Real-World Health Care Resource Use and Costs Among Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treated With Venetoclax-Based and Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Based Regimens in the Second-Line Setting.

PURPOSE: Real-world evidence comparing health care resource use (HRU) and costs between novel targeted therapies among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is lacking. We compared all-cause and CLL-specific HRU and costs between patients initiated on B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (venetoclax)- or Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)-based regimens in the second-line (2L) setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study using Optum Clinformatics Data Mart of adult patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma who received 2L venetoclax- or BTKi-based regimens (January 2018-December 2021) for the first time and had ≥one CLL diagnostic claim after 2L initiation and ≥two claims for venetoclax or BTKi. Baseline characteristics were balanced using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Mean monthly cost difference (MMCD) between cohorts for all-cause and CLL-specific per patient per month (PPPM) costs was estimated. Rates of PPPM-HRU were compared between cohorts using rate ratios (RRs). RESULTS: Of 280 patients, median age 75.5 years, 64.6% and 35.4% received BTKi- versus venetoclax-based regimens, respectively. Most BTKi-treated patients received monotherapy (88.4%), whereas 62.3% of venetoclax-treated patients received combination therapy with anti-CD20 agents. The median duration of 2L therapy was 11.6 and 11.0 months for BTKi versus venetoclax cohorts, respectively. All-cause total costs were lower for venetoclax versus BTKi (MMCD [SE], $-2,497.64 [$1,006.77] in US dollars (USD); P = .01), driven by lower medication costs offsetting medical costs; trends were similar for CLL-specific estimates. Outpatient HRU was higher for venetoclax versus BTKi (RR all-cause: 1.22 v CLL-specific: 1.64). CONCLUSION: Venetoclax was associated with total monthly cost savings versus BTKis, illustrating the economic value of time-limited venetoclax-based regimens in the 2L setting.

Real-world adherence and discontinuation among Medicare beneficiaries initiating venetoclax vs. BTKis in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The treatment landscape for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been transformed by the availability of Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) and the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor venetoclax. Despite clinical trial data supporting these novel oral agents, evidence evaluating real-world adherence is limited. This study used 2015-2019 Medicare claims data for elderly patients with relapsed/refractory CLL to assess differences in real-world adherence and discontinuation in the 12 months after treatment initiation. In the final sample of 711 venetoclax patients and 1,566 BTKi patients, we found that those initiating venetoclax tended to be younger (mean age 75.6 [SD 6.0] vs 77.6 [SD 6.9] years, p < .001) but had poorer clinical characteristics. After risk-adjustment, the venetoclax group had higher adherence (61.9% vs. 45.4%, p < .0001) and lower discontinuation when compared to the BTKi group (28.5% vs. 47.4%, p < .001). These favorable real-world findings underscore the importance of developing well-tolerated novel combinations for older adults.

A Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Venetoclax and Obinutuzumab as a First-Line Therapy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Venetoclax is a first-in-class targeted therapy option that is an inducer of apoptosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells. The open-label phase III CLL14 clinical trial showed that venetoclax combined with obinutuzumab (VEN+O) is superior to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil in newly diagnosed patients with CLL. The aim of this study was to assess the health economic value of VEN+O for the frontline treatment of CLL in Canada from a publicly funded healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival analyses model was developed including three health states: progression free, progressed, and death. A cycle length of 28 days and a time horizon of 10 years was assumed. VEN+O treatment for a fixed duration of 12 months was compared to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide plus rituximab, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, ibrutinib, and acalabrutinib. The population in the model included both unfit and overall frontline CLL patients, two subgroups were also assessed (patients with del17p/TP53 mutations and patients without del17p/TP53 mutations). Survival data extrapolated from the CLL14 trial were used to populate the model. Uncertainty was assessed via one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic analyses, and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Based on the probabilistic analyses, unfit frontline CLL patients receiving VEN+O were estimated to incur costs of Canadian dollars ($) 217,727 [confidence interval (CI) $170,725, $300,761] (del17p/TP53: $209,102 [CI $159,698, $386,190], non-del17p/TP53: $217,732 [CI $171,232, $299,063]) and accrue 4.96 [CI 4.04, 5.82] quality-adjusted life-years (del17p/TP53: 3.11 [CI 2.00, 4.20], non-del17p/TP53: 5.04 [CI 4.05, 5.92]). Obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, and ibrutinib accrued lower quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs and as such, VEN+O was the dominant treatment option. The full incremental analysis showed that acalabrutinib was more expensive and more efficacious compared with VEN+O with an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of $2,139,180/quality-adjusted life-year versus VEN+O and not a cost-effective option in Canada. Probabilistic analyses show that at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained, VEN+O has the greatest probability of being cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: VEN+O is a cost-effective treatment option for unfit frontline CLL patients and provides value for money to healthcare payers.

Cost-effectiveness of a 12-month fixed-duration venetoclax treatment in combination with obinutuzumab in first-line, unfit chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Treatments include chemoimmunotherapy, such as obinutuzumab (G) plus chlorambucil (Clb) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR), and chemotherapy-free regimens incorporating oral targeted therapies such as ibrutinib (Ibr), acalabrutinib (Acala), or venetoclax (Ven). Most chemotherapy-free regimens require continuous treatment to progression, while Ven plus G (VenG) is given for a fixed duration of 12 months, based on the CLL14 trial that led to its approval. Fixed-duration VenG has the potential for cost savings compared with treat-to-progression chemotherapy-free regimens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 months fixed-duration VenG in first-line treatment of unfit patients with CLL from a US health care payer perspective compared with GClb, BR, Ibr, Ibr + G, Ibr + R, Acala, and Acala + G. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed with 3 health states: progression-free survival (PFS), postprogression survival, and dead. The patient population, as based on the CLL14 trial, comprised previously untreated unfit patients with CLL (mean age 71.1 years, 33.1% female). The distribution of patients in each health state over time was estimated using extrapolated PFS and overall survival (OS) curves for VenG and GClb, based on CLL14 data 2 or more years after treatment cessation. PFS and OS for the other comparators were estimated using hazard ratios vs VenG, based on a network metaanalysis. Adverse events, utility values, and costs were obtained from published literature. The model estimated life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs. The time horizon was 20 years, with a cycle time of 28 days. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.0% per year, and costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In this cross-trial analysis of unfit CLL patients, in the base case, VenG had lower projected total costs than all comparators investigated. VenG also had larger projected health benefits (more QALYs gained) than GClb, BR, Ibr, and Ibr + R. VenG was therefore more effective and less costly than these comparators (dominant). Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G showed higher QALYs gained vs VenG (0.022, 0.672, and 0.961, respectively), and substantially higher projected costs vs VenG ($1,488,400, $1,579,737, and $1,656,154, respectively). Thus, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G would cost more than $1,000,000 per QALY gained vs VenG. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G were not cost-effective compared with VenG. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-duration VenG for 12 months is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for unfit CLL patients compared with other available options and provides value for money to US health care payers at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Future studies with longer trial follow-up and more mature survival data may help to confirm longer-term cost benefits of VenG. DISCLOSURES: Genentech Inc. and AbbVie provided financial support for this study. Genentech Inc., AbbVie, and Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company participated in the design, study conduct, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as the writing, review, and approval of the manuscript. Venetoclax is being developed in a collaboration between Genentech Inc. and AbbVie. Ravelo and Shapouri are employed by Genentech Inc. and have ownership interests. Manzoor and Sail are employed by AbbVie and have ownership interests. Chatterjee, van de Wetering, and Qendri, employees of Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company, received consultancy fees from AbbVie. Davids has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Verastem; research funding from Ascentage Pharma, Genentech Inc., MEI Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Surface Oncology, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem; and has served on board of directors or advisory committees for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem. This study was presented as a poster at ASH 61st Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Budget Impact of 12-Month Fixed Treatment Duration Venetoclax in Combination with Obinutuzumab in Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the total cost of care (TCC) and budget impact of introducing 12-month fixed duration venetoclax + obinutuzumab (VEN+G) as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) from the perspective of a US health plan with 1,000,000 (1M) members. METHODS: The 3-year model included the following comparators: fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab (FCR), bendamustine + rituximab (BR), obinutuzumab + chlorambucil (GClb), ibrutinib (Ibr), and Ibr+Rituximab/obinutuzumab [Ibr+R/Ibr+G]). TCC included US-specific costs associated with treatment (i.e., drug, administration, and wastage), adverse events, routine care, and monitoring. Dosing and safety data were drawn from clinical trials and US package inserts. Budget impact outcomes were presented on an absolute and per-member per-month (PMPM) basis. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in influential parameters, including scenarios testing the duration of treat-to-progression agents. RESULTS: Over the 3-year time horizon, introducing VEN+G in a 1M-member health plan resulted in total cost savings of $1,550,663 (PMPM - $0.04), compared to a scenario without VEN+G. The fixed 12-month duration of VEN+G contributed to this cost saving by reducing cumulative treatment costs compared with Ibr-based regimens. By year 3, the cumulative difference in TCC of VEN+G compared with Ibr, Ibr+G, and Ibr+R amounted to - $300,942, - $367,001, and - $369,784, respectively. Extensive sensitivity analyses supported the base case findings. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing VEN+G among first-line CLL treatments to a US health plan resulted in cost savings compared to a plan with chemoimmunotherapies and Ibr-based therapies only. Economic benefits of VEN+G, a novel agent with fixed treatment duration, coupled with proven clinical benefits should help inform formulary adoption decisions and treatment recommendations.

Comparative effectiveness of patient-centered strategies to improve FDA medication guides.

BACKGROUND: Med Guides are the only Food and Drug Administration-regulated source of written patient information distributed with prescriptions drugs. Despite their potential value, studies have found them to have limited utility. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of patient-centered strategies for the design of Med Guides to improve comprehension. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, randomized trial. SETTING: Two primary care clinics in Chicago, Illinois; one based in a public university hospital and the other within a private academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 1003 adults aged 18-85 years. INTERVENTION: The format and layout of content from 3 typical Med Guides (by reading difficulty, length, exposure) were modified several ways to promote information accessibility. Working with patients, the 3 most preferred versions were evaluated. The first used 2 columns to organize content (Column), a second mimicked over-the-counter "Drug Facts" labeling (Drug Facts), and the third followed health literacy best practices using a simple table format (Health Literacy prototype). MEASURES: Tailored comprehension assessment of content from 3 representative Med Guides. RESULTS: Comprehension was significantly greater for all 3 prototypes compared with the current standard (all P<0.001). The Health Literacy prototype consistently demonstrated the highest comprehension scores, and in multivariable analyses, outperformed both the Drug Facts [ß=-4.43, 95% confidence interval (CI), -6.21 to -2.66] and Column (ß=-4.04, 95% CI, -5.82 to -2.26) prototypes. Both older age (older than 60 y: ß=-10.54, 95% CI, -15.12 to -5.96), low and marginal literacy skills were independently associated with poorer comprehension (low: ß=-31.92, 95% CI, -35.72 to -28.12; marginal: ß=-12.91, 95% CI, -16.01 to -9.82). CONCLUSIONS: The application of evidence-based practices to the redesign of Med Guides significantly improved patient comprehension. Although some age and literacy disparities were reduced with the Health Literacy format in particular, both older age and low literacy remained independently associated with poorer comprehension. More aggressive strategies will likely be needed to gain assurances that all patients are informed about their prescribed medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.Gov #NCT01731405.