You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.
 

Table 1.  

Characteristic

Patients aged 65–69 y

Patients aged 70–74 y

Patients aged ≥ 75 y

All patients

(n = 202)

(n = 176)

(n = 173)

(n = 551)

Age, median (range), y 67 (65–69) 72 (70–74) 78.6 (75–90) 72.2 (65–90)
Urban/suburban, n (%) 160 (79.2) 142 (80.7) 142 (82.1) 444 (80.5)
Male sex, n (%) 108 (53.5) 93 (52.8) 98 (56.6) 299 (54.3)
Baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean (SD)* 5 (3.2) 5 (3.3) 5 (3.3) 5 (3.24)

Median (range)

4 (0–15) 4 (0–15) 4 (0–15) 4 (0–15)
Bridging therapies, n (%)

Any therapy

102 (50.5) 69 (39.2) 91 (52.6) 262 (47.5)

Chemotherapy or targeted therapy

64 (31.7) 41 (23.3) 55 (31.8) 160 (29.0)

Corticosteroids

<50 (~) <50 (~) 23 (13.3) 73 (27.9)

Radiotherapy

<11 (~)‡ <11 (~)‡ 13 (7.5) 29 (11.1)
CAR T-cell administration setting, n (%)

Inpatient

171 (84.6) 155 (88.1) 130 (75.1) 456 (82.8)

Length of stay, mean (SD), d

19.7 (12.36) 24.2 (21.15) 20.5 (13.09) 21.4 (16.2)

Outpatient

31 (15.3) 21 (11.9) 43 (24.9) 95 (17.2)

Table 1. Patient characteristics

~, value withheld to comply with the CMS policy of minimizing the risk to identify patients.
*Total 516 patients are included in baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index calculation.
†Presence of therapy in the 28-day period before CAR T-cell treatment, excluding therapies administered on the same day as CAR T-cell therapy. Cyclophosphamide and fludarabine administered in the period 10 days before CAR T-cell therapy are also excluded.
‡The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) cell size suppression policy sets minimum thresholds for the display of CMS data, in which no cell (eg, admissions, discharges, patients, and services) containing a value of 1 to 10 can be reported directly.

Table 2.  

Characteristic

Categories

EFS

OS

Univariate

Multivariate

Univariate

Multivariate

HR

95% CI

P value

HR

95% CI

P value

HR

95% CI

P value

HR

95% CI

P value

Age groups ≥75 vs 65–69 y 1.37 1.07–1.74 .011 1.41 1.10–1.82 .007 1.25 0.96–1.62 .105 1.2 0.91–1.58 .188
≥75 vs 70–74 y 1.54 1.19–1.98 .001 1.46 1.13–1.89 .004 1.29 0.98–1.70 .066 1.2 0.90–1.58 .207
Sex Male vs female 0.99 0.81–1.22 .943 0.92 0.75–1.14 .449 1.06 0.85–1.33 .577 1 0.80–1.26 .973
Urban/suburban residence Rural vs urban 1.14 0.88–1.47 .317 1.22 0.93–1.60 .158
Bridging therapy Present vs absent 1.34 1.09–1.64 .005 1.27 1.03–1.56 .028 1.49 1.19–1.86 <.001 1.39 1.11–1.75 .005
Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥5 vs 0–4 1.57 1.28–1.94 <.0001 1.56 1.26–1.92 <.0001 1.63 1.30–2.05 <.0001 1.58 1.26–1.99 <.0001

Table 2: Cox proportional hazards model for EFS and OS

—, this variable was not included in the multivariate analysis since it was not prognostic by univariate analysis. HR, hazard ratio.

Table 3.  

Variable

Aged 65–69 y

Aged 70–74 y

Aged ≥75 y

Total

(n = 168)

(n = 143)

(n = 134)

(n = 445)

Total health care costs, $

Mean (SD)*

311 699 (189 161) 296 192 (196 115) 271 767 (190 975) 294 692 (192 232)

Median

364 036 342 099 333 698 352 572
Service use

Among patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy in an inpatient setting, n (%)

144 (85.7) 125 (87.4) 97 (72.4) 366 (82.2)
Rehospitalization

≥1 visit, n (%)

49 (34.0) 28 (22.4) 28 (28.9) 105 (28.7)

Total visits, mean (SD)

1.3 (0.7) 1.7 (1) 1.5 (0.9) 1.5 (0.8)

Length of stay, mean (SD), d

8.22 (6.97) 6.62 (5.08) 7.83 (7.5) 7.62 (6.59)
ED services

≥1 visit, n (%)

47 (32.6) 37 (29.6) 27 (27.8) 111 (30.3)

Total visits, mean (SD)

1.6 (0.9) 1.7 (0.9) 1.7 (0.9) 1.6 (0.9)
Outpatient services

≥1 visit, n (%)

144 (100.0) 125 (100.0) 97 (100.0) 366 (100.0)

Total visits, mean (SD)

17.7 (8.9) 18 (8.7) 16.3 (8.6) 17.4 (8.7)
Among patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy in an outpatient setting, n (%) 24 (14.3) 18 (12.6) 37 (27.6) 79 (17.8)
Follow-up inpatient services

≥1 visit, n (%)

13 (54.2) <11 (~)§ 11 (29.70) 33 (41.80)

Total visits, mean (SD)

1.4 (0.7) 1.3 (0.7) 1.4 (0.5) 1.4 (0.6)

Length of stay, mean (SD), d

6.28 (4.47) 7.75 (7) 8.87 (7.63) 7.53 (6.31)
ED services

≥1 visit, n (%)

<11 (~)§ <11 (~)§ 11 (29.70) 25 (31.60)

Total visits, mean (SD)

1.8 (0.9) 2.3 (1.9) 1.9 (0.9) 1.9 (1.1)
Outpatient services (not inclusive of initial CAR T-cell therapy visit)

≥1 visit, n (%)

24 (100.0) 18 (100.0) 37 (100.0) 79 (100.0)

Total visits, mean (SD)

21.8 (10.5) 17.9 (9.9) 17.6 (8.2) 19 (9.4)

Table 3: Health care resource use and costs by age category

~, value withheld to comply with the CMS policy of minimizing the risk to identify patients.
*Total Medicare payments on all accepted inpatient, outpatient, skilled nursing facility, home health agency, hospice, professional, and pharmacy Medicare FFS claims found within 90 days after CAR T-cell therapy, inclusive of CAR T-cell therapy.
†Inpatient hospital discharges identified on inpatient institutional claims within 90 days after CAR T-cell therapy.
‡Includes both ED visits without hospital admission (treat and release) and ED visits that resulted in admission.
§The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) cell size suppression policy sets minimum thresholds for the display of CMS data, in which no cell (eg, admissions, discharges, patients, and services) containing a value of 1 to 10 can be reported directly.

CME / ABIM MOC

Real-World Evidence of CAR T-cell Therapy in Older Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

  • Authors: Dai Chihara, MD, PhD; Laura Liao, MS; Joseph Tkacz, MS; Anjali Franco, MS; Benjamin Lewing, PhD; Karl M. Kilgore, PhD; Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD; Lei Chen, MD, PhD
  • CME / ABIM MOC Released: 9/21/2023
  • Valid for credit through: 9/21/2024, 11:59 PM EST
Start Activity

  • Credits Available

    Physicians - maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™

    ABIM Diplomates - maximum of 1.00 ABIM MOC points

    You Are Eligible For

    • Letter of Completion
    • ABIM MOC points

Target Audience and Goal Statement

This activity is intended for hematologists, oncologists, internists, and other clinicians who treat and manage patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

The goal of this activity is for learners to be better able to describe outcomes, use, and costs among older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, based on an analysis of the 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims database, including 551 patients aged at least 65 years with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who received CAR T-cell therapy between 2018 and 2020.

Upon completion of this activity, participants will:

  • Assess clinical characteristics and use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy among older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLCBL), based on an analysis of the 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims database between 2018 and 2020
  • Evaluate outcomes and costs among older patients with DLCBL treated with CAR T-cell therapy, based on an analysis of the 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims database between 2018 and 2020
  • Determine the clinical and public health implications of outcomes, use, and costs among older patients with DLCBL treated with CAR T-cell therapy, based on an analysis of the 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims database between 2018 and 2020


Disclosures

Medscape, LLC requires every individual in a position to control educational content to disclose all financial relationships with ineligible companies that have occurred within the past 24 months. Ineligible companies are organizations whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, re-selling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

All relevant financial relationships for anyone with the ability to control the content of this educational activity are listed below and have been mitigated. Others involved in the planning of this activity have no relevant financial relationships.


Faculty

  • Dai Chihara, MD, PhD

    Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma
    University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
    Houston, Texas

  • Laura Liao, MS

    ADC Therapeutics
    New Providence, New Jersey

  • Joseph Tkacz, MS

    Inovalon
    Bowie, Maryland

  • Anjali Franco, MS

    Inovalon
    Bowie, Maryland

  • Benjamin Lewing, PhD

    Inovalon
    Bowie, Maryland

  • Karl M. Kilgore, PhD

    Inovalon
    Bowie, Maryland

  • Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD

    Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma
    University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer
    Houston, Texas

  • Lei Chen, MD, PhD

    ADC Therapeutics
    New Providence, New Jersey

CME Author

  • Laurie Barclay, MD

    Freelance writer and reviewer
    Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Laurie Barclay, MD, has no relevant financial relationships.

Editor

  • Helen Heslop, MD

    Associate Editor, Blood

Compliance Reviewer

  • Stephanie Corder, ND, RN, CHCP

    Associate Director, Accreditation and Compliance, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Stephanie Corder, ND, RN, CHCP, has no relevant financial relationships.


Accreditation Statements

Medscape

Interprofessional Continuing Education

In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by Medscape, LLC and the American Society of Hematology. Medscape, LLC is jointly accredited with commendation by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.

    For Physicians

  • Medscape, LLC designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 1.0 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider’s responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit.

    Contact This Provider

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]


Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page. To receive AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™, you must receive a minimum score of 70% on the post-test.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read about the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or print it out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. We encourage you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.

You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate, but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 6 years; at any point within this time period, you can print out the tally as well as the certificates from the CME/CE Tracker.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.

From Blood
CME / ABIM MOC

Real-World Evidence of CAR T-cell Therapy in Older Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

Authors: Dai Chihara, MD, PhD; Laura Liao, MS; Joseph Tkacz, MS; Anjali Franco, MS; Benjamin Lewing, PhD; Karl M. Kilgore, PhD; Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD; Lei Chen, MD, PhDFaculty and Disclosures

CME / ABIM MOC Released: 9/21/2023

Valid for credit through: 9/21/2024, 11:59 PM EST

processing....

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

The emergence of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has changed the treatment landscape for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL); however, real-world experience reporting outcomes among older patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy is limited. We leveraged the 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims database and analyzed outcomes and cost associated with CAR T-cell therapy in 551 older patients (aged ≥65 years) with DLBCL who received CAR T-cell therapy between 2018 and 2020. CAR T-cell therapy was used in third line and beyond in 19% of patients aged 65 to 69 years and 22% among those aged 70 to 74 years, compared with 13% of patients aged ≥75 years. Most patients received CAR T-cell therapy in an inpatient setting (83%), with an average length of stay of 21 days. The median event-free survival (EFS) following CAR T-cell therapy was 7.2 months. Patients aged ≥75 years had significantly shorter EFS compared with patients aged 65 to 69 and 70 to 74 years, with 12-month EFS estimates of 34%, 43%, and 52%, respectively (P = .002). The median overall survival was 17.1 months, and there was no significant difference by age groups. The median total health care cost during the 90-day follow-up was $352 572 and was similar across all age groups. CAR T-cell therapy was associated with favorable effectiveness, but the CAR T-cell therapy use in older patients was low, especially in patients aged ≥75 years, and this age group had a lower rate of EFS, which illustrates the unmet need for more accessible, effective, and tolerable therapy in older patients, especially those aged ≥75 years.

Introduction

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common lymphoma, with annual estimated new cases of ≈25 000 in the United States.[1] The median age of onset of DLBCL is 66 years, and close to 30% of patients are diagnosed at age ≥75 years.[2] The percentage of the population aged ≥65 years is projected to increase from 15% in 2016 to 21% in 2030, according to the US census, and thus the prevalence of older patients with DLBCL is expected to grow with the aging population.[3] Treatment of this geriatric patient population can be challenging because of multiple factors, such as comorbidities, poor performance status (PS), and potentially higher-risk DLBCL biology.[4]

The treatment landscape for relapsed/refractory DLBCL has dramatically evolved in recent years. Historically, platinum-based chemotherapy, followed by high-dose therapy/autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT), was the only option for long-term remission for relapsed/refractory DLBCL;[5,6] however, older patients are frequently considered ineligible for this treatment, except fit patients,[7] and survival outcomes for those who did not receive auto-SCT following recurrence were dismal.[8] Development of CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has resulted in a paradigm shift in the treatment of relapsed/refractory DLBCL,[9–11] providing an effective treatment option for older patients who are not necessarily candidates for auto-SCT. CAR T-cell therapy can achieve long-term remissions for a portion of patients experiencing a recurrence of DLBCL often independent of characteristics, such as age.[9,11–14] The US Food and Drug Administration first approved axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in late 2017, soon followed by tisagenlecleucel in 2018, and then lisocabtagene maraleucel in 2021 for patients with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphomas who are relapsed or refractory to ≥2 prior lines of therapy based on single-arm phase 2 trials.[9,11,13]

Since the approval, multiple studies have reported on the realworld experience (RWE) of CAR T-cell therapy, confirming the effectiveness of this treatment, depending on various risk factors, such as serum lactate dehydrogenase, PS, and tumor burden before CAR T-cell infusion.[15–22] The outcomes of CAR T-cell therapy in older patients also have been evaluated in both clinical trials and RWE studies.[23–25] In the ZUMA-1 study, 27 patients aged ≥65 years and treated with axi-cel showed a 92% overall response rate and 42% of patients achieved ongoing response with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up at the time of the report.[24] Jacobson et al analyzed 1297 patients who received commercial axi-cel and showed that response rate was higher among patients aged ≥65 years.[16] Ram et al summarized the outcomes of 41 patients with DLBCL aged ≥70 years who received CAR T-cell therapy, most of them with tisagenlecleucel (81%), and reported that there was no significant difference in the rate of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), overall response rate, and progression-free survival in older patients compared with younger patients.[23] However, studies had limited data, particularly among patients aged >70 years, evaluating how age or other factors affect survival outcomes among older patients who received CAR T-cell therapy. Moreover, no study has described health care use and cost associated with CAR T-cell therapy in older patients. Therefore, we evaluated the clinical outcomes and economic impact associated with CAR T-cell therapy in older patients with DLBCL by leveraging a Medicare claims database.