Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32250433›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Economic Evaluation of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy by Site of Care Among Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

Gary H Lyman, Andy Nguyen, Sophie Snyder, Matthew Gitlin, Karen C Chung

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 70 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gary H LymanFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Andy NguyenBluePath Solutions, Los Angeles, California.
Sophie SnyderBluePath Solutions, Los Angeles, California.
Matthew GitlinBluePath Solutions, Los Angeles, California.
Karen C ChungJuno Therapeutics, a Celgene company, Seattle, Washington.
Grail (United States) · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are currently administered at a limited number of cancer centers and are primarily delivered in an inpatient setting. However, variations in total costs associated with these therapies remain unknown. Objective: To estimate the economic differences in the administration of CAR T-cell therapy by the site of care and the incidence of key adverse events. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision-tree model was designed to capture clinical outcomes and associated costs during a predefined period (from lymphodepletion to 30 days after the receipt of CAR T-cell infusion) to account for the potential incidence of acute adverse events and to evaluate variations in total costs for the administration of CAR T-cell therapy by site of care. Cost estimates were from the health care practitioner perspective and were based on data obtained from the literature and publicly available databases, including the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample, the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System, the Medicare physician fee schedule, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, and the IBM Micromedex RED BOOK. The model evaluated an average adult patient with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received CAR T-cell therapy in an academic inpatient hospital or nonacademic specialty oncology network. Intervention: The administration of CAR T-cell therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total cost of the administration of CAR T-cell therapy by site of care. The costs associated with lymphodepletion, acquisition and infusion of CAR T cells, and management of acute adverse events were also examined. Results: The estimated total cost of care associated with the administration of CAR T-cell therapy was $454 611 (95% CI, $452 466-$458 267) in the academic hospital inpatient setting compared with $421 624 (95% CI, $417 204-$422 325) in the nonacademic specialty oncology network setting, for a difference of $32 987. After excluding the CAR T-cell acquisition cost, hospitalization and office visit costs were $53 360 (65.3% of the total cost) in academic inpatient hospitals and $23 526 (48.4% of the total cost) in nonacademic specialty oncology networks. The administration of CAR T-cell therapy in nonacademic specialty oncology networks was associated with a $29 834 (55.9%) decrease in hospitalization and office visit costs and a $3154 (20.1%) decrease in procedure costs. Conclusions and Relevance: The potential availability of CAR T-cell therapies that are associated with a lower incidence of adverse events and are suitable for outpatient administration may reduce the total costs of care by enabling the use of these therapies in nonacademic specialty oncology networks.

Indexed as

AdultAmbulatory CareCost-Benefit AnalysisCytokine Release SyndromeData ManagementHealth Care CostsHospitalizationHumansImmunotherapy, AdoptiveInfusions, IntravenousInpatientsLymphoma, B-CellMedicareNervous System DiseasesPatient Acceptance of Health CareRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID32250433
PMCPMC7136832
OpenAlexW3015094526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.