Search

Background: While covalent Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (cBTKis) have become a standard of care treatment for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL), response duration is limited and resistance to BTKi and/or adverse events develop in a subset of patients. However, little real-world evidence on post-cBTKi clinical and economic outcomes exists for these patients., Patients and Methods: This retrospective study used 2010 to 2019 U.S. Medicare claims, to identify elderly (≥ 66 years) patients with newly-diagnosed MCL who received third-line (3L) treatment and had evidence of cBTKi use in a prior line of therapy. Outcomes were assessed ≥ 12-months post 3L-treatment initiation and included treatment patterns, all-cause and MCL-related HRU and costs, and overall survival., Results: The final sample contained 230 elderly patients with R/R MCL receiving 3L treatment who had cBTKi use in a prior line of therapy (mean age 75.0, 21.7% age > 80 years; 67.4% male; 93.9% White). Common 3L treatments included chemotherapy (26.1%), lenalidomide (18.7%), and bortezomib (18.3%); 1-quarter (25.7%) of patients received a cBTKi (17.8% ibrutinib; 7.8% acalabrutinib). Overall survival was poor from 3L treatment initiation (median OS = 9.4 months; 1-years survival rate = 43.7%). Patients exhibited high rates of HRU (73.6% experienced hospitalization) and substantial costs ($145,726) in the 12-months after 3L initiation., Conclusion: A large unmet need exists in this patient subpopulation, highlighting the importance of ongoing development of novel therapeutics., Competing Interests: Disclosure PS, KER, and MR are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA. JP and SKB are employees of COVIA Health Solutions, a consulting form with clients in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry. SFH: consultancy for Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Flatiron Health Inc, Novartis, SeaGen, Genetech, Merck, TG Therapeutics, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Servier, Arvinas, and Thyme Inc; research funding from Celgene, DTRM Biopharm, and TG Therapeutics; honoraria form Pharmacyclics and AstraZeneca, Bayer; JAD: personal fees from AbbVie, Acadia, Janssen, Merck, Otsuka, and Takeda; and research funding from Janssen, Merck, and Spark Therapeutics unrelated to the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Little recent real-world evidence exists on overall survival, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among R/R DLBCL patients treated with the combination of rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx), a widely-used regimen for patients ineligible for stem cell transplant due to age or comorbidities., Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis used 2014 to 2019 U.S. Medicare claims. Individuals aged ≥66 years with a new DLBCL diagnosis between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 and continuous fee-for-service Medicare Part A, B, and D coverage in the 12 months pre- and postindex were followed to identify the sample of patients with evidence of R-GemOx treatment in the second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) setting. Outcomes included overall survival, all-cause and DLBCL-related HCRU, and costs after R-GemOx initiation., Results: The final sample included 157 patients who received treatment with R-GemOx in the R/R settings (mean (SD) age 77.5 (6.0) years, 39.5% age>80 years; 66.9% male; 91.1% White). Of these, 126 received R-GemOx in the 2L setting and 31 received R-GemOx in the 3L setting. Median overall survival from R-GemOx initiation was 6.9 months and 6.8 months in the 2L and 3L setting, respectively. Rates of all-cause hospitalization (68.1% [2L] and >90% [3L]) and hospice use (42.9% [2L] and 51.7% [3L]) were high in the 12 months after R-GemOx initiation. All-cause total costs were substantial ($144,653 [2L] and $142,812 [3L]) and approximately 80% of costs were DLBCL-related within 12 months of R-GemOx initiation., Conclusion: Elderly U.S. Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with DLBCL who initiated R-GemOx treatment in the R/R setting have poor overall survival, high rates of HCRU, and substantial costs., Competing Interests: Disclosures MG, MR, and KER are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. JP and SKB are employees of COVIA Health Solutions, a consulting form with clients in the biotech/pharmaceutical industry. SFH: consultancy for Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Flatiron Health Inc., Novartis, SeaGen, Genetech, Merck, TG Therapeutics, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Servier, Arvinas, and Thyme Inc.; research funding from Celgene, DTRM Biopharm, and TG Therapeutics; honoraria form Pharmacyclics and AstraZeneca, Bayer; JAD: personal fees from AbbVie, Acadia, Janssen, Merck, Otsuka, and Takeda; and research funding from Janssen, Merck, and Spark Therapeutics unrelated to the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Prophylaxis is commonly used to prevent central nervous sy stem (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with no clear standard of care. We retrospectively evaluated 1162 adult patients across 21 US academic centers with DLBCL or similar histologies who received single-route CNS prophylaxis as part of frontline therapy between 2013 and 2019. Prophylaxis was administered intrathecally(IT) in 894 (77%) and using systemic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in 236 (20%); 32 patients (3%) switched route due to toxicity and were assessed separately. By CNS-International Prognostic Index (IPI), 18% were considered low-risk, 51% moderate, and 30% high. Double-hit lymphoma (DHL) was confirmed in 243 of 866 evaluable patients (21%). Sixty-four patients (5.7%) had CNS relapse after median 7.1 months from diagnosis, including 15 of 64 (23%) within the first 6 months. There was no significant difference in CNS relapse between IT and HD-MTX recipients (5.4% vs 6.8%, P = .4), including after propensity score matching to account for differences between respective recipient groups. Weighting by CNS-IPI, expected vs observed CNS relapse rates were nearly identical (5.8% vs 5.7%). Testicular involvement was associated with high risk of CNS relapse (11.3%) despite most having lower CNS-IPI scores. DHL did not significantly predict for CNS relapse after single-route prophylaxis, including with adjustment for treatment regimen and other factors. This large study of CNS prophylaxis recipients with DLBCL found no significant difference in CNS relapse rates between routes of administration. Relapse rates among high-risk subgroups remain elevated, and reconsideration of prophylaxis strategies in DLBCL is of critical need., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Given advanced age, comorbidities, and immune dysfunction, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients may be at particularly high risk of infection and poor outcomes related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Robust analysis of outcomes for CLL patients, particularly examining effects of baseline characteristics and CLL-directed therapy, is critical to optimally manage CLL patients through this evolving pandemic. CLL patients diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19 across 43 international centers (n = 198) were included. Hospital admission occurred in 90%. Median age at COVID-19 diagnosis was 70.5 years. Median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was 8 (range, 4-32). Thirty-nine percent were treatment naive ("watch and wait"), while 61% had received ≥1 CLL-directed therapy (median, 2; range, 1-8). Ninety patients (45%) were receiving active CLL therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis, most commonly Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi's; n = 68/90 [76%]). At a median follow-up of 16 days, the overall case fatality rate was 33%, though 25% remain admitted. Watch-and-wait and treated cohorts had similar rates of admission (89% vs 90%), intensive care unit admission (35% vs 36%), intubation (33% vs 25%), and mortality (37% vs 32%). CLL-directed treatment with BTKi's at COVID-19 diagnosis did not impact survival (case fatality rate, 34% vs 35%), though the BTKi was held during the COVID-19 course for most patients. These data suggest that the subgroup of CLL patients admitted with COVID-19, regardless of disease phase or treatment status, are at high risk of death. Future epidemiologic studies are needed to assess severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection risk, these data should be validated independently, and randomized studies of BTKi's in COVID-19 are needed to provide definitive evidence of benefit.

Context: Patients with blood cancers have low rates of timely hospice use. Barriers to hospice use for this population are not well understood. Lack of transfusion access in most hospice settings is posited as a potential reason for low and late enrollment rates., Objectives: We explored the perspectives of patients with blood cancers and their bereaved caregivers regarding the value of hospice services and transfusions., Methods: Between June 2018 and January 2019, we conducted three focus groups with blood cancer patients with an estimated life expectancy of six months or less and two focus groups with bereaved caregivers of patients with blood cancers. We asked participants their perspectives regarding quality of life (QOL) and about the potential association of traditional hospice services and transfusions with QOL. A hematologic oncologist, sociologist, and qualitatively trained research assistant conducted thematic analysis of the data., Results: Twenty-seven individuals (18 patients and nine bereaved caregivers) participated in the five focus groups. Participants identified various QOL domains that were important to them but focused largely on a desire for energy to maintain physical/functional well-being. Participants considered transfusions a high-priority service for their QOL. They also felt that standard hospice services were important for QOL. Bereaved caregivers reported overall positive experiences with hospice., Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that although patients with blood cancers value hospice services, they also consider transfusions vital to their QOL. Innovative care delivery models that combine the elements of standard hospice services with other patient-valued services like transfusions are most likely to optimize end-of-life care for patients with blood cancers., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)