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.

Pathological assessment of gastrointestinal biopsies from patients with idelalisib-associated diarrhea and colitis.

AIM: Idelalisib (IDELA) treatment is associated with diarrhea/colitis (incidence of ∼15% grade ≥3). We performed a retrospective analysis of gastrointestinal biopsies from 29 patients treated with IDELA across nine clinical trials. METHODS: A central core laboratory performed histopathologic review, immunohistochemistry, and droplet digital PCR viral studies. These results were correlated with tissue immune profiling data and morphologic features per modified Geboes score. RESULTS: Out of 29 eligible patients with abdominal pain or diarrhea, 24 (82.8%) had reported adverse event terms of diarrhea and/or colitis. Infectious pathogens were detected in 9/29 samples. Most biopsies presented with mixed/inflammatory infiltrates and contained increased numbers of FOXP3+ cells versus normal controls. CONCLUSION: This study revealed evidence of T-cell dysregulation and a substantial infectious component in association with IDELA-related diarrhea/colitis.

Improving Care With a Portfolio of Physician-Led Cancer Quality Measures at an Academic Center.

PURPOSE: Development and implementation of robust reporting processes to systematically provide quality data to care teams in a timely manner is challenging. National cancer quality measures are useful, but the manual data collection required is resource intensive, and reporting is delayed. We designed a largely automated measurement system with our multidisciplinary cancer care programs (CCPs) to identify, measure, and improve quality metrics that were meaningful to the care teams and their patients. METHODS: Each CCP physician leader collaborated with the cancer quality team to identify metrics, abiding by established guiding principles. Financial incentive was provided to the CCPs if performance at the end of the study period met predetermined targets. Reports were developed and provided to the CCP physician leaders on a monthly or quarterly basis, for dissemination to their CCP teams. RESULTS: A total of 15 distinct quality measures were collected in depth for the first time at this cancer center. Metrics spanned the patient care continuum, from diagnosis through end of life or survivorship care. All metrics improved over the study period, met their targets, and earned a financial incentive for their CCP. CONCLUSION: Our quality program had three essential elements that led to its success: (1) engaging physicians in choosing the quality measures and prespecifying goals, (2) using automated extraction methods for rapid and timely feedback on improvement and progress toward achieving goals, and (3) offering a financial team-based incentive if prespecified goals were met.