Search

Background: Continuous oral targeted therapies (OTT) represent a major economic burden on the Canadian healthcare system, due to their high cost and administration until disease progression/toxicity. The recent introduction of venetoclax-based fixed-duration combination therapies has the potential to reduce such costs. This study aims to estimate the prevalence and the cost of CLL in Canada with the introduction of fixed OTT., Methods: A state transition Markov model was developed and included five health states: watchful waiting, first-line treatment, relapsed/refractory treatment, and death. The number of CLL patients and total cost associated with CLL management in Canada for both continuous- and fixed-treatment-duration OTT were projected from 2020 to 2025. Costs included drug acquisition, follow-up/monitoring, adverse event, and palliative care., Results: The CLL prevalence in Canada is projected to increase from 15,512 to 19,517 between 2020 and 2025. Annual costs were projected at C$880.7 and C$703.1 million in 2025, for continuous and fixed OTT scenarios, respectively. Correspondingly, fixed OTT would provide a total cost reduction of C$213.8 million (5.94%) from 2020 to 2025, compared to continuous OTT., Conclusions: Fixed OTT is expected to result in major reductions in cost burden over the 5-year projection, compared to continuous OTT., Competing Interests: J.L. is a partner at PeriPharm Inc., a company that has served as a consultant to AbbVie and has received funding from AbbVie. J.L. and K.G. from PeriPharm Inc., have participated in the study conduct, data interpretation and the preparation of the manuscript. A.A has received honoraria from Abbvie and Astra Zeneca accepted into a separate account within the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, for research/academic use only. V.B. has received research funding from CIHR, CancerCare Manitoba, Research Manitoba, Janssen and Abbvie and has served as a consultant to Abbvie, Janssen AstraZeneca, Gilead, Roche, and Lundbeck. I.F. has provided advisory consultations for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Seattle Genetics and has given presentations for Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Roche. C.O. has received honoraria from AbbVie, Astrazeneca, Janssen, Roche, Merck, Servier, Incyte. No author has received funding for developing the manuscript. AbbVie participated in the design and provided financial support for the study. AbbVie reviewed and approved this publication.

Background : Continuous oral targeted therapy (OTT) for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) represents an effective therapy but also a major economic burden on the healthcare system. This study aimed to estimate future direct costs, along with the prevalence, of CLL in the era of continuous OTT in Canada. Methods : The economic burden of OTT was modelled and compared to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), for CLL treatment. The burden was assessed/projected from 2011 to 2025. For the OTT scenario, CIT was considered the standard of care before 2015, while OTT was considered standard of care for patients with either unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable (IGHV) or del(17p)/TP53 mutations starting in 2015 and, from 2020 onwards, for all first-line treatments except for patients with mutated IGHV. A Markov model was developed including four health states: watchful-waiting, first-line treatment, relapse and death. Costs of therapy, follow-up/monitoring and adverse events were included. Key clinical parameters were extracted from pivotal clinical trials. Results : As incidence rates and rate of survival are increasing, the prevalence of CLL in Canada is projected to increase 1.8-fold, from 8301 patients in 2011 to 14,654 by 2025. Correspondingly, the total annual costs of CLL management are predicted to increase 15.7-fold, from $60.8 million to $957.5 million during that same period. Conclusions : Although OTT enhances survival for patients with CLL, it is nonetheless associated with an important economic burden due to the projected vast increase in costs from 2011 to 2025. Changes in clinical strategies, such as implementation of a fixed OTT treatment duration, could help alleviate financial burden.

Background: Studies assessing ibrutinib's economic burden versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) focused on pharmacy costs but not medical costs. This study compared time to next treatment (TTNT), health care resource utilization (HRU), and total direct costs among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) initiating front-line ibrutinib single agent (Ibr) or CIT., Materials and Methods: Optum Clinformatics Extended DataMart De-Identified Databases were used to identify adults with ≥ 2 claims with a CLL diagnosis initiating front-line Ibr or CIT from February 12, 2014 to June 30, 2017. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for potential differences in baseline characteristics between the Ibr and CIT cohorts. Two periods were considered: entire front-line therapy (until initiation of second-line therapy) and first 6 months of front-line therapy. Comparisons with a subgroup of CIT patients initiating bendamustine/rituximab (BR) were also conducted., Results: TTNT was significantly longer for Ibr (N = 322) relative to CIT (N = 839; hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0163; Kaplan-Meier rates [24 months]: Ibr = 88.6%, CIT = 75.9%) and the subset of CIT patients treated with BR (N = 455; hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0208; Kaplan-Meier rates [24 months]: Ibr = 89.0%, BR = 79.0%). During the entire front-line therapy, Ibr patients had significantly fewer monthly days with outpatient visits (rate ratio = 0.75; P = .0200). Ibrutinib's higher pharmacy costs (mean monthly cost difference [MMCD] = $6,849; P < .0001) were offset by lower medical costs (MMCD = -$10,615; P < .0001), yielding net savings (MMCD = -$3,766; P < .0001) versus CIT. Ibr was associated with net savings (MMCD = -$5,569; P < .0001) versus BR. Cost savings and reductions in HRU were more pronounced during the first 6 months of front-line therapy., Conclusion: During front-line CLL treatment, Ibr was associated with longer TTNT, fewer monthly days with outpatient visits, and net monthly total cost reduction versus CIT and BR., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)