Indirect treatment comparison of oral versus injectable azacitidine as maintenance therapy for acute myeloid leukemia.

Aim: Evaluate the relative efficacy of oral versus injectable azacitidine (AZA) maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after complete remission. Materials & methods: Systematic literature review identified QUAZAR AML-001, HOVON 97 AML, UK NCRI AML16 and QoLESS-AZA-AMLE (sensitivity analysis) trials. Network meta-analysis and matching-adjusted indirect comparisons assessed survival outcomes. Results: In the network meta-analysis, combining the HOVON 97 and UK NCRI trials, oral AZA (QUAZAR) was associated with significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus injectable AZA (hazard ratio: 0.744; 95% credible interval: 0.557-0.998). After matching-adjusted indirect comparisons, to address differences in patient characteristics across trials, OS improvements were maintained with oral versus injectable AZA (hazard ratio: 0.753; credible interval: 0.563-0.998). Conclusion: In AML, maintenance therapy with oral AZA was associated with improved OS versus injectable AZA.

Older people with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) may have remission with or without blood count recovery, after first-line chemotherapy; however, remission is short lived and overall survival is limited (7­12 months). Ongoing treatment (maintenance therapy) after response to initial chemotherapy may prolong remission. Maintenance therapy with azacitidine (AZA) given by injection beneath the skin (subcutaneous) or into a vein (intravenous) can extend disease-free survival compared with no further treatment and best supportive care. However, treatment with intravenous AZA may only extend overall survival in certain patients. ONUREG^® is a novel formulation of AZA that can be taken by mouth (orally), remains in the body for longer periods and has the potential for significant clinical benefits compared with intravenous AZA. Presently, there are no studies directly comparing outcomes of maintenance therapy with oral and injectable AZA in older people with AML. In this analysis, we used an indirect treatment comparison method including four clinical trials to explore the survival benefit associated with ONUREG and injectable AZA when used as maintenance therapies after response to initial chemotherapy in older people with AML. Findings showed ONUREG significantly improved overall survival compared with injectable AZA, with an almost 26% reduction in the risk of death. These results suggest that maintenance therapy with ONUREG significantly improves overall survival compared with injectable AZA in older people with AML who may have remission with or without blood count recovery, after first-line chemotherapy.

The impact of remission duration on the long-term economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia among patients without hematopoietic stem cell transplant in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) prognosis is poor, with sustained remission occurring in <35% of young adults and <15% of older adults. This descriptive study examined the potential benefit of prolonged remission on the economic burden of AML. METHODS: Using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, we identified newly diagnosed patients with AML without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018; AML diagnosis was the index date. Patients had 6 months of pre-index eligibility and were followed until the end of continuous eligibility, study data, or death. Active treatment and supportive care cohorts were defined; duration-of-remission subgroups (0 to <3, 3 to <6, 6 to <12, and ≥12 months) were established among active treatment patients with remission. Healthcare service utilization and costs were reported over follow-up and mutually exclusive treatment, remission, and post-relapse periods. RESULTS: This study included 1,558 active treatment and 1,127 supportive care patients who were followed for a median of 232 and 62 days, respectively. Over follow-up, active treatment and supportive care patients incurred mean ± standard deviation all-cause healthcare costs of $55,723 ± $61,994 and $68,596 ± $100,375 per-patient-per-month (PPPM), respectively. Decreasing PPPM costs were observed with increased remission duration (0 to <3 months: $71,823 ± $62,635; 3 to <6 months: $54,262 ± $44,734; 6 to <12 months: $35,287 ± $23,699; and ≥12 months: $15,615 ± $10,560). Although median follow-up varied by up to 5-fold, total costs were largely similar across duration-of-remission subgroups (0 to <3 months: $438,569 ± $332,675; 3 to <6 months: $590,411 ± $598,245; 6 to <12 months: $482,902 ± $369,115; and ≥12 months: $448,867 ± $316,133). CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of AML is substantial, even among untreated patients. Further, among patients with remission, longer durations in remission are associated with reduced PPPM healthcare costs, suggesting that remission-prolonging treatments could help mitigate healthcare costs.

Health care costs in a randomized trial of antimicrobial duration among cystic fibrosis patients with pulmonary exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of these analyses was to determine whether overall costs were reduced in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients experiencing pulmonary exacerbation (PEx) who received shorter versus longer durations of treatment. METHODS: Among people with CF experiencing PEx, we calculated 30-day inpatient, outpatient, emergency room, and medication costs and summed these to derive total costs in 2020 USD. Using the Kaplan-Meier sample average (KMSA) method, we calculated adjusted costs and differences in costs within two pairs of randomized groups: early robust responders (ERR) randomized to receive treatment for 10 days (ERR-10 days) or 14 days (ERR-14 days), and non-early robust responders (NERR) randomized to receive treatment for 14 days (NERR-14 days) or 21 days (NERR-21 days). RESULTS: Patients in the shorter treatment duration groups had shorter lengths of stay per hospitalization (mean ± standard deviation (SD) for ERR-10 days: 7.9 ± 3.0 days per hospitalization compared to 10.1 ± 4.2 days in ERR-14 days; for NERR-14 days: 8.7 ± 4.9 days per hospitalization compared to 9.6 ± 6.5 days in NERR-21 days). We found statistically significantly lower adjusted mean costs (95% confidence interval) among those who were randomized to receive shorter treatment durations (ERR-10 days: $60,800 ($59,150 - $62,430) vs $74,420 ($72,610 - $76,450) in ERR-14 days; NERR-14 days: $66,690 ($65,960-$67,400) versus $74,830 ($73,980-$75,650) in NERR-21 days). CONCLUSIONS: Tied with earlier evidence that shorter treatment duration was not associated with worse clinical outcomes, our analyses indicate that treating with shorter antimicrobial durations can reduce costs without diminishing clinical outcomes.

Procedure Preference and Intention-to-Treat Outcomes after Listing for Lung Transplantation among U.S. Adults. A Cohort Study.

RATIONALE: Bilateral lung transplantation is widely used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD), on the basis of an expectation of improved survival after transplantation. Yet, waiting list mortality is higher while awaiting bilateral transplantation. The net effect of procedure preference on overall survival is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an unrestricted procedure preference is associated with improved overall outcomes after listing for lung transplantation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 12,155 adults with COPD or ILD listed for lung transplantation in the United States between May 4, 2005, and December 31, 2014. We defined a "restricted" procedure preference as listing for "bilateral transplantation only" and an "unrestricted" procedure preference as listing for any combination of bilateral or single lung transplantation. We used a composite "intention-to-treat" primary outcome that included events both before and after transplantation, defined as the number of days between listing and death, removal from the list for clinical deterioration, or retransplantation. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, an unrestricted procedure preference was associated with a 3% lower rate of the primary intention-to-treat outcome in COPD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.07) and a 1% higher rate in ILD (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08). There was no convincing evidence that these associations varied by age, disease severity, or the use of mechanical support. Among those with ILD and concomitant severe pulmonary hypertension, an unrestricted preference was associated with a 17% increased rate of the primary outcome (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.99-1.39). An unrestricted preference was consistently associated with lower rates of death or removal from the list for clinical deterioration and with higher rates of transplantation. Graft failure rates were similar among those listed with restricted and unrestricted preferences. CONCLUSION: When considering outcomes both before and after transplantation, we found no evidence that patients with COPD or ILD benefit from listing for bilateral lung transplantation compared with listing for a more liberal procedure preference. An unrestricted listing strategy for suitable candidates may increase the number of transplants performed without impacting overall survival.