Impact of Primary Letermovir Prophylaxis Versus Preemptive Antiviral Therapy for Cytomegalovirus on Economic and Clinical Outcomes after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Abstract

Preemptive therapy (PET) historically has been the primary strategy to reduce early-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) but is associated with antiviral-associated toxicities and increases in healthcare resource utilization and cost. Despite its high cost, letermovir (LTV) prophylaxis has largely supplanted PET due to its effectiveness and tolerability. Direct comparisons between LTV and PET approaches on economic and clinical outcomes after allogeneic HCT remain limited. Objective: To compare total cost of care (inpatient and outpatient) between LTV prophylaxis and PET through day+180 after allogeneic HCT. Adult allogeneic CMV seropositive (R+) HCT recipients who initiated LTV <30 days after HCT between 01/01/18 and 12/31/18 were matched 1:1 to allogeneic CMV R+ HCT recipients between 01/01/15 and 12/31/17 (PET cohort). Patients were grouped into high-risk (HR) or standard-risk (SR) for CMV to compare the LTV and PET cohorts. Direct costs for each patient's index HCT admission and all subsequent inpatient and outpatient care through day+180 after HCT were determined and converted into 2021 US dollars and then to Medicare proportional dollars (MPD). A secondary analysis using 2019 average wholesale price was conducted to specifically evaluate anti-CMV medication costs. There were a total of 176 patients with 54 HR CMV pairs and 34 SR CMV pairs. No differences in survival between LTV and PET for both HR and SR CMV groups were observed. The rate of clinically significant CMV infection decreased for both HR CMV (11/54, 20.4% versus 38/54, 70.4%, P < .001) and SR CMV (1/34, 2.9% versus 12/34, 35.3%, P < .001) patients who were given LTV prophylaxis with corresponding reductions in val(ganciclovir) and foscarnet (HR CMV only) use. Among HR CMV patients, LTV prophylaxis was associated with reductions in CMV-related readmissions (3/54, 5.6% versus 18/54, 33.3%, P < .001) and outpatient visits within the first 100 days after HCT (20 versus 25, P = .002), and a decreased median total cost of care ($36,018 versus $75,525, P < .001) in MPD was observed. For SR CMV patients on LTV, a significant reduction in the median inpatient cost ($15,668 versus $27,818, P < .001) was found, but this finding was offset by a higher median outpatient cost ($26,145 versus $20,307, P = .030) that was not CMV-driven. LTV prophylaxis is highly effective in reducing clinically significant CMV reactivations for both HR and SR HCT recipients. In this study, LTV prophylaxis was associated with a decreased total cost of care for HR CMV patients through day+180. Specifically, reductions in CMV-related readmissions, exposure to CMV-directed antiviral agents, and outpatient visits in the first 100 days after HCT were observed. SR CMV patients receiving LTV prophylaxis benefited by having a reduced inpatient cost of care due to lowered room and pharmacy costs.