Search

Oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) is recommended as maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND AML) achieving remission with intensive chemotherapy (IC) but not transplant candidates; venetoclax plus injectable azacitidine (VEN-AZA) is recommended for patients ineligible for IC. Some patients may be considered candidates for either regimen. This retrospective study used Flatiron Health's database to compare treatment patterns and clinical outcomes with Oral-AZA maintenance after IC (IC🡪Oral-AZA) versus frontline VEN-AZA. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed at 4 different time points, including from Oral-AZA initiation (IC🡪Oral-AZA cohort) or from remission (VEN-AZA cohort) in the Core Analysis. Median RFS was 14.9 and 8.1 months for IC🡪Oral-AZA and VEN-AZA propensity score-matched cohorts, in the Core Analysis ( n  = 32 in each; p  = 0.027); median OS was 18.7 and 15.2 months ( p  = 0.034). In patients with AML, IC🡪Oral-AZA significantly improved RFS and OS compared with VEN-AZA.

Introduction: The substantial economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) could be reduced with post-remission maintenance therapies that delay relapse. Real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data and costs among patients with AML receiving oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance therapy or no maintenance are not well understood. We characterize HCRU and costs among these patients in clinical practice in the USA., Methods: Data from IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus (January 1, 2016-June 30, 2022) were used. Patients ≥ 18 years who were newly diagnosed with AML, received first-line systemic induction therapy, and attained disease remission were eligible. Patients receiving Oral-AZA maintenance and those receiving no maintenance ("watch and wait" [W&W]) were matched 1:3 on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM) and followed until hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or end of continuous insurance enrollment, whichever occurred first. Outcomes included treatment patterns, inpatient and outpatient visits, and costs., Results: After PSM, the Oral-AZA cohort included 43 patients and the W&W cohort 129. Of the 43 patients receiving Oral-AZA, 88.4% started at the recommended dose of 300 mg and 11.6% at 200 mg. The Oral-AZA cohort had significantly (p = 0.0025) longer median (95% CI) time to relapse from the index maintenance date (median not reached [NR; 9.0 months-NR] vs 3.3 months [0.8 months-NR]), and fewer per person per month (PPPM) hospitalizations (0.23 vs 0.61; p = 0.0005) and overall outpatient visits (5.77 vs 7.58; p = 0.0391) than the W&W cohort. Despite higher AML drug costs PPPM in the Oral-AZA cohort ($16,401 vs $10,651 for W&W), total healthcare costs PPPM were lower ($25,786 vs $38,530 for W&W; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with Oral-AZA maintenance in clinical practice had prolonged remission and lower HCRU and costs than patients receiving no maintenance therapy. These findings underscore the clinical and economic value of Oral-AZA in clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Intensive chemotherapy (IC) is commonly used to achieve remission in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Venetoclax plus azacitidine (VEN-AZA) is FDA-approved to treat patients with AML aged ≥ 75 years or who are ineligible for IC. This retrospective analysis used de-identified electronic health records from the US-based Flatiron Health database from patients diagnosed 11/21/2018 to 10/31/2021 to compare treatment outcomes with VEN-AZA vs. IC. Patients were 1:1 propensity score-matched ([Formula: see text]). Assessments included rates of complete remission (CR) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). CR and HSCT rates were higher with IC than with VEN-AZA (60.9% vs. 44.2% [P = 0.006] and 18.1% vs. 8.0% [P = 0.012], respectively). Median OS was 17.7 months in patients treated with IC and 11.3 months with VEN-AZA without censoring (P = 0.278) and 13.7 vs. 10.6 months, respectively, with censoring at HSCT (P = 0.584). Median RFS was 12.0 months in patients treated with IC vs. 9.5 months with VEN-AZA without censoring (P = 0.431) and 6.4 vs. 7.4 months, respectively, with censoring at HSCT (P = 0.444). No OS or RFS differences observed between the two arms reached statistical significance. Randomized controlled trials comparing the two approaches are warranted, as are novel approaches to reduce relapse rates following CR., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)