Maximizing the Value of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Management Using Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in the USA: Potential Determinants and Consequences of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs, with Proposed Optimization Approaches.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The introduction and widespread use of effective and well-tolerated tyrosine kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukemia have been associated with marked increments in life expectancy and disease prevalence. These changes have been accompanied by elevations in costs of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which typically must be taken ad vitam after diagnosis and tend to be more expensive than medical therapies for many other hematologic malignancies. The aims of this review included evaluating the potential associations and consequences of healthcare resource utilization and costs of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and possible clinical management approaches to mitigate them. METHODS: A PubMed search of English-language US study reports was conducted that covered the interval of 2001 (US approval of imatinib) through 17 April, 2023 augmented by manual reviews of published bibliographies from the referenced articles and searches of other databases: Google Scholar and Scopus. RESULTS: On the basis of this analysis of chiefly real-world evidence (administrative claims database studies), healthcare resource utilization and costs can be considered indicators of ineffective chronic myeloid leukemia management, including potentially mutation-driven treatment resistance and costly tyrosine kinase inhibitor switches, non-adherence, and suboptimal tolerability, which may culminate in the progression of disease from the chronic to an accelerated or blast phase, with additional excess costs. Costs of tyrosine kinase inhibitors are also associated with reduced treatment adherence. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000-$200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, tyrosine kinase inhibitors can be considered cost effective from a US payer perspective. Potential clinical approaches to mitigate costs include regular molecular monitoring with proactive assessments of BCR::ABL1 gene mutations to avoid costly treatment switches, as well as interventions to enhance treatment adherence and tyrosine kinase inhibitor tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare resource utilization and costs of chronic myeloid leukemia care may be considered barometers of ineffective management, including mutation-driven tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance and switching as well as non-adherence and intolerance. Future prospective research is warranted to help determine whether costs can be reduced and other treatment outcomes optimized via more proactive and effective diagnostic interventions (i.e., regular molecular monitoring and proactive mutational testing) and treatment approaches. The strengths and limitations of this review include its emphasis on observational research, which, on one hand, offers a naturalistic "real-world" perspective on current chronic myeloid leukemia management, but, on the other hand, is associational in nature and cannot be used to determine causality and/or its direction.

Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Third-line treatment options for patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia include tyrosine kinase inhibitors and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The objective of this study was to develop a Markov model with a lifetime time horizon to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for third-line chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib) or alloHSCT from the public healthcare system perspective in Germany, Sweden, and Canada. METHODS: Clinical outcomes were derived from the literature, and from patient-level data (phase II PACE trial) for ponatinib. Resource use included drugs, alloHSCT, monitoring and follow-up, adverse events, and end-of-life care; costs were based on national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using chronic myeloid leukemia health-state utilities from an international time-trade-off study. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum for Germany and Sweden, and 5% for Canada. RESULTS: Ponatinib yielded more discounted QALYs than any second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor/alloHSCT in all three countries, mainly owing to better response rates and longer durations of response. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors were US$21,543-37,755/QALY in Germany, $24,018-38,227/QALY in Sweden, and $43,001-58,515/QALY in Canada. Ponatinib was dominant over alloHSCT in Germany, while incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ponatinib vs. alloHSCT in Sweden and Canada were $715/QALY and $31,534/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ponatinib may improve outcomes (mainly because of higher response rates and longer response durations) at an acceptable cost level compared with other third-line treatment options for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia in Germany, Sweden, and Canada; however, the lack of an indirect comparison is a limitation of our study.

Mobilization of Leukemic Cells Using Plerixafor as Part of a Myeloablative Preparative Regimen for Patients with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia Undergoing Allografting: Assessment of Safety and Tolerability.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is potentially curative for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML); however, a major cause of treatment failure is disease relapse. The purpose of this single-center Phase I study was to determine the safety and tolerability of administration of the CXCR4 inhibitor plerixafor (Mozobil; Sanofi Genzyme) along with myeloablative conditioning in patients with AML undergoing allogeneic HCT. The rationale was that plerixafor may mobilize leukemic stem cells, making them more susceptible to the conditioning chemotherapy (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier NCT01141543). Three patients were enrolled into each of 4 sequential cohorts (12 patients total). Patients in the first cohort received 1 dose of plerixafor (240 µg/kg s.c.) before the first dose of fludarabine and busulfan, and subsequent cohorts received injections before 2, 3, and 4 days of conditioning chemotherapy. The median age at HCT was 49 years (range, 38 to 58 years). All patients engrafted following HCT, with an absolute neutrophil count ≥.5 × 109/L observed at a median of 14 days (range, 11 to 18 days). Adverse events possibly related to plerixafor were transient and not severe. Main adverse events following the injection were nausea and dizziness in 4 patients (33%) and fatigue in 4 patients (33%). Among the 12 patients, 2 patients (17%) relapsed post-HCT and 6 (50%) were alive at the last follow-up. The median follow-up of survivors was 67 months (range, 53 to 82 months). In conclusion, plerixafor administration is safe and well tolerated when included in a myeloablative conditioning regimen for allogeneic HCT for AML. Further study in a larger cohort is warranted for the investigation of the impact of plerixafor on post-allogeneic HCT outcomes.

Incidence and management of myelosuppression in patients with chronic- and accelerated-phase chronic myeloid leukemia treated with omacetaxine mepesuccinate.

Omacetaxine mepesuccinate (Synribo) is an inhibitor of protein synthesis indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic- or accelerated-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) with resistance and/or intolerance to two or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Myelosuppression is the most common and clinically significant toxicity experienced by patients treated with omacetaxine. Here, we further examine the patterns of hematologic toxicity observed in clinical trials and describe the approach to management as well as resolution of events. Omacetaxine-related myelosuppression typically occurs more frequently during induction cycles. In general, the myelosuppression observed with omacetaxine treatment is manageable and reversible, and long-term administration is feasible. Careful monitoring, dose delays and reduction in administration days, and appropriate supportive care are critical for successful management of hematologic toxicity. Concerns regarding myelosuppression, observed with many cancer treatments, should not prevent eligible patients from receiving omacetaxine, particularly CML patients with unsatisfactory responses to multiple lines of prior treatment.