Quality-adjusted survival time without symptoms or toxicity of acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Acalabrutinib monotherapy (A) and acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab (A + O) demonstrated improved efficacy and safety versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (C + O) among treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) in the ELEVATE-TN trial. The relative risk-benefit at a median follow-up of 47 months was assessed using Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms and Toxicity (Q-TWiST) methodology. Patient data were partitioned into 3 states: time with toxicity (TOX); time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST); and time after relapse (REL). Mean Q-TWiST was estimated by summing the mean time in each state, multiplied by its respective utility weight. Patients receiving A or A + O experienced significantly longer Q-TWiST versus C + O when toxicity was defined as grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) (41.79 vs 34.56 months; 42.07 vs 34.56 months) and grade 2-4 AEs (35.07 vs 30.64 months; 34.21 vs 30.64 months). Overall, patients with treatment-naive CLL treated with A or A + O experienced significant gains in Q-TWiST compared with C + O.

Cost-effectiveness of acalabrutinib regimens in treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have improved with targeted therapy, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as acalabrutinib. METHODS: A semi-Markov model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for acalabrutinib ± obinutuzumab vs chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in treatment-naive CLL (based on ELEVATE-TN). The model used direct costs and resource utilization from the US Medicare perspective and utility values sourced from literature. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Over a 30-year lifetime horizon, the model base case analysis suggested that acalabrutinib monotherapy had an incremental cost of $206,329 and 2.52 QALYs gained versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $81,960/QALY. Acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab had an incremental cost of $423,747 and 2.79 QALYs gained (ICER: $152,153/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the probability of acalabrutinib monotherapy being cost-effective as 59% to 73% at a $100,000-to-150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold; the probability of acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab being cost-effective ranged from 34% to 51%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analysis is limited by uncertainty in postprogression survival outcomes, acalabrutinib monotherapy is likely cost-effective vs chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in treatment-naive CLL in the US Medicare setting.

Considerations for the Utility of Real-World Evidence Beyond Trial Data in Advanced NSCLC: The Case of Frontline Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

Background: To extend the discussion on the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in conveying the clinical value of treatment beyond trial data, the primary objective of this study was to assess if efficacy gains in progression-free survival (PFS) observed in randomized controlled trials (RCT) correlate with efficacy gains in the real-world setting. For this, we assessed the treatment benefit of three tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in aNSCLC. Methods: Using matched cohorts identified in the Flatiron Health database (2011-2020), we mimicked the following cohorts of TKI versus platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) from the following trials: (1) erlotinib, EURTAC; (2) afatinib, LUX-Lung 3; and (3) crizotinib, PROFILE 1014. Time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) hazard ratio (HR) was used as a proxy for PFS HR, the primary endpoint in the selected RCTs. HRs were calculated via Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Overall, 1,118 patients were included across the three RWE cohorts. Frontline TKI regimens had statistically significantly better real-world TTD than their matched PBC comparator group (HR 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.44 for erlotinib; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32-0.55 for afatinib; HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.53 for crizotinib). The benefit in real-world OS was not different between TKIs and PBC patients, attributed to a high proportion of switching to subsequent therapy. Study findings of relative treatment benefit (HR) for real-world TTD and OS were deemed similar to those for PFS and OS from the pivotal RCTs. Conclusion: The relative treatment effect, measured as real-world TTD HR over the long term, was similar to trial-based PFS HR, implying that the clinical benefit of aNSCLC treatments conveyed in trials translated into the clinical setting. This is important, given that OS data interpretation is limited, even with longer follow-up. Additionally, our RWE analysis endorses TTD as a relevant endpoint to measure clinical benefit.

Clinical evidence for the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma: Current paradigms and emerging treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) have poor outcomes, with 5-year survival rates of <5% for those with metastatic, stage IV disease. We have reviewed current treatment paradigms and emerging treatment options for these patients. METHODS: The websites of seven national or international organizations were searched for metastatic UC treatment guidelines. Systematic literature reviews were conducted to identify evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage IV UC. Searches included congress databases and articles published between 1990 and 2018. In order to align with the latest treatment paradigms in first-line advanced UC, a focused literature search was conducted to identify evidence supporting immuno-oncology (IO) agents. RESULTS: For advanced UC, guidelines universally recommend cisplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for eligible patients and carboplatin-based regimens for those unfit to receive cisplatin. Despite the evaluation of a number of different cytotoxic regimens over the years, including triplet combinations, survival outcomes have not improved markedly with chemotherapy. Median overall survival with standard of care chemotherapy is ~13 months. Based on the results of single-arm, phase II studies, recent treatment guidelines have included atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) and pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) as first-line options for cisplatin-ineligible patients whose tumors express high levels of PD-L1. However, emerging evidence from RCTs of IO agents, including both cisplatin-eligible and cisplatin-ineligible patients, suggest that survival times exceeding 20 months are possible. CONCLUSIONS: After having reached a plateau with chemotherapy, the treatment landscape for advanced UC is evolving. Survival outcomes for patients with advanced UC are improving with treatment modalities involving IO agents.