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.

Outcomes of previously untreated elderly patients with AML: a propensity score-matched comparison of clofarabine vs. FLAG.

The 5-year overall survival (OS) in patients ≥ 60 years old with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains < 10%. Clofarabine-based induction (CLO) provides an alternative to low-intensity therapy (LIT) and palliative care for this population, but supporting data are conflicted. Recently, our institution adopted the FLAG regimen (fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) based on data reporting similar outcomes to CLO in elderly patients with AML unable to tolerate anthracycline-based induction. We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of patients ≥ 60 years old with AML treated with FLAG or CLO over the past 10 years. We performed a propensity score match that provided 32 patients in each group. Patients treated with FLAG had a higher CR/CRi rate (65.6 vs. 37.5%, P = 0.045) and OS (7.9 vs. 2.8 months, P = 0.085) compared to CLO. Furthermore, FLAG was better tolerated with significantly less grade 3/4 toxicities and a shorter duration of neutropenia (18.5 vs. 30 days, P = 0.002). Finally, we performed a cost analysis that estimated savings to be $30,000-45,000 per induction with FLAG. Our study supports the use of FLAG both financially and as an effective, well-tolerated high-dose treatment regimen for elderly patients with AML. No cases of cerebellar neurotoxicity occurred.

[Economic evaluation of rituximab added to fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide versus fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia]. / Evaluación económica de rituximab en combinación con fludarabina y ciclofosfamida en comparación con fludarabina y ciclofosfamida en el tratamiento de la leucemia linfática crónica.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rituximab added to the chemotherapy regimen of fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (R-FC) versus fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide (FC) for the treatment of patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS: Two Markov models were built, using published results on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving first- or second-line therapy with R-FC vs FC, rates of disease progression and mortality rates in Spain. Patient-elicited utilities were applied to PFS and progressed health states. The cost of drugs, supportive care, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were estimated over a 10-year period. Univariate and probabilistic (Monte Carlo) sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The addition of rituximab to chemotherapy in first- and second-line therapy increased life-years gained (LYG) and QALYs compared with chemotherapy. The incremental cost per LYG and QALY gained was €20,703 and €19,343 for first-line treatment and was €23,183 and €24,781 for second-line treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL, the addition of rituximab to the FC regimen increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy. In both types of patient, the treatment was cost-effective.

Ofatumumab for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in patients who are refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab: a critique of the submission from GSK.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ofatumumab for the treatment of refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), based upon the manufacturer's submission (MS) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence included one study: a non-randomised, single-arm study. Two other studies were identified but both were non-comparative and provided evidence for therapies other than ofatumumab. For this reason these studies were not discussed in full in the main body of the submission. In the Hx-CD20-406 study, the overall response rate was 58% (99% confidence interval 40% to 74%, p < 0.001). Complete resolution of constitutional symptoms and improved performance status occurred in 57% of patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were 5.7 and 13.7 months, respectively. The most common adverse events during treatment were infusion reactions and infections, which were primarily grade 1 or 2 events. The MS concluded that ofatumumab provides a new, effective and well-tolerated therapy for patients with CLL who are refractory to both fludarabine and alemtuzumab [double refractory (DR)]. The ERG undertook a critical appraisal of the submission. The ERG had a number of concerns regarding the manufacturer's estimates of effectiveness based on evidence from a single-arm, non-randomised study. An 'area-under-the-curve' or 'partitioned-survival' model was used to project expected clinical and economic outcomes for patients with DR CLL who were assumed to receive ofatumumab or best supportive care (BSC). The model had a three-state structure: 'alive pre-progression', 'alive post progression' and 'dead'. Overall, the modelling approach is reasonable given the limited evidence available for the drug in the patient population under review. However, a number of uncertainties were identified in the economic evaluation; for example, the BSC arm used data from patients in the Hx-CD20-406 study who did not respond to ofatumumab treatment - 'non-responders' - and the ofatumumab arm used data from all of those treated in the Hx-CD20-406 study. Further uncertainty arose regarding the choice of utilities, the omission of 17p and 11q chromosomal deletions as factors in the Cox proportional hazards models for PFS and OS, and the omission of the costs of drugs in progressive disease. It was felt that these factors biased cost-effectiveness in favour of ofatumumab. When revisions were made to the assumptions in the model based on the ERG's review of the published and submitted evidence, the revised base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ofatumumab increased to £ 81,500 per quality-adjusted life-year. The final appraisal determination was issued by NICE in September 2010 (www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12264/50758/50758.pdf).

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: an evidence review of the submission from Roche.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rituximab for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The manufacturer's searches for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data were appropriate and included all relevant studies. The submission's evidence came from a single, unpublished, well-conducted randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing rituximab in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) alone for the first-line treatment of CLL. There was a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) with R-FC compared with FC alone {median 39.8 months vs 32.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.72]}. However, the initial significant treatment benefit for R-FC compared with FC for overall survival was not maintained at a slightly longer follow-up time [median 25.4 months; adjusted HR 0.72 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.09)]. Response rates, numbers of patients with event-free survival and duration of response all favoured treatment with R-FC. Additional evidence from a mixed-treatment comparison model indicated R-FC to be significantly superior to chlorambucil alone for both PFS and overall and complete response rates. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher in the R-FC arm (77%) than in the FC arm (62%). Dose modifications were also more frequent in this arm, but this did not lead to differences in treatment discontinuation. Roche used a three-state Markov model (PFS, progressed and death) to model the cost-effectiveness of R-FC compared with FC and chlorambucil alone. The model used a cycle length of 1 month and a lifetime time horizon. The approach taken to modelling was reasonable and the sources and justification of estimates were generally sound. The base-case analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 13,189 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for R-FC versus FC, and 6422 pounds per QALY for the comparison of R-FC versus chlorambucil, suggesting that R-FC is cost-effective at normal willingness-to-pay thresholds. One-way sensitivity analyses produced a range of ICERs from 10,249 pounds to 22,661 pounds per QALY for R-FC versus FC, and 5612 pounds and 6921 pounds per QALY for R-FC versus chlorambucil. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results matched the deterministic results very closely. However, the sensitivity analysis did not fully investigate the uncertainty associated with differential values across arms or with the structural assumptions of the model, and utility values were not drawn from an empirical study. The NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that: Rituximab in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) is recommended as an option for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in people for whom fludarabine in combination with cyclophosphamide (FC) is considered appropriate. Rituximab in combination with chemotherapy agents other than fludarabine and cyclophosphamide is not recommended for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Fludarabine phosphate for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of fludarabine phosphate or fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia,based upon the evidence submission from Schering Health Care (SHC) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process.The submission was of good quality with no major errors or omissions in the clinical evidence.Two published studies and seven abstracts were included in the company submission, which showed improvements in overall response and progression-free survival (PFS) and a higher complete response rate in the fludarabine containing arms; however, until the complete data are made available for evaluation these results must be interpreted with caution. The manufacturer's decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with fludarabine monotherapy, fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide and chlorambucil was considered to be the most relevant source for informing this STA;it was appropriate for the decision problem and the data sources used to inform the model were appropriate from a UK NHS perspective.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide compared with chlorambucil from the revised model presented in the manufacturer's addendum was pounds 3244 per additional quality-adjusted life-year.The results were robust to a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Additional sensitivity and survival analyses were carried by the ERG to investigate possible bias in the results. This brought into question the validity of the assumptions underpinning the extrapolation of data over a lifetime time horizon and showed that the ICER estimates submitted by the manufacturer were notcalculated correctly and uncertainty surrounding the decision problems was not expressed fully.Based on these analyses the ERG suggests that further evidence is needed to enable an accurate assessment to be made of the clinical and cost effectiveness of fludarabine as first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. The guidance issued by NICE in December 2006 as a result of the STA states that fludarabine monotherapy,within its licensed indication, is not recommended for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; no recommendations have been made with respect to fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide combination therapy because the current marketing authorisation does not specifically provide a recommendation that fludarabine should be used concurrently with other drugs for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Sensitivity analysis of cost factors for various therapy options in the treatment of follicular lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, patients with relapsed follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma do not all receive the same treatment. In this study, 3 therapy regimens were analyzed which were considered to be similar. With the goal of determining the treatment option with the lowest direct costs whilst maintaining the same degree of effectiveness, a cost analysis model was established and applied by way of example to the existing illness constellation. METHODS: The German doctors' fee scale (Einheitlicher Bewertungsmassstab, EBM) valid until 2005 served as the basis for the calculation of medical services within the scope of the present statutory health insurance guidelines. A virtual standard patient was constructed for the cost model and treated with the different therapy regimens. The incidences of individual adverse events described in literature served as the basis for the characterization of the average toxicity of the respective treatment methods. RESULT: The overall costs result from the sum of the treatment costs and the toxicity-related costs. The effect of additional interventions on the overall cost was also examined. CONCLUSION: Whereas the accompanying documentation of costs in clinical studies is organizationally complex and very tedious, the model applied here offers a reliable method of quantifying the costs of the different therapy regimens. It permits the comparison of different treatment alternatives, and it enables, by means of a cost variance analysis, the identification of cost drivers and less expensive measures within a therapy method.

Costs of chemotherapy for indolent follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the UK: an observational study.

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) is the sixth most common cancer in the United Kingdom (UK). This analysis assessed the health service costs of patients receiving chemotherapy for indolent follicular NHL based on a retrospective analysis of patient records in the UK. Each patient was followed up for a period of 3 years or until death. The analysis included 181 patients, who received a total of 187 treatment periods. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. The study found the cost of providing treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) or fludarabine to patients with indolent follicular NHL to be lower than previously reported.

Economic assessment on the management of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

In the last decade, several new promising treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) have been developed. Healthcare costs are increasing and new treatments tend to be very expensive; therefore, information about the cost effectiveness in treatments for CLL is urgently needed. The authors performed a literature review on the currently available economic evaluations on CLL treatments. A total of 65 articles were found, of which 11 could be included. These articles were evaluated on the basis of six methodological requirements for economic evaluations, enabling readers to judge the value of the studies. Only a small amount of information was available on the costs of CLL treatments. Future economic evaluations should be performed according to the methodological requirements for these studies, which should also be properly documented.

Oral fludarabine therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia--increased convenience.

Intravenous fludarabine is a well-established therapy for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and the standard of care for second-line treatment. More recently, an oral formulation of fludarabine has been developed, with equivalent efficacy and tolerability to the intravenous formulation, but with improved convenience of administration and potentially greater cost effectiveness. In previously treated patients receiving oral fludarabine monotherapy, overall response rates of 46-51% were achieved, depending on the response criteria used. Oral fludarabine is also an effective first-line treatment, both as monotherapy (overall response 72-80%) and in combination with cyclophosphamide (overall response 80%). Infusion-related adverse effects are eliminated with oral administration. Importantly, WHO performance status is maintained or improved in more than 50% of patients. As oral fludarabine can be taken at home, administration costs are greatly reduced due to fewer physician and nursing interventions and less time spent in hospital. Oral fludarabine was approved first in the UK as second-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and, based on its ease of administration and potentially greater cost effectiveness, is recommended in preference to the intravenous formulation by the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The oral formulation is also now available in the majority of European countries. Therefore, with equivalent efficacy and tolerability to the intravenous preparation, oral fludarabine gives the hematologist an important new option in the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Costs of drug delivery for CHOP, COP/CVP, and fludarabine: an international assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this analysis was to assess the real-life direct costs of drug delivery for frequently used chemotherapeutic regimens in patients with relapsed low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of direct costs of drug delivery (acquisition plus administration) of relapsed low-grade NHL in 424 patients in Canada, Germany, and Italy. Results were expressed as an average treatment cost per patient for six cycles of chemotherapy. Exchange rates used were $1 (Canada)= currency 0.672, 1 DM (Germany)= currency 0.511, and 1 Lit (Italy)= currency 0.000517. RESULTS: Direct costs of drug delivery were greater for inpatients receiving fludarabine (Canada currency 12,669; Italy currency 13,027) than for CHOP (Canada currency 7856; Germany currency 7218; Italy currency 4251) or COP/CVP (Canada currency 7360; Germany currency 8449). Treatment administration setting was a major cost driver with inpatient treatment up to 9-fold more expensive than the same regimen given to outpatients. Drug administration costs comprised the largest proportion of the total for each regimen in the inpatient setting (69-98%). Costs of drug delivery in the outpatient setting were 10% to 65% of those in the inpatient setting. Again, fludarabine was more expensive (Italy currency 8493; Canada currency 7269) than CHOP (Canada currency 4403; Germany currency 2150; Italy currency 1264) and COP/CVP (Canada currency 3009; Germany currency 867). Administration costs were 2.5- to 15-fold higher for inpatients compared to outpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of drug administration are a major driver for total direct treatment costs in the treatment of relapsed low-grade NHL and are at least as important as drug acquisition costs. Drug administration practices, in terms of inpatient or outpatient treatment, are a major factor in determining overall direct costs. Therapeutic strategies, which offer shortened treatment duration and/or a simple mode of administration, are likely to be economically attractive.

Cost of de novo acute myeloid leukemia induction therapy in adults: analysis of EORTC-GIMEMA AML10 and FLANG regimens.

Since the social and financial impact of AML therapy is becoming more and more relevant we analyzed the cost of induction therapy of two different regimens. The first one is part of the widely employed EORTC-GIMEMA AML-10 and consists often days of therapy. The second (FLANG) is a short (three day), Fludarabine, Ara-C, mitoxantrone and G-CSF containing regimen. We first retrospectively analyzed the outcome of 77 consecutive AML patients with comparable clinical and haematological features receiving FLANG (25) or AML-10 (52), between June 1993 and October 1999, and observed equivalent CR rate, as well as DFS and overall survival duration. We then selected 9 non pretreated patients per group who reached CR after one course of therapy. Patients treated with FLANG had a statistically significant earlier platelet recovery compared to those treated with AML-10, fewer days of intravenous antibiotic therapy (14/22, respectively, p < 0.05), and a shorter hospitalization period (22/33 days, p < 0.01). FLANG was significantly more expensive than AML 10 as far as the cost of antiblastic drugs (p < 0.01) and G-CSF support (p < 0.05) are concerned. On the contrary, the expense for antiemetic drugs (p < 0.01) and the cost of personnel and other services ($5,906/$3,970, p < 0.05) were higher for AML-10 than for FLANG. Overall, the average costs of FLANG and AML10 were $9,269 and $12,424 respectively (p < 0.05; difference = -25%). Our study seems to indicate that, compared to AML-10, FLANG induction is as effective, less expensive and it allows for a decrease in the length of hospitalization and thus for better exploitation of the financial resources of Hematology-Oncology departments.

Cost-minimization analysis of CHOP, fludarabine and rituximab for the treatment of relapsed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the U.K.

The optimal therapy for patients with relapsed indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is unclear. Combination chemotherapy such as CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) or purine analogues including fludarabine are frequently used and the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab has recently been licensed for use. However, no comparative studies of these therapies have been reported. Since relapsed indolent B-cell NHL is generally regarded as incurable with current therapies, the place of each of these therapies is likely to be determined by their relative efficacy, toxicity and cost. We undertook a literature review and a retrospective analysis of patients receiving combination chemotherapy for relapsed indolent B-cell NHL at our institution to determine the response rates and the duration of response when treated with CHOP or fludarabine. Reported response rates and median response duration for these regimens are similar, and similar to those reported in phase II studies of rituximab. A cost minimization analysis was therefore conducted. The per patient costs for the treatment of drug-related adverse events were pound 5049 for CHOP, pound 2953 for fludarabine and pound 109 for rituximab. When costs of a full course of each treatment were compared, the costs per patient for CHOP, fludarabine and rituximab were pound 7210 (pound 5975-8445), pound 10022 (pound 8917-11126) and pound 6080 (pound 5892-6267) respectively. In this preliminary analysis, rituximab appeared to have a similar efficacy rate to CHOP and fludarabine, but had significantly fewer adverse events and a lower total cost per patient. These data require confirmation in a prospective randomized study with formal assessment of cost-effectiveness.