Brett Doble

Despite clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness, time to reimbursement for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies varies greatly across Europe. We examined these differences, and quantified potential patient benefits with faster access. A targeted literature search collated reimbursement statuses for all approved CAR T-cell therapy indications by 1 October 2024. Time to reimbursement decision (TTRD), defined as time between marketing authorization and published reimbursement decision, was assessed. By benchmarking against the TTRD of the three fastest countries, patient impact, in the form of potential gains in lives, life-years (LYs) and long-term survivors, for the first three approved indications for CAR T-cell therapies were estimated. Each outcome was multiplied by population size, incidence, CAR T-cell eligibility, and market share to obtain population-level impact. Scenario analyses were conducted by examining different TTRD assumptions. Across 12 identified indications for CAR T-cell therapy, France, Germany, and Switzerland had the fastest TTRD, compared to Denmark, the Netherlands, and Ireland which had the slowest. Among an estimated annual incident population of 6,594 across 3 L + diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 1,199 lives, 1,222 long-term survivorships, and 37,229 LYs, could potentially be gained by ensuring time to access across these countries was equivalent to the fastest three assessors in these 3L + DLBCL, MCL, and pediatric ALL. Access to CAR T-cell therapies varied widely across European countries. Faster access to these therapies can result in significant health gains. Ensuring prompt and equitable access to innovative therapies requires proactive alignments between manufacturers and HTA bodies, possibly through mechanisms such alternative pricing models and risk-sharing agreements.

Background and Objective Health technology assessment (HTA) of haemato-oncology therapies typically requires extrapolation of long-term survival beyond a trial’s follow-up. Health technology assessment agencies must balance caution around uncertainty in early follow-up trial data whilst aiming to provide timely access. This study qualitatively and quantitatively assessed how eight HTA agencies considered maturing data and external evidence. Methods The eight HTA appraisals were based on ZUMA-7, a phase III trial for axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for second-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. ZUMA-7 survival data were submitted with either a 25-month (‘Interim’) or 47-month (‘Primary’) follow-up. To inform axi-cel Interim survival extrapolations, external evidence was available from a prior mature single-arm trial for third-line or later diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (ZUMA-1). A qualitative assessment of eight different submissions to HTA agencies was undertaken to determine key discussion points. The value and cost of waiting for evidence to mature between Interim and Primary analyses were quantified using value of information methods to evaluate the impact of waiting for further evidence collection on population health. Results Agencies used varied approaches to account for uncertainty in survival extrapolations in both Interim and Primary analyses. No agency considered external evidence fully during Interim submissions; one used it partially to inform clinical plausibility; four did not consider it. Health technology assessment agencies that did not consider the relevance of ZUMA-1 were more inclined to wait for more mature evidence to mitigate uncertainty. When ZUMA-1 aided in determining a plausible range for Interim extrapolations, the less valuable more mature evidence became, with the cost of waiting for Primary analysis results exceeding the value conferred. Conclusions There was limited consideration of external evidence during the included HTA submissions. In the future, it is recommended that external evidence should be considered to a greater degree by both manufacturers and HTA agencies when extrapolating survival to ensure appropriate and timely HTA decisions that minimise the undue burden on healthcare systems.

Disclosures. Oluwole:Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; TGR: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Nektar: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead

Background: Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified. Objectives: The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy. Design: The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials. Setting: The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017. Participants: Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome. Data sources: Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics. Interventions: Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events. Results: The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval –£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval –£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195). Conclusions: This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy. Limitations: The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted. Future work: Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Introduction: People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) can improve glycaemic control or even achieve remission through weight loss and reduce their use of medication and risk of cardiovascular disease. The Glucose Lowering through Weight management (GLoW) trial will evaluate whether a tailored diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme (DEW) is more effective and cost-effective than a diabetes education (DE) programme in helping people with overweight or obesity and a recent diagnosis of T2D to lower their blood glucose, lose weight and improve other markers of cardiovascular risk. Methods and analysis: This study is a pragmatic, randomised, single-blind, parallel group, two-arm, superiority trial. We will recruit 576 adults with body mass index>25 kg/m ² and diagnosis of T2D in the past 3 years and randomise them to a tailored DEW or a DE programme. Participants will attend measurement appointments at a local general practitioner practice or research centre at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is 12-month change in glycated haemoglobin. The effect of the intervention on the primary outcome will be estimated and tested using a linear regression model (analysis of covariance) including randomisation group and adjusted for baseline value of the outcome and the randomisation stratifiers. Participants will be included in the group to which they were randomised, under the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes include 6-month and 12-month changes in body weight, body fat percentage, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and lipid profile; probability of achieving good glycaemic control; probability of achieving remission from diabetes; probability of losing 5% and 10% body weight and modelled cardiovascular risk (UKPDS). An intention-to-treat within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from NHS and societal perspectives using participant-level data. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants to understand why and how the programme achieved its results and how participants manage their weight after the programme ends. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval was received from East of Scotland Research Ethics Service on 15 May 2018 (18/ES/0048). This protocol (V.3) was approved on 19 June 2019. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and communicated to other stakeholders as appropriate. Trial registration number: ISRCTN18399564 .

Background: Several front-of-pack (FOP) labels identify healthier options by comparing foods within product categories. Alternative approaches label healthier options by comparing across categories. Which approach is superior remains unknown. The objective of this study was to test the effect of a within-category versus across-category FOP lower calorie label on 1) the percentage of labeled products purchased, 2) several measures of calories purchased (total, per dollar and per serving), and 3) total spending. We also tested the moderating effects of hunger and mood on purchasing patterns. Methods: Using an online grocery store, we conducted a 3 × 3 crossover trial involving actual purchases with 146 participants randomly exposed to: 1) no labeling control; 2) within-category lower calorie labels, and; 3) across-category lower calorie labels. We labeled the 20% of products with the lowest calories per serving within or across categories. Purchases were compared using a fixed effects regression on first-differenced outcomes. Results: Relative to the control condition, there was a 3 percentage point increase (p = 0.01) in labelled products purchased in the within-category arm and a non-significant decrease of 1 percentage point (p = 0.711) in the across-category arm. There was no significant difference in the proportion of labeled products purchased between the two labelling conditions. Neither strategy resulted in reductions in any measure of calories purchased or in total spending. When limited to beverages, there was a 398 cal reduction (p = 0.01) in the within-category arm and a 438 cal reduction (p < 0.01) in the across-category arm versus the control. Mood and hunger did not modify the effects for either strategy. Conclusions: Results provide evidence that both labelling strategies have the potential to influence food purchasing patterns. However, we cannot definitely state that one labelling approach is superior or even that an increase in the proportion of labelled products purchased will lead to a reduction in calories purchased. Trial registration: The American Economic Association’s registry for randomized controlled trials, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0002325; Prospectively Registered October 06, 2017. In compliance with ICMJE policy, the trial was also registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, RCT ID: [NCT04165447]. Retrospectively Registered 11 November 2019.