Costs and health care resource utilization among Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common type of leukemia. However, published studies of CLL have either only focused on costs among individuals diagnosed with CLL without a non-CLL comparator group or focused on costs associated with specific CLL treatments. An examination of utilization and costs across different care settings provides a holistic view of utilization associated with CLL. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the health care costs and resource utilization types attributable to CLL among Medicare beneficiaries and identify predictors associated with each of the economic outcomes among beneficiaries diagnosed with CLL. METHODS: This retrospective study used a random 20% sample of the Medicare Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse (CCW) database covering the 2017-2019 period. The study population consisted of individuals with and without CLL. The CLL cohort and non-CLL cohort were matched using a 1:5 hard match based on baseline categorical variables. We characterized economic outcomes over 360 days across cost categories and places of services. We estimated average marginal effects using multivariable generalized linear regression models of total costs and across type of services. Total cost was compared between CLL and non-CLL cohorts using the matched sample. We used generalized linear models appropriate for the count or binary outcome to identify factors associated with various categories of health care resource utilization, such as inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and oncologist/hematologist visits. RESULTS: A total of 2,736 beneficiaries in the CLL cohort and 13,571 beneficiaries in the non-CLL matched cohort were identified. Compared with the non-CLL cohort, the annual cost for the CLL cohort was higher (CLL vs non-CLL, mean [SD]: $22,781 [$37,592] vs $13,901 [$24,725]), mainly driven by health care provider costs ($6,535 vs $3,915) and Part D prescription drug costs ($5,916 vs $2,556). The main categories of health care resource utilization were physician evaluation/management visits, oncologist/hematologist visits, and laboratory services. Compared with beneficiaries aged 65-74 years, beneficiaries aged 85 years or older had lower use and cost in maintenance services (ie, oncologist visits, hospital outpatient costs, and prescription drug cost) but higher use and cost in acute services (ie, ED). Compared with residency in a metropolitan area, living in a nonmetropolitan area was associated with fewer physician visits but higher ED visits and hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: The cooccurrence of lower utilization of routine care services, along with higher utilization of acute care services among some individuals, has implications for patient burden and warrants further study.

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.

Real-world Prescription Pattern, Discontinuation and Costs of Ibrutinib-Naïve Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: An Italian Healthcare Administrative Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In order to integrate the existing and inconsistent information from clinical trials and real-world practice on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treated with ibrutinib, this analysis aimed to describe the prescription pattern of new users of ibrutinib affected by CLL, focusing on discontinuation, severe adverse events (AEs) and change of treatment, and to assess the integrated healthcare expenditure from the Italian National Health System (INHS) perspective. METHODS: Starting from the ReS database, adults with at least a supply of ibrutinib (ATC code L01XE27) were selected from 01/01/2016 to 12/31/2017. Those without any ibrutinib supply in the year before the index prescription were considered new users. Out of them, only patients with at least a primary or secondary in-hospital diagnosis of CLL (ICD-9-CM code 204.1*) from 01/01/2013 to 12/31/2018 were further broken down according to the ibrutinib's line treatment (first line-FL; second or later line-SLL) and analysed. They were characterized by sex and age in the selection period. Mean annual consumption (defined daily doses [DDD]), treatment discontinuation, changes of therapy, interruptions and healthcare costs in charge of the INHS were assessed during two follow-up years. RESULTS: Out of more than 5 million inhabitants of the ReS database, 69 new ibrutinib users and diagnosed with CLL in 2016 (incidence: 1.6 × 100,000) and 41 in 2017 (incidence: 0.9 × 100,000) were selected. Of these, 21 (19.1%) were FL ibrutinib users and 89 (80.9%) were SLL ones, mostly males and with mean ages (±SD) of 65 ± 14 and 70 ± 10, respectively. The mean annual consumption among FL users decreased from 222.2 DDD per patient treated to 216.0 DDD, while increased among SLL patients from 238.6 DDD to 260.1 DDD, in the first and second follow-up year, respectively. The discontinuation rate was about 40% in the first year, similarly among FL and SLL users. SLL patients discontinued more frequently (52.8% vs 20.0%) in the second year. Very few AEs were recorded. The 62.5% of FL and 55.6% of SLL users discontinuing ibrutinib in 1-year follow-up, while one SLL patient (5.3%) in the second year changed therapy. The 20.0% and 15.9% of all new users in first and second year interrupted ibrutinib. The total integrated cost of FL patients was €55,732 reducing by about €15,000, while it was €58,716 for SLL ones decreasing by €6,000, respectively, in the first and in the second year. Pharmaceuticals were the key cost driver (ibrutinib accounted for more than 77%). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis on Italian administrative data provided results about prescription patterns of ibrutinib FL and SLL new users with CLL, focusing on discontinuation, treatment change and healthcare costs over 2-year follow-up, and contributed to improve the knowledge on this hard-to-treat disease.

Overall survival, adverse events, and economic burden in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia receiving systemic therapy: Real-world evidence from the medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Information on overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is mostly available from clinical trials. We therefore conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to assess OS, incidence of AEs, and economic burden in real-world practice among Medicare patients treated for CLL. METHODS: Patients with CLL receiving ≥1 systemic therapy from 2013 to 2015 were selected from the Medicare claims database and followed from the start of first observed systemic therapy (index date) through December 2016 or death. OS for patients receiving each of the most commonly observed treatments was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. AEs were assessed among patients receiving these treatments across all observed lines of therapy. All-cause direct medical costs were assessed from the Medicare system perspective. RESULTS: Among 7,965 eligible patients across all observed therapy lines, ibrutinib monotherapy (Ibr; n = 2,708), chlorambucil monotherapy (Clb; n = 1,620), and bendamustine/rituximab (BR; n = 1,485) were the most common treatments. For first observed therapy, 24-month OS estimates for Ibr, Clb, and BR recipients were 69% (95% CI = 68%-71%), 68% (95% CI = 65%-71%), and 79% (95% CI = 77%-81%) respectively. The most frequently recorded AEs in patients receiving these treatments in any observed line of therapy were neutropenia, hypertension, anemia, and infection. For all patients, the mean monthly all-cause cost during the follow-up period was $8,974 (SD = $11,562); cost increased by the number of AEs, from $5,144 (SD = $5,409) among those with 1-2 AEs to $10,077 (SD = $12,542) among those with ≥6 AEs. CONCLUSION: Over two-thirds of patients survived at least 2 years after starting their first observed therapy for CLL. Our findings highlight considerable susceptibility to AEs and unmet medical need in Medicare patients with CLL treated in routine practice. Medicare incurred substantial economic burden following initiation of systemic therapy, and patients with greater numbers of AEs accounted disproportionately for the high overall cost of CLL management.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with first-line ibrutinib compared to chemoimmunotherapy treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization and costs of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who received ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1 L). METHODS: Fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) claims data were used to identify adults with a CLL/SLL diagnosis initiating 1 L ibrutinib single agent or CIT between 4 March 2016 and 30 September 2017 (index date). HRU and costs (Medicare spending) were evaluated during 1 L Oncology Care Model (1 L OCM) episodes (the first six months post-index) and over the observed 1 L duration. Patients' baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean monthly cost differences (MMCDs) obtained from ordinary least square regressions were used to compare costs between ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. RESULTS: In the Medicare FFS dataset (ibrutinib: n = 2014; CIT: n = 2050), ibrutinib patients incurred significantly higher monthly pharmacy costs (1 L OCM: MMCD = $4878, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD= $4892, p < .0001) that were fully offset by lower monthly medical costs (1 L OCM: MMCD= -$8289, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$5888, p < .0001), yielding a monthly total healthcare cost reduction (1 L OCM: MMCD=-$3411, p < .0001; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$996, p < .0001) relative to CIT patients. In the MA dataset (ibrutinib: n = 293; CIT: n = 303), ibrutinib was also associated with a monthly total healthcare cost reduction (1 L OCM: MMCD=-$10,459; 1 L duration: MMCD=-$5492). CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare patients with CLL/SLL, 1 L ibrutinib single agent was associated with total monthly cost savings relative to 1 L CIT, driven by lower monthly medical costs that fully offset higher monthly pharmacy costs.

Time to Next Treatment, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Costs Associated with Ibrutinib Use Among U.S. Veterans with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is the most common adult leukemia, accounting for ≈ 37% of all leukemias in the United States. Limited real-word evidence is available on the outcomes of ibrutinib use among previously untreated patients in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) population diagnosed with CLL/SLL. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate time to next treatment (TTNT) among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL who initiated ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in first line (1L) and 1L ibrutinib versus ibrutinib in later lines (2L+) and (b) compare health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs between the 1L ibrutinib and CIT cohorts. METHODS: Adults with CLL/SLL and claims for 1L single-agent ibrutinib or CIT (index date = first prescription claim date) were included from Veterans Health Administration Data (April 1, 2013-March 31, 2018). A subset of the CIT 1L cohort with evidence of ibrutinib in 2L/3L was defined as the ibrutinib 2L+ cohort. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate TTNT, and generalized linear models were used to determine all-cause per patient per month (PPPM) HRU and costs during 1L among propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts. RESULTS: After PSM, 614 patients were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 1L CIT cohorts, and 149 were included in each of the 1L ibrutinib and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts. The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly longer TTNT compared with each of the 1L CIT and 2L+ ibrutinib cohorts (P <0.0001 and P =0.0001, respectively) and was less likely to have a next line of treatment than the CIT 1L cohort (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.42-0.65; P < 0.0001) and the 2L+ ibrutinib cohort (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.22-0.69; P = 0.0012). The 1L ibrutinib cohort had significantly fewer inpatient visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.28-0.52; P ≤ 0.05) and outpatient visits PPPM (RR =0.72; 95% CI = 0.68-0.77; P ≤ 0.5) compared with the CIT 1L cohort. Additionally, the 1L ibrutinib cohort had $7,308 significantly lower monthly medical costs (95% CI = -$9,892 to -$4,895; P ≤ 0.05) versus the 1L CIT cohort, resulting in comparable monthly total health care cost (medical and pharmacy) between real-world 1L patients treated by ibrutinib and CIT (-$2,160; 95% CI = -$4,840-$347; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that among U.S. veterans with CLL/SLL, 1L ibrutinib use was associated with significantly longer TTNT versus that of 1L CIT. Similarly, early treatment with ibrutinib was associated with longer TTNT as compared to ibrutinib use in later lines of therapy. Moreover, 1L ibrutinib was associated with lower HRU and medical costs compared with 1L CIT, completely offsetting the higher pharmacy costs related to 1L ibrutinib treatment. DISCLOSURES: This research was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. The analyses were performed by STATinMED Research. Huang is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs and may own company stock. Sundaram was an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs at the time this study was conducted. Borra and Janjan are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to the study sponsor. Wang, Li, and Shrestha were employees of STATinMED Research at the time this study was conducted.

Health-related quality of life and economic burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the era of novel targeted agents.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and economic burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS: Studies were searched through Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, as well as conference abstracts (1 January 2000-2 June 2019). RESULTS: Overall, 12 and 17 primary studies were included in the HRQoL and economic burden reviews, respectively. Patients with CLL reported impairment in various quality of life domains when compared with healthy controls, including fatigue, anxiety, physical functioning, social functioning, depression, sleep disturbance, and pain interference. Key factors associated with a negative impact on the HRQoL burden of CLL included female gender, increased disease severity, and the initiation of multiple lines of therapy. Economic burden was assessed for patients with CLL based on disease status and the treatment regimen received. The main cost drivers related to CLL were outpatient and hospitalization-related costs, primarily incurred as a result of chemo/chemoimmunotherapy, adverse events (AEs), and disease progression. Treatment with targeted agents, i.e. ibrutinib and venetoclax, was associated with lower medical costs than chemoimmunotherapy, although ibrutinib was associated with some increased AE costs related to cardiac toxicities. Cost studies of targeted agents were limited by short follow-up times that did not capture the full scope of treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: CLL imposes a significant HRQoL and economic burden. Our systematic review shows that an unmet need persists in CLL for treatments that delay progression while minimizing AEs. Studies suggest targeted therapies may reduce the economic burden of CLL, but longer follow-up data are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Adverse Events, Resource Use, and Costs Among Commercially Insured, Younger Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst a changing treatment landscape, real-world evidence on the burden of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden among treated patients with CLL. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus. Patients at least 18 years old with CLL treatment between November 1, 2013 and May 31, 2018 were identified; index date was first observed CLL treatment. Patients had at least one CLL diagnosis pre-index and a second diagnosis anytime during the study period, at least 1-year pre- and at least 30-day post-index continuous enrollment and no pre-index CLL treatment. Analyses focused on patients receiving one of the four most common regimens observed. Outcomes included treatment patterns, frequency of incident AEs, and healthcare resource use and costs. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear modelling were used to evaluate risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: A total of 1706 patients were included in the study (median [interquartile range] age 58 [55-62] years, 66% male, median Charlson Comorbidity Index 2 [2-3], median follow-up 16 [8-28] months). Common regimens, irrespective of treatment line, were bendamustine-rituximab (B-R, 27%), ibrutinib monotherapy (I, 27%), rituximab monotherapy (R, 19%), and fludarabine combined with cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR, 16%); 59% had at least one incident AE (B-R, 62%; I, 60%; R, 25%; FCR, 79%). Mean total all-cause healthcare cost over follow-up was $13,858 ± 14,626 PPPM. Increased number of AEs was associated with increased odds of hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-3.4) and increased mean cost PPPM (cost ratio = 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the treatment toxicity and associated economic burden among patients with CLL in the USA. As novel therapies are increasingly used, further research examining outcomes will inform the risks, benefits, and value of novel agents to prescribers and patients.

Medication Adherence, Health Care Utilization, and Costs Among Patients Initiating Oral Oncolytics for Multiple Myeloma or Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Oral oncolytic therapies have improved survival in hematologic cancers, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) and multiple myeloma (MM), which are now being managed like chronic conditions. However, compared with other cancers, there is a lack of studies assessing adherence, health care resource utilization, and costs in patients with these cancers. OBJECTIVE: To assess factors associated with adherence to oral oncolytic therapies, health care utilization, and costs in patients with CLL/SLL or MM. METHODS: A retrospective database study was conducted using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplement databases. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) diagnosed with and prescribed an oral oncolytic for CLL/SLL (ibrutinib or idelalisib) or MM (thalidomide, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide) between 2013 and 2016 and with continuous eligibility 6 months before and 12 months after oral oncolytic initiation were identified. Adherence to oral oncolytics was measured using the proportion of days covered (PDC) metric. Multiple linear regression and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify adherence predictors. Count models assessed the relationship between adherence and resource utilization, and generalized linear models assessed the relationship between adherence and health care costs. RESULTS: A total of 701 and 2,385 patients were identified with CLL/SLL or MM, respectively. Mean PDC (SD) for CLL/SLL and MM patients was 75.3 (22.5) and 57.6 (26.5), respectively. For CLL/SLL patients, those aged ≥ 65 years (beta [B] = -4.00) had lower medication use. Among MM patients, multiple predictors of higher medication use emerged: aged ≥ 65 years (B = 3.44), higher than average outpatient resource utilization (B = 3.53), insurance plan other than preferred provider organization (PPO; B = -2.58), previous cancer therapy (B = -2.81), higher number of concurrent unique therapeutic classes (B = -0.35), and higher comorbidity burden (B = -2.55). Patients with CLL/SLL and enrolled in plans other than a PPO were more likely to be adherent (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.01-1.98), whereas patients who were aged ≥ 65 years, were residents of the southern United States, and had visited the emergency department in the baseline period were less likely to be adherent. For MM patients, those aged ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.38-2.04) and with higher than average outpatient services utilization (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.01-1.52) were more likely to be adherent, whereas those enrolled in plans other than a PPO, previously treated with cancer therapy, and with higher comorbidity burden were less likely to be adherent. In both cohorts, adherent patients had significantly lower odds of health care utilization and incurred lower medical costs, but higher prescription costs, following oncolytic initiation; however, total costs were not significantly lower in those adherent. CONCLUSIONS: Factors were identified that influenced adherence at the patient, treatment, and health system levels. These factors can be used to identify patients requiring interventions for improving medication-taking behavior and associated health care burden. DISCLOSURES: This study received no outside funding. Dashputre was recently employed by Novartis; K. Gatwood has received speaker fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals; and J. Gatwood has received research funding from Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline, unrelated to this study..

Cost of Disease Progression in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia, and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: To reduce health care costs and improve care, payers and physician groups are switching to quality-based and episodic or bundled-care models. Disease progression and associated costs may affect these models, particularly if such programs do not account for differences in disease severity and progression risk within the cohort. This study estimated the incremental cost of disease progression in patients diagnosed with chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and compared costs among patients with and without progression. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using U.S. administrative claims data from commercial and Medicare Advantage health care enrollees with evidence of CLL, AML, and NHL and systemic antineoplastic agent use from July 1, 2006 to August 31, 2014. Outcome measures included disease progression, 12-month health care costs, and 3-year cumulative predictive health care costs. RESULTS: Of 1,056 patients with CLL, 514 patients with AML, and 7,601 patients with NHL, 31.1% of patients with CLL, 63.8% of those with AML, and 36.9% of those with NHL had evidence of disease progression. Among patients with CLL and NHL, adjusted and unadjusted health care costs were significantly higher among progressors versus nonprogressors. Per-patient-per-month costs, accounting for variable follow-up time, were almost twice as high among progressors versus nonprogressors in patients with CLL, AML, and NHL. In each of the three cancer types, the longer disease progression was delayed, the lower the health care costs. CONCLUSION: Progression of CLL, AML, and NHL was associated with higher health care costs over a 12-month period. Delaying cancer progression resulted in a substantial cost reduction in patients with all three cancer types. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Data on the rates and incremental health care costs of disease progression in patients with hematologic malignancies are lacking. This study estimated the incremental costs of disease progression in patients diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and compared health care costs in patients with and without evidence of disease progression in a real-world population. The data obtained in this study will assist future studies in quantifying the cost impact of decreased progression rates and will inform payers and physician groups about setting rates for episode and bundled payment programs.

Current and Future Oncology Management in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The cost of treating cancer patients is high and rising in the United States. Payers are exposed to cost through doctor visits, laboratory tests, imaging tests, radiation treatment, drugs, hospital stays, surgery, home care, transportation and travel, and caregiving. This study focuses on the cost of medication from the viewpoint of U.S. payers. Although new tools for managing these costs have been gaining attention, prices continue to rise, and challenges to managing costs remain high. Innovative tools are necessary for controlling the cost of care in oncology, but their effectiveness is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To (a) gauge payer perceptions of current and future cost management of innovative oncology drugs and (b) predict which management tools will increase in prevalence by 2020-2022. METHODS: A literature search of cost and management of oncology created the foundation for developing a survey for U.S. payers. The mobile survey was completed on devices such as smart phones or tablets. Payers were asked about general oncology product management, use of specific management tools today, management challenges, and expected use of specific management tools in 2020-2022. Management tools were segmented into traditional (used across many therapeutic categories), oncology-specific (used in oncology but not routinely used in other disease areas), and systemic (not product-specific but that affect the way services are provided and funded). Specific questions for managing the cost of care in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were included in the survey. NSCLC and CLL were chosen because of their diverse clinical characteristics and the level of innovation in these disease areas. The survey was fielded from May 31, 2017, to June 15, 2017. Results consisted of simple descriptive statistical analysis weighted by the payer's reported organizational covered lives. RESULTS: Payers were concerned with the high cost and budget impact of oncology drugs and considered these a high priority for management. However, they continue to use traditional management tools such as manage to FDA label, quantity limits, step edits, and reauthorizations, which are ineffective in controlling cost. More innovative management tools such as pathways of care are available but are not yet widely adopted. Payers hope to better control oncology cost in the future; however, specific questions pertaining to the management of NSCLC and CLL indicate that minimal changes in cost management will occur by 2020-2022. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increasing number of innovative cost management tools, challenges remain for managing oncology medication costs. New incentives are being generated, but barriers to their implementation will continue to restrict use through 2020-2022. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors are employed by MKO Global Partners, which is a consulting firm that focuses on payer strategy and market access in the pharmaceutical and biotech markets. Some initial results from this research were published as part of a comparative poster at ISPOR European Conference; November 4-8, 2017; Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

Cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib as first-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia in older adults without deletion 17p.

Ibrutinib is a novel oral therapy that has shown significant efficacy as initial treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). It is a high-cost continuous therapy differing from other regimens that are given for much shorter courses. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib for first-line treatment of CLL in patients older than age 65 years without a 17p deletion. We developed a semi-Markov model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib vs a comparator therapy from a US Medicare perspective. No direct comparison between ibrutinib and the best available treatment alternative, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (chemoimmunotherapy), exists. Therefore, we compared ibrutinib to a theoretical treatment alternative, which was modeled to confer the effectiveness of an inferior treatment (chlorambucil alone) and the costs and adverse events of chemoimmunotherapy, which would provide ibrutinib with the best chance of being cost-effective. Even so, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ibrutinib vs the modeled comparator was $189 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. To reach a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $150 000 per QALY, the monthly cost of ibrutinib would have to be at most $6800, $1700 less than the modeled cost of $8500 per month (a reduction of $20 400 per year). When the comparator efficacy is increased to more closely match that seen in trials evaluating chemoimmunotherapy, ibrutinib costs more than $262 000 per QALY gained, and the monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be lowered to less than $5000 per month to be cost-effective. Ibrutinib is not cost-effective as initial therapy at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained.

Economic Impact of Oral Therapies for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia-the Burden of Novelty.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and BCL2 inhibitors are oral targeted therapies that have changed the treatment approach to patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The aim of this review is to summarize the relevant literature on the economic impact of oral novel therapies for the treatment of CLL and discuss the underlying factors and suggested solutions for high drug prices. RECENT FINDINGS: The cost of therapy for CLL has increased substantially since the introduction of oral therapies. This increase in cost is caused by multiple factors including cost of drug development, alternate reimbursement patterns, lack of transparency, and lack of free market competition. Oral therapies for CLL have dramatically increased costs for both patients and payers. Some solutions to overcome this include value-based pricing, transparency, and legal action that allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers.

Economic burden of treatment failure in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed healthcare costs of first-line treatment failure (TF) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. METHODS: Pre-diagnosis treatment-naïve adults with ≥2 CLL diagnoses initiated on an antineoplastic agent (index date) after their first CLL diagnosis with ≥12 and ≥6 months of continuous observation pre- and post-index, respectively, were selected from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. Patients had no solid malignancies in the pre-index period nor selected blood malignancies at any time. Initial therapy included antineoplastic agents initiated in the first 30 days post-index. TF occurred at the earliest of: initiation of a new antineoplastic agent, treatment resumption following a ≥3 month break, non-chemotherapy intervention (stem cell transplant or radiotherapy), hospice care or hospital mortality. The cost of TF was evaluated as the healthcare cost difference between patients with and without first-line TF using ordinary least square regressions adjusted for baseline characteristics. Non-parametric bootstrap was used to evaluate statistical significance. RESULTS: Among 2226 patients identified (mean age: 68 years; female: 41%), 46% experienced first-line TF. The average TF cost was $3011 per patient per month (p < .001). When stratifying patients by event indicating TF and by most common therapies, non-chemotherapy intervention ($7582 per patient per month; p < .0001) and fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab ($4758; p < .001) were associated with the highest TF cost, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of first-line TF is high and varies across first-line therapies. This should be considered when selecting the initial therapy in these patients.

Cost-utility analysis of idelalisib in combination with rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of idelalisib in combination with rituximab (IR) versus rituximab monotherapy (R) in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival Markov model for a lifetime horizon (30 years) was developed to estimate costs (€, 2016) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with IR and R. Initial cohort included patients with CLL receiving a second or subsequent line (2L) of treatment with IR or R. Survival data were based on CLL clinical trial. Drug, administration, monitoring, adverse events and clinical management of CLL costs were included in the model. Costs and outcomes were discounted using a 3% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: Compared to R, 2L IR treatment resulted in QALY gain of 3.147 (4.965 versus 1.818). Total costs were €118 254 for IR versus €23 874 for R. ICUR was €29 990/QALY gained with IR versus R. In the PSA, IR was cost-effective in 78% of iterations using a threshold of €45 000/QALY. CONCLUSION: IR can be considered a cost-effective treatment compared to R, in the treatment of R/R CLL patients for the Spanish NHS.

Venetoclax for Treating Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Venetoclax is licensed to treat relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) ID944, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited AbbVie, the manufacturer, to submit evidence on the use of venetoclax, within its licensed indication. The Evidence Review Group (ERG), Warwick Evidence, was asked to provide an independent and critical review of the submitted evidence. Evidence came from three single-arm trials in CLL patients with or without 17p deletion [del(17p])/TP53 chromosomal abnormalities. The anticipated licensed indication specified that venetoclax-eligible del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to, or be deemed unsuitable for, B-cell receptor inhibitor (BCRi) therapy, and that non-del(17p)/TP53 patients should have not responded to both chemoimmunotherapy and BCRi therapy. The three trials were heterogeneous in terms of both del(17p)/TP53 status and previous exposure to BCRi therapy. The M13-982 study investigated 158 R/R CLL patients with the 17p deletion, but only a small number had received previous BCRi therapy; the M12-175 study investigated 67 patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, some with the 17p deletion, but very few previously treated with BCRi therapy; and the M14-032 study included 105 patients previously treated with BCRi therapy (either idelalisib or ibrutinib), some of whom had unknown mutation status. The ERG concluded that the study populations did not directly conform to those specified in the licensed indication or in the NICE scope. Outcomes reported included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); adverse events were reported for the pooled population of all three studies, as well as separately for each study. The median PFS was 41.4 and 27.2 months among patients in the M12-175 and M13-982 trials, respectively, whereas the median PFS was not reached in the M14-032 trial. Some results were designated academic in confidence and cannot be reported here. The submission provided a de novo partitioned survival cost-effectiveness model with three health states: pre-progression, post-progression and dead. Transition probabilities between health states were estimated using Weibull models for PFS and OS. The ERG judged the model structure to be appropriate. Venetoclax was compared with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with or without del(17p)/TP53 mutation status, and with palliative care (PC). To populate the del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax arm, the submission pooled del(17p)/TP53 patients from all three studies and fitted Weibull models for PFS and OS. PFS and OS models for non-del(17p)/TP53 venetoclax patients were obtained by applying hazard ratios (HRs) to the del(17p)/TP53 OS and PFS models, derived using Cox's regression analysis comparing del(17p)/TP53 and non-del(17p)/TP53 patients pooled from the M14-032 and M12-175 studies. The ERG expressed reservations about the company's pooling procedure, but acknowledged its expedience given the small evidence base. For the BSC comparator arm, the submission used the rituximab + placebo arm from a randomised controlled trial comparing idelalisib + rituximab versus placebo + rituximab ('study 116'). Weibull regression data for OS and PFS were taken from the idelalisib STA (ID764) submitted by Gilead to NICE. The ERG considered the use of the study 116 rituximab arm to be inconsistent with the licensed indication for venetoclax because these patients had neither not responded to nor were inappropriate for BCRi therapy, being eligible to be randomised to idelalisib. Another difficulty was the requirement for a technical correction in survival analysis because of considerable switching from rituximab to idelalisib. The ERG considered that post-progression survival of patients from the idelalisib arm of study 116 provided a more appropriate representation of BSC since these patients had not responded to BCRi therapy, consistent with venetoclax's licensed indication. For PC, the company submission used data from the UK CLL Forum. The company's base-case analysis indicated that venetoclax was clinically effective, but the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for del(17p)/TP53 (£39,940/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) and non-del(17p)/TP53 (£47,370/QALY gained) patients were well above the NICE threshold of £20,000-30,000/QALY. The ERG identified two errors in the implementation of the company's parametric models-one related to the implementation of HRs, and the other to the derivation of the Weibull shape parameters obtained from the Gilead idelalisib submission. The ERG made plausible adjustments to the company's base-case and corrected errors, resulting in a reduced estimate of the cost effectiveness of venetoclax in non-del(17p)/TP53 and del(17p)/TP53 indications; in the ERG's preferred base case, using post-progression survival of patients in the idelalisib arm of study 116 as the BSC comparator, deterministic ICERs were higher than the company's base-case for both indications: £57,476/QALY gained for del(17p)/TP53 and £77,779/QALY gained for non-del(17p)/TP53. The NICE Appraisal Committee's preliminary recommendation was that venetoclax used within its licensed indication should not be recommended for use in the National Health Service (NHS). In response to the preliminary recommendation, the company submitted new analyses; however, at a subsequent appraisal committee meeting, the original recommendation was upheld and the committee concluded there were large uncertainties around the clinical effectiveness of venetoclax and BSC, and that under the committee's preferred assumptions, the ICERs were higher than those generally considered cost effective, even when end-of-life criteria were taken into account. The company submitted further evidence, and the final guidance recommended venetoclax for use with the Cancer Drugs Fund for the two populations in this technology appraisal.