O’Donnell, Paul V.

6591 Background: BMT CTN 1101 was a Phase III randomized controlled trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of unrelated umbilical cord blood (UCB) versus HLA-haploidentical related donor bone marrow (haplo-BM) cell sources for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies (leukemias, lymphomas). We report results of an economic evaluation conducted as part of the clinical trial. Methods: 368 patients (90% of planned accrual) enrolled from 33 centers in the U.S. were randomly assigned to unrelated UCB (n=186) or haplo-BM (n=182) transplant. Healthcare utilization and costs were estimated using propensity-score matched cohorts of BMT patients in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse for trial participants <65 years, and Medicare claims for trial participants ≥65 years. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from payer perspectives (commercial, Medicare) over a 20-year time horizon from time of transplant. Weibull models (best fit based on AIC/BIC) were used to extrapolate survival from 5-year trial follow-up data. Trial participant surveys (EQ-5D) were used to derive health state utilities for estimating Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in results. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Results: At 5-year follow-up, overall survival was 42% for haplo-BM versus 36% for UCB (P=.06). Over a 20-year time horizon, haplo-BM is expected to be more effective and more costly for <65 year-olds and in ≥65 year-olds it is expected to be more effective and less costly. In one-way uncertainty analyses, for persons <65, the cost/QALY result was most sensitive to life years and health state utilities. For persons ≥65, life years were more influential than costs and health state utilities. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, for persons <65 there was a 43% chance that haplo-BM was cost-effective using a willingness to pay threshold of $150k/QALY and 52% at a $200K/QALY threshold. Conclusions: Results from a large national clinical trial indicate that compared to UCB, haplo-BM was moderately cost-effective for patients aged <65 years, and less costly and more effective for persons ≥65 years. Haplo-BM is a fair value choice for commercially insured patients with high-risk leukemia and lymphoma who require HCT. For Medicare enrollees, haplo-BM is a preferred choice when considering costs and outcomes. [Table: see text]

Abstract BACKGROUND: Our group recently reported on the results of Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network (CTN) 1101 a randomized comparison between double umbilical cord blood (dUCB) and haploidentical bone marrow (haplo) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (ptCy) in the nonmyeloablative setting that showed similar progression free survival (PFS) between the two treatment groups, but lower non-relapse mortality (NRM) and better of overall survival (OS) in the haplo arm. In this secondary analysis we sought to investigate if transplant center experience with haplo and or cord blood HCT had an impact on outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patient randomized in BMT CTN 1101 were included. In order to determine the transplant center experience with either haplo or dUCB we queried the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) for number of transplants with each platform in the year prior to initiation of the study. Centers were then grouped as dUCB center (&gt; 10 dUCB, n=117, 10 centers), Haplo center (&gt;10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB, n=110, 2 centers), and ≤10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB HCTs (other center, n=140, 21 centers). Further analysis considered the alternative cut-off for haplo (&gt; 5 vs ≤ 5) experience, and considered the outcomes based on the donor experience vs. others (e.g. dUCB &gt; 10 vs. ≤ 10; haplo &gt; 5 vs. ≤ 5). RESULTS: The effect of center experience on HCT outcomes shown in Figure, below . After adjusting for age, Karnofsky performance score and, disease risk index we found that there was no difference in outcomes between haplo and dUCB for centers that were experienced with dUCB or had limited to no experience with either dUCB or haplo. In contrast, in centers that were primarily experienced with haplo had better outcomes with this donor type, as compared to dUCB. The higher risk of treatment failure (relapse or death) and overall mortality in dUCB in haplo experienced centers was driven by significantly higher risk of relapse. We then considered the transplant experience with each of the donor types separately. In transplant centers that had performed &gt; 10 dUCB, there were similar outcomes for recipients of both dUCB and haplo. Similarly, centers that had ≤ 5 haplo HCTs had no difference in outcomes between donor types suggesting an overlap with centers that had performed &gt; 10 dUCB HCTs. Overall mortality was higher among dUCB recipients in centers that had performed ≤ 10 dUCB. Notably, the hazard ratio of non-relapse mortality favored haplo in all four donor experience type of transplant center, albeit not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Except for dUCB recipients in centers with &lt; 10 dUCB/year had worse overall mortality, primarily driven by relapse, the transplant center experience in the year prior to the initiation of BMT CTN 1101 had limited impact on the outcomes of this randomized clinical trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Brunstein: NANT: Research Funding; FATE: Research Funding; GamidaCell: Research Funding; BlueRock: Research Funding; AlloVir: Consultancy. Costa: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cutler: Deciphera: Consultancy; Cimeio: Consultancy; Editas: Consultancy; Kadmon: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Mesoblast: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Horowitz: Sobi: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mesoblast: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Actinium: Research Funding. Horwitz: Gamida Cell: Research Funding. McGuirk: Novartis: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rezvani: US Department of Justice: Consultancy; Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding. Rybka: Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Vasu: Kiadis, Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Travel support; Seattle Genetics: Other: travel support; Omeros, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.