Real-world comparative effectiveness of acalabrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Novel agents, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis), have become the standard of care for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We conducted a real-world retrospective analysis of patients with CLL treated with acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib using the Flatiron Health database. Patients with CLL were included if they initiated acalabrutinib or ibrutinib between 1 January 2018 and 28 February 2021. The primary outcome of interest was time to treatment discontinuation (TTD). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate unweighted and weighted median TTD. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the TTD between cohorts. Of the 2509 patients included in the analysis, 89.6% received ibrutinib, and 14.1% received acalabrutinib. TTD was not significantly different between cohorts in the unweighted analysis. After weighting, the cohorts were balanced on all baseline characteristics except cardiovascular risk factors and baseline medications use. The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTD was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 25.1 to NR) for the acalabrutinib cohort and was 23.4 months (95% CI, 18.1-28.7) for the ibrutinib cohort. The discontinuation rate at 12 months was 22% for the weighted acalabrutinib cohort vs 31% for the weighted ibrutinib cohort (P = .005). After additional adjustment for prior BTKi use, the acalabrutinib cohort had a 41% lower risk of discontinuation vs ibrutinib (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.81; P = .001). In the largest available study comparing BTKis, patients with CLL receiving acalabrutinib demonstrated lower rates of discontinuation and a prolonged time to discontinuation vs those receiving ibrutinib.

Time and personnel costs associated with adverse event (AE) management among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

OBJECTIVES: Novel therapies improve clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), although adverse event (AE) profiles differ. This study evaluated time and personnel costs of AE management among healthcare professionals (HCPs) treating patients with CLL with novel therapies. METHODS: A non-interventional prospective survey was conducted over 2 months. Eligible HCPs reported the time per day spent performing AE management activities for CLL patients treated with acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, or venetoclax. Mean time and personnel costs (USD) per activity were summarized and used to estimate the total annual costs of AE management for an average-sized oncology practice. RESULTS: For an average-sized practice (28 HCPs with an average of 56 CLL patients), the mean annual personnel cost of AE management for CLL patients on novel agents was estimated at $115,733. The personnel cost associated with acalabrutinib ($20,912) was less than half that of ibrutinib ($53,801) and venetoclax ($41,884), potentially due to fewer severe AEs and less time spent by oncologists managing AEs compared to other HCP types. CONCLUSION: The substantial burden of AE management for patients with CLL may vary by treatment used. Acalabrutinib was associated with lower annual costs of AE management at an oncology practice level compared to ibrutinib and venetoclax.

Oncologist and Patient Preferences for Novel Agents in First-Line Treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Commonalities and Disconnects.

PURPOSE: Treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has changed dramatically with the approval of novel agents. Information regarding how patients and oncologists make trade-offs across attributes of novel therapies is limited. The purpose of this study was to understand how variations in attributes impact treatment choice among patients and oncologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 371 participants (patients [n=220] and oncologists [n=151]) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify preferences for first-line (1L) CLL treatment with novel agents; participants chose between hypothetical treatment profiles consisting of eight attributes with varying levels taken from published literature. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to estimate attribute level preference weights. The weights were used to compute relative importance, a measure of how influential an attribute is to treatment choice. RESULTS: Increasing 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) from 75% to 95% had the greatest impact on preferences in 1L CLL treatment, accounting for 40% and 30% of the variation in preferences among patients and oncologists, respectively. Risk differences in atrial fibrillation (AF), infection, and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were also important to patients and oncologists. Among both groups, risk differences in tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and bleeding were least influential in treatment choice. Oncologists required 2-4 times higher increases in 2-year PFS than patients to accept increased risks of AF, discontinuation due to AEs, bleeding, TLS, and arthralgia/myalgia. CONCLUSION: Patient-oncologist communication may be improved by a more focused discussion on the risks of AEs, relative to treatment outcomes, with patient goals in mind.