Search

Ivosidenib + azacitidine (IVO/AZA) is approved in the United States for newly diagnosed, older or intensive chemotherapy-ineligible patients with IDH1 -mutated acute myeloid leukemia. We created a partitioned survival analysis model to evaluate the health economic implications of this approval. Model outputs were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of IVO/AZA versus AZA. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. In the base case scenario, IVO/AZA and AZA resulted in life-time costs of $403,062 and $161,887, respectively. With an incremental gain of 0.95 QALYs, the ICER of IVO/AZA was $252,782/QALY. In sensitivity analyses, only a reduction in the price of IVO by 59.3% lowered the ICER to below $150,000/QALY and 99.95% of model calculations yielded ICERs of >$150,000/QALY. In a model in which all patients received IVO monotherapy after progression on AZA monotherapy, the ICER was $155,453/QALY and various model inputs that would make IVO/AZA cost-effective were identified.

Background: The hypomethylating drugs azacitidine and decitabine have shown efficacy in myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukaemia, but complete tumour responses are infrequent and of short duration, possibly because of the short half-lives and suboptimal bone marrow exposure of the drugs. Guadecitabine, a next-generation hypomethylating drug, has a longer half-life and exposure than its active metabolite decitabine. A phase 1 study established 60 mg/m 2 guadecitabine for 5 days as an effective treatment schedule. In this phase 2 study, we aimed to assess the safety and activity of two doses and schedules of guadecitabine in older (≥65 years) patients with treatment-naive acute myeloid leukaemia who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy., Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 1/2 study of guadecitabine in cohorts of patients with treatment-naive acute myeloid leukaemia, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes; here we report the phase 2 results from the cohort of treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. We included patients aged at least 65 years from 14 US medical centres (hospitals and specialist cancer clinics) who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy and randomly assigned them (1:1) using a computer algorithm (for dynamic randomisation) to guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m 2 on days 1-5 (5-day schedule) of a 28-day treatment cycle. Treatment allocation was not masked. We also assigned additional patients to guadecitabine 60 mg/m 2 in a 10-day schedule in a 28-day treatment cycle after a protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was composite complete response (complete response, complete response with incomplete platelet recovery, or complete response with incomplete neutrophil recovery regardless of platelets). Response was assessed in all patients (as-treated) who received at least one dose of guadecitabine. We present the final analysis, although at the time of the database lock, 15 patients were still in follow-up for overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01261312., Findings: Between Aug 24, 2012, and Sept 15, 2014, 107 patients were enrolled: 54 on the 5-day schedule (26 randomly assigned to 60 mg/m 2 and 28 to 90 mg/m 2 ) and 53 were assigned to the 10-day schedule. Median age was 77 years (range 62-92), and median follow-up was 953 days (IQR 721-1040). All treated patients were assessable for a response. The number of patients who achieved a composite complete response did not differ between dose groups or schedules (13 [54%, 95% CI 32·8-74·4] with 60 mg/m 2 on the 5-day schedule; 16 [59%; 38·8-77·6] with 90 mg/m 2 on the 5-day schedule; and 26 [50%, 35·8-64·2] with 60 mg/m 2 on the 10-day schedule). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of relationship to treatment, were febrile neutropenia (31 [61%] of 51 patients on the 5-day schedule vs 36 [69%] of 52 patients on the 10-day schedule), thrombocytopenia (25 [49%] vs 22 [42%]), neutropenia (20 [39%] vs 18 [35%]), pneumonia (15 [29%] vs 19 [37%]), anaemia (15 [29%] vs 12 [23%]), and sepsis (eight [16%] vs 14 [27%]). The most common serious adverse events, regardless of relationship to treatment, for the 5-day and 10-day schedules, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (27 [53%] vs 25 [48%]), pneumonia (14 [27%] vs 16 [31%]), and sepsis (eight [16%] vs 14 [27%]). 23 (22%) patients died because of adverse events (mainly from sepsis, eight [8%]; and pneumonia, five [5%]); four deaths were from adverse events deemed treatment-related (pneumonia, two [2%]; multiorgan failure, one [1%]; and sepsis, one [1%], all in the 10-day cohort)., Interpretation: More than half of older treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia achieved a composite complete response with guadecitabine at all drug doses and schedules investigated, with tolerable toxicity. The recommended guadecitabine regimen for this population is 60 mg/m 2 in a 5-day schedule. A phase 3 study in this patient population is ongoing (NCT02348489) to assess guadecitabine 60 mg/m 2 in a 5-day schedule versus standard of care., Funding: Astex Pharmaceuticals and Stand Up To Cancer., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the approval of azacitidine in 2004 and the approval of decitabine in 2006 in the United States for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), the overall survival (OS) benefit with hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy is unclear., Methods: Older adults (age ≥ 66 years) who had been diagnosed with CMML from 2001 to 2011 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, and propensity score matching was used to match patients who had been diagnosed after HMA approval (2007-2011) and had received HMA treatment with patients diagnosed before HMA approval (2001-2003). Cox proportional hazards models with the matched sample were used to assess the change in OS. A second matched cohort of patients who did not receive HMA after approval and patients diagnosed before HMA approval was used to evaluate survival change attributable to other potential differences between the 2 time periods, such as improved supportive care., Results: Among 1378 older adults diagnosed with CMML, the median OS was 13 months, and 18.8% received HMAs. In the primary matched analysis, with 225 HMA users diagnosed in 2007-2011 and 395 patients diagnosed in 2001-2003, the median OS times were 17 and 11 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.91; P = .005). In a secondary analysis, the risk of death did not differ between 395 propensity score-matched HMA nonusers diagnosed in 2007-2011 and 484 patients diagnosed in 2001-2003 (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91-1.32; P = .34)., Conclusions: Despite limited evidence, HMAs are commonly used to treat older CMML patients. The use of HMAs was associated with a 28% reduction in the risk of death in adjusted analyses. Improvements in supportive care do not appear to account for temporal improvements in OS. Cancer 2017;123:3754-3762. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine and decitabine are both approved for treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in the USA. In Europe, decitabine is not approved due to lack of survival advantage in randomized trials. The two drugs have not been compared in clinical trials. We identified patients diagnosed with MDS between 2004 and 2011 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database in the USA who received ≥ 10 doses of either HMA. We estimated survival from HMA initiation with Kaplan-Meier methods and used multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for covariates. Analyses controlled for histological subtype and we conducted a subset analysis limited to patients with refractory anaemia with excess blasts (RAEB). In 2025 HMA-treated patients, median survival was 15 months with no difference in survival based on the HMA received in adjusted analysis (decitabine versus azacitidine, hazard ratio = 1·06, 95% confidence interval: 0·94-1·19, P = 0·37). For RAEB patients (n = 523), median survival was 12 months, with no significant difference based on HMA received. No significant survival difference was found between azacitidine and decitabine in patients with MDS, including RAEB. Importantly, population-based survival of azacitidine-treated RAEB patients was substantially shorter than in the AZA-001 clinical trial (11 versus 24·5 months)., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)