A Prospective Economic Analysis of Early Outcome Data From the Alliance A041202/ CCTG CLC.2 Randomized Phase III Trial Of Bendamustine-Rituximab Compared With Ibrutinib-Based Regimens in Untreated Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: The Alliance A041202/CCTG CLC.2 trial demonstrated superior progression-free survival with ibrutinib-based therapy compared to chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis of Canadian patients to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with these therapies. METHODS: Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months. Health state utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D instrument with Canadian tariffs applied to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were applied to resource utilization data (expressed in 2019 US dollars). We examined costs and QALYs associated ibrutinib, ibrutinib with rituximab (IR), and BR therapy. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled; two patients were excluded from the analysis. On-protocol costs (associated with protocol-specified resource use) were higher for patients receiving ibrutinib (mean $189,335; P < 0.0001) and IR (mean $219,908; P < 0.0001) compared to BR (mean $51,345), driven by higher acquisition costs for ibrutinib. Total mean costs (over 2-years) were $192,615 with ibrutinib, $223,761 with IR, and $55,413 with BR (P < 0.0001 for ibrutinib vs. BR and P < 0.0001 for IR vs. BR). QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR; therefore, a formal cost-utility analysis was not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Direct medical costs are higher for patients receiving ibrutinib-based therapies compared to chemoimmunotherapy in frontline chronic lymphocytic leukemia, with the cost of ibrutinib representing a key driver.

Adverse event burden in older patients with CLL receiving bendamustine plus rituximab or ibrutinib regimens: Alliance A041202.

Ibrutinib has superior progression-free survival compared with bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in older CLL patients, however, differences in treatment duration, six monthly BR cycles versus continuous ibrutinib, complicate adverse event (AE) comparisons. We introduce the AE burden score (AEsc) to compare AEs, calculated for each patient by summing over products of reporting period length and grade for each all-cause grade 1-4 AE and dividing by the length of time over which AEs are assessed. A total of 176 patients received BR and 361 ibrutinib alone or with six cycles of rituximab. At 38 months median follow-up, 64% remained on ibrutinib. Median AEsc was higher with BR versus ibrutinib in the first six cycles (7.2 versus 4.9, p < 0.0001). Within ibrutinib arms, median AEsc decreased significantly to 3.7 after six cycles (p < 0.0001). 10% and 14% of BR and ibrutinib patients discontinued treatment for AEs. In ibrutinib arms, cumulative incidence of grade 3 or higher atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and infection (AEs of clinical interest) at 12 months was 4.5%, 17.5%, and 12.8%, respectively, and increased more slowly thereafter to 7.7%, 25.4%, and 20.5% at 36 months. Analytical tools including the AEsc and cumulative incidence of AEs can help to better characterize AE burden over time. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872.

Ibrutinib Regimens versus Chemoimmunotherapy in Older Patients with Untreated CLL.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) since 2016 but has not been compared with chemoimmunotherapy. We conducted a phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of ibrutinib, either alone or in combination with rituximab, relative to chemoimmunotherapy. METHODS: Patients 65 years of age or older who had untreated CLL were randomly assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib, or ibrutinib plus rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board made the decision to release the data after the protocol-specified efficacy threshold had been met. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients were assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, 182 to receive ibrutinib, and 182 to receive ibrutinib plus rituximab. Median progression-free survival was reached only with bendamustine plus rituximab. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 2 years was 74% with bendamustine plus rituximab and was higher with ibrutinib alone (87%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.58; P<0.001) and with ibrutinib plus rituximab (88%; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group and the ibrutinib group with regard to progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.62; P=0.49). With a median follow-up of 38 months, there was no significant difference among the three treatment groups with regard to overall survival. The rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 hematologic adverse events was higher with bendamustine plus rituximab (61%) than with ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus rituximab (41% and 39%, respectively), whereas the rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 nonhematologic adverse events was lower with bendamustine plus rituximab (63%) than with the ibrutinib-containing regimens (74% with each regimen). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with untreated CLL, treatment with ibrutinib was superior to treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. There was no significant difference between ibrutinib and ibrutinib plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01886872 .).