event management). Unit costs were obtained from the health care system (provider) perspective and adjusted to 2020 US dollars. Cost per standard inpatient day ($2,542) was estimated from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases, and cost per ICU day ($7,556) was sourced from Dasta et al (Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1266-77). All medication costs were obtained from REDBOOK (IBM Micromedex) using wholesale acquisition costs. Diagnostic and procedure costs were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services laboratory fee schedule, physician fee schedule, or outpatient prospective payment system. A payment-to-cost ratio was applied to Medicare payment rates to estimate unit costs. Costs were adjusted to reflect the site of care where the HCRU occurred. A cost ratio was applied to adjust costs from the physician's office/community oncology clinic to the hospital outpatient department (Winfield, Muhlestein, Leavitt Partners; 2017) and from outpatient to inpatient (Meisenberg et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;21:927-32). Costs were aggregated by HCRU category, specifically medications, diagnostics, procedures, and facility costs. An average total cost by post-liso-cel infusion month was calculated for patients with ongoing status in that month (patients censored due to data cutoff were not included). Analyses were stratified by site of postinfusion monitoring (inpatients vs outpatients). Results: A total of 303 patients with R/R LBCL across the 2 trials received liso-cel and postinfusion monitoring (inpatients, n = 256; outpatients, n = 47). HCRU and LOS, including standard inpatient and ICU days, are shown in the Table. Inpatients had higher rates of inpatient stays (<100% vs 62%) and tocilizumab use (for CRS and/or NE; 20% vs 9%) than outpatients, respectively. Rates of ICU admission, corticosteroid use, vasopressor use, dialysis, and intubation were similar between groups. Median and average LOS in standard inpatient and ICU settings were higher among inpatients. Median (range) total LOS for inpatients and outpatients was 15 (0-88) and 4 (0-77) days, respectively. The estimated mean postinfusion cost of care was $89,535 for inpatients and $36,702 for outpatients. Over 6 months, most costs were incurred in the first month after infusion ($50,369 [56%] for inpatients and $19,837 [54%] for outpatients). Costs were largely driven by facility costs, namely standard inpatient and ICU stays (Figure). Conclusions: Lower overall HCRU was observed with outpatient liso-cel postinfusion monitoring, primarily due to hospitalizations, which resulted in a mean 6-month cost savings of $52,833 (59%) compared with inpatient monitoring. These results are based on national average costs and may not be generalizable to specific institutions. Disclosures Palomba: Regeneron: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Jun:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Garcia:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. Lymp:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. McGarvey:Pfizer, Inc.: Ended employment in the past 24 months; BluePath Solutions: Current Employment. Gitlin:BMS: Research Funding. Pelletier:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Nguyen:BluePath Solutions: Current Employment.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The safety and efficacy of extended-release calcifediol (ERC) as a treatment for secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in adults with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) has been demonstrated in prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs). ERC (Rayaldee^®) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 on the basis of these prospective RCTs. The current retrospective study assessed the postlaunch data available with respect to ERC’s efficacy and safety in increasing serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25D) and reducing parathyroid hormone (PTH) in the indicated population. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> Medical records of 174 patients who met study criteria from 15 geographically representative United States nephrology clinics were reviewed for 1 year before and after initiation of ERC treatment. Enrolled subjects had ages ≥18 years, stage 3 or 4 CKD, and a history of SHPT and VDI. Key study variables included patient demographics, medication usage, and laboratory results, including serial 25D and PTH determinations. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The enrolled subjects had a mean age of 69.0 years, gender and racial distributions representative of the indicated population, and were balanced for CKD stage. Most (98%) received 30 mcg of ERC/day during the course of treatment (mean follow-up: 24 weeks). Baseline 25D and PTH levels averaged 20.3 ± 0.7 (standard error) ng/mL and 181 ± 7.4 pg/mL, respectively. ERC treatment raised 25D by 23.7 ± 1.6 ng/mL (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and decreased PTH by 34.1 ± 6.6 pg/mL (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) with nominal changes of 0.1 mg/dL (<i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.05) in serum calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) levels. <b><i>Discussion/Conclusion:</i></b> Analysis of postlaunch data confirmed ERC’s effectiveness in increasing serum 25D and reducing PTH levels without statistically significant or notable impact on serum Ca and P levels. A significant percentage of these subjects achieved 25D levels ≥30 mg/mL and PTH levels which decreased by at least 30% from baseline. Dose titration to 60 mcgs was rarely prescribed. Closer patient monitoring and appropriate dose titration may have led to a higher percentage of subjects achieving an increase in 25D levels to at least 50 ng/mL and a reduction in PTH levels of at least 30%.

61 Background: Incidence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and management costs associated with CRS and NE were assessed among pts in the KarMMa trial (NCT03361748) treated with ide-cel, a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy for RRMM. Methods: HRU occurring from onset to resolution of CRS and/or NE and consistent with trial management guidelines were identified from the clinical trial database. Costs associated with CRS or NE by grade (Gr) were applied using public databases and literature on United States national average costs from the health system perspective and aggregated across duration of events. Results: Of 128 pts treated with ide-cel, 107 had CRS with or without NE including 84 (65.6%) with CRS only and 23 (18.0%) with both; no pts had NE only. All cases of CRS with NE occurred concurrently (≥1 d of overlap). Most pts with CRS and/or NE had Gr ≤2 events (96/107, 89.7%); none had both Gr ≥3 CRS and NE. Of the 23 pts with both, 22 (95.6%) had CRS before or on the same day as NE. Among the 15 pts who had CRS before NE, NE developed a median of 2 days after CRS onset. Of the 107 pts with CRS with or without NE, 67 (62.6%) received tocilizumab, 26 (24.3%) received both tocilizumab and corticosteroids, and 19 (17.8%) received intensive care. Only 5 pts (4.7%) required dialysis or intubation, all of whom had Gr ≥3 events. Management costs for CRS with or without NE were largely driven by hospitalizations (Table). Median costs ranges were $18,497-$23,285 for Gr ≤2 CRS, $33,183 for Gr ≤2 CRS with NE, and $60,588-$121,535 for Gr ≥3 CRS with or without NE. Overall median costs for Gr ≤2 vs Gr ≥3 CRS with or without NE were $21,693 vs $99,894. Conclusions: In KarMMa, CRS or NE events were primarily Gr ≤2. An increase in HRU and management costs were associated with more severe CRS or NE with a sharp increase in Gr ≤2 vs Gr ≥3. Clinical trial information: NCT03361748 . [Table: see text]

No abstract