Demographic differences among patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell therapy in the United States

Abstract

Abstract Background It is not clear if all Americans have benefitted equally from the availability of chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CART) therapy. We aimed to evaluate if demographic differences existed among adult patients who received CART therapy and to assess predictors of CART treatment outcomes. Methods Records of patients ≥18 years who received CART therapy for non‐Hodgkin’s lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and multiple myeloma in 2018 were evaluated in the National Inpatient Sample. Acute complications and inhospital mortality were compared between two groups of CART recipients: Whites and non‐Whites. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between sociodemographic factors and inhospital mortality. Results Of 1275 CART recipients that met inclusion criteria, there were 40.4% of females, 66.9% of Whites, Blacks (4.2%), Hispanics (13.3%), Asians or Pacific Islanders (4.2%), and Native Americans (1.3%). Up to 96.8% of CART procedures were performed in urban teaching hospitals, and 85.3% of CART recipients lived in metropolitan counties. Non‐Whites, compared to Whites, were younger at the time of CART therapy (p < 0.001). The inhospital mortality rate was higher in non‐Whites, though not statistically significant (5.4% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.764). There were no differences in length of hospital stay, hospital charges, or rates of acute toxicities between the two race groups. We found no association between race and treatment outcomes. Gender, neurotoxicity, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were significant predictors of inhospital mortality. Conclusions CART therapy recipients in the United States were more likely to be Whites and more likely to be residents of metropolitan areas. These observed demographic differences were not associated with treatment outcomes or inhospital mortalities.

Keywords

• CART cell therapy
• disparities
• leukemia
• lymphoma
• multiple myeloma
• sociodemographic factors