A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF TRAVEL BURDEN AND PRODUCTIVITY LOSS FOR CAR T-CELL THERAPY AND BISPECIFIC ANTIBODY TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY LBCL USING US CLAIMS DATA
Author(s)
Madhu Palivela, MS1, Karl M. Kilgore, PhD2, Hil Hsu, PhD, MPH1, Kelly Birch, MPH2, David Cobley, PhD1, Anthony Yu, PharmD2, Iman Mohammadi, PhD2, Markqayne Ray, MBA, PharmD1, Minoo Battiwalla, MD, MS3;
1Kite, A Gilead Company, Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2Inovalon, Bowie, MD, USA, 3Sarah Cannon Transplant and Cellular Therapy Network, Nashville, TN, USA
1Kite, A Gilead Company, Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2Inovalon, Bowie, MD, USA, 3Sarah Cannon Transplant and Cellular Therapy Network, Nashville, TN, USA
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the estimated 12-month cumulative travel distance associated with treatment/visit schedules for relapsed/refractory (R/R) LBCL patients treated with bispecific antibodies (BsAbs; epcoritamab or glofitamab) or one chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel]).
METHODS: This study used nationally representative claims data from Medicare Fee-For-Service to identify patients ≥18 years with R/R LBCL who received an axi-cel infusion or an initial administration of epcoritamab or glofitamab between 5/1/2023 and 6/30/2024. One-way distance from patients’ approximated residence to treatment center was computed using Google Maps Distance Matrix API. To project 12-month total travel burden, standard clinical trial protocol schedules were applied for each therapy: up to 28 visits for epcoritamab, up to 14 visits for glofitamab, and 8 visits for axi-cel (including leukapheresis, lymphodepletion, infusion, and required follow-up visits). Independent samples t-tests were conducted to assess unadjusted differences in travel distance between axi-cel and epcoritamab/glofitamab.
RESULTS: A total of 339 axi-cel, 132 epcoritamab, and 77 glofitamab-treated patients met inclusion criteria. Patients treated with axi-cel were younger (mean [SD] age 70.6 [6.4] versus 76.9 [8.4] for epcoritamab and 77.9 [9.2] for glofitamab). Median (IQR) one-way mileage to treatment center was longest for axi-cel (57 [119]) versus 27 (45) for epcoritamab and 44 (81) for glofitamab. Over 12 months, total projected mileage was longest for epcoritamab (1,486 [2,538]) versus 1,230 (2,276) for glofitamab and 911 (1,909) for axi-cel. Axi-cel's unadjusted mean 12-month travel distance was significantly shorter than epcoritamab’s (p=0.0382) and was numerically, but not significantly, shorter than glofitamab’s. Productivity results expected during presentation.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving axi-cel initially traveled furthest to treatment centers; however, the cumulative 12-month travel requirements associated with axi-cel's episode of care was projected to be lower than with dosing schedules of BsAbs. Treatment schedules were based on projections and may not reflect real-world care patterns and treatment adherence.
METHODS: This study used nationally representative claims data from Medicare Fee-For-Service to identify patients ≥18 years with R/R LBCL who received an axi-cel infusion or an initial administration of epcoritamab or glofitamab between 5/1/2023 and 6/30/2024. One-way distance from patients’ approximated residence to treatment center was computed using Google Maps Distance Matrix API. To project 12-month total travel burden, standard clinical trial protocol schedules were applied for each therapy: up to 28 visits for epcoritamab, up to 14 visits for glofitamab, and 8 visits for axi-cel (including leukapheresis, lymphodepletion, infusion, and required follow-up visits). Independent samples t-tests were conducted to assess unadjusted differences in travel distance between axi-cel and epcoritamab/glofitamab.
RESULTS: A total of 339 axi-cel, 132 epcoritamab, and 77 glofitamab-treated patients met inclusion criteria. Patients treated with axi-cel were younger (mean [SD] age 70.6 [6.4] versus 76.9 [8.4] for epcoritamab and 77.9 [9.2] for glofitamab). Median (IQR) one-way mileage to treatment center was longest for axi-cel (57 [119]) versus 27 (45) for epcoritamab and 44 (81) for glofitamab. Over 12 months, total projected mileage was longest for epcoritamab (1,486 [2,538]) versus 1,230 (2,276) for glofitamab and 911 (1,909) for axi-cel. Axi-cel's unadjusted mean 12-month travel distance was significantly shorter than epcoritamab’s (p=0.0382) and was numerically, but not significantly, shorter than glofitamab’s. Productivity results expected during presentation.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving axi-cel initially traveled furthest to treatment centers; however, the cumulative 12-month travel requirements associated with axi-cel's episode of care was projected to be lower than with dosing schedules of BsAbs. Treatment schedules were based on projections and may not reflect real-world care patterns and treatment adherence.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE261
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Novel & Social Elements of Value
Disease
SDC: Oncology