TY - JOUR
T1 - Are CAR-T therapies living up to their hype?
T2 - A study using real-world data in two cohorts to determine how well they are actually working in practice compared with bone marrow transplants
AU - Schulthess, Duane
AU - Gassull, Daniel
AU - Makady, Amr
AU - Ludlow, Anna
AU - Rothman, Brian
AU - Have, Pieter Ten
AU - Wu, Yiyang
AU - Ekstrom, Leeland
AU - Minnema, Monique
AU - Jagasia, Madan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
©
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - With the increasing use of new regulatory tools, like the Food and Drug Administration's breakthrough designation, there are increasing challenges for European health technology assessors (HTAs) to make an accurate assessment of the long-term value and performance of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, particularly for orphan conditions, such as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. The aim of this study was to demonstrate a novel methodology harnessing longitudinal real-world data, extracted from the electronic health records of a medical centre functioning as a clinical trial site, to develop an accurate analysis of the performance of CAR-T compared with the next-best treatment option, namely allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). The study population comprised 43 subjects in two cohorts: 29 who had undergone HCT treatment and 14 who had undergone CAR-T therapy. The 3-year relapse-free survival probability was 46% (95% CI: 08% to 79%) in the CAR-T cohort and 68% (95% CI: 46% to 83%) in the HCT cohort. To explain the lower RFS probability in the CAR-T cohort compared with the HCT cohort, the authors hypothesised that the CAR-T cohort had a far higher level of disease burden. This was validated by log-rank test analysis (p=0.0001) and confirmed in conversations with practitioners at the study site. The authors are aware that the small populations in this study will be seen as limiting the generalisability of the findings to some readers. However, in consultation with many European HTAs and regulators, there is broad agreement that this methodology warrants further investigation with a larger study.
AB - With the increasing use of new regulatory tools, like the Food and Drug Administration's breakthrough designation, there are increasing challenges for European health technology assessors (HTAs) to make an accurate assessment of the long-term value and performance of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, particularly for orphan conditions, such as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. The aim of this study was to demonstrate a novel methodology harnessing longitudinal real-world data, extracted from the electronic health records of a medical centre functioning as a clinical trial site, to develop an accurate analysis of the performance of CAR-T compared with the next-best treatment option, namely allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). The study population comprised 43 subjects in two cohorts: 29 who had undergone HCT treatment and 14 who had undergone CAR-T therapy. The 3-year relapse-free survival probability was 46% (95% CI: 08% to 79%) in the CAR-T cohort and 68% (95% CI: 46% to 83%) in the HCT cohort. To explain the lower RFS probability in the CAR-T cohort compared with the HCT cohort, the authors hypothesised that the CAR-T cohort had a far higher level of disease burden. This was validated by log-rank test analysis (p=0.0001) and confirmed in conversations with practitioners at the study site. The authors are aware that the small populations in this study will be seen as limiting the generalisability of the findings to some readers. However, in consultation with many European HTAs and regulators, there is broad agreement that this methodology warrants further investigation with a larger study.
KW - health economics
KW - leukaemia
KW - paediatric oncology
KW - quality in health care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069484539&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111226
DO - 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111226
M3 - Article
C2 - 31315904
SN - 1356-5524
VL - 26
SP - 98
EP - 102
JO - Evidence-Based Medicine
JF - Evidence-Based Medicine
IS - 3
ER -