Generic ibrutinib a potential cost-effective strategy for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Cost-Effectiveness of Ibrutinib for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treatment in India: Is Evidence Really at Crossroads?

In recent years, newer drugs, such as ibrutinib, have shown promising improvements in the survival of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Despite their effectiveness, concerns about their cost have arisen, prompting the need for an evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. However, recent assessments of ibrutinib's cost-effectiveness for treating CLL in India reveal divergent conclusions. The discord centers on divergent cost-effectiveness thresholds, comparator regimens, cost calculations, and outcome valuation approaches. Such discrepancies affect public health decisions and patient care. The recommendation calls for adherence to methodological guidelines by future studies, fostering consistent findings to empower policy makers and clinicians in leveraging economic evidence for informed decision making in CLL treatment strategies.

Pharmacogenetic guided versus standard warfarin dosing for routine clinical care with its pharmacoeconomic impact: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Empirical use of pharmacogenetic test(PGT) is advocated for many drugs, and resource-rich setting hospitals are using the same commonly. The clinical translation of pharmacogenetic tests in terms of cost and clinical utility is yet to be examined in hospitals of low middle income countries (LMICs).

AIM

The present study assessed the clinical utility of PGT by comparing the pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- warfarin therapy, including the health economics of the two warfarin therapies.

METHODS

An open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial recruited warfarin-receiving patients in pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- study arms. Pharmacogenetic analysis of CYP2C9*2(rs1799853), CYP2C9*3(rs1057910) and VKORC1(rs9923231) was performed for patients recruited to the PGT-guided arm. PT(Prothrombin Time)-INR(international normalized ratio) testing and dose titrations were allowed as per routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was the percent time spent in the therapeutic INR range(TTR) during the 90-day observation period. Secondary endpoints were time to reach therapeutic INR(TRT), the proportion of adverse events, and economic comparison between two modes of therapy in a Markov model built for the commonest warfarin indication- atrial fibrillation.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 168 patients, 84 in each arm. Per-protocol analysis showed a significantly high median time spent in therapeutic INR in the genotype-guided arm(42.85%; CI 21.4-66.75) as compared to the SOC arm(8.8%; CI 0-27.2)(p < 0.00001). The TRT was less in the PG-guided warfarin dosing group than the standard-of-care dosing warfarin group (17.85 vs. 33.92 days) (p = 0.002). Bleeding and thromboembolic events were similar in the two study groups. Lifetime expenditure was ₹1,26,830 in the PGT arm compared to ₹1,17,907 in the SOC arm. The QALY gain did not differ in the two groups(3.9 vs. 3.65). Compared to SOC, the incremental cost-utility ratio was ₹35,962 per QALY gain with PGT test opting. In deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the base case results were found to be insensitive to the variation in model parameters. In the cost-effectiveness-acceptability curve analysis, a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was reached at a willingness-to-pay(WTP) of ₹ 71,630 well below one time GDP threshold of WTP used.

CONCLUSION

Clinical efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of the warfarin pharmacogenetic test suggest its routine use as a point of care investigation for patient care in LMICs.

How Do We Manage Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in India

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia was an ignored leukemia in India until a decade back, given its low prevalence and absence of novel drugs to treat it. Healthcare in India is heterogeneous, with variations in population, health systems, and reimbursement options. We have focused on opinions from three hemato-oncologists incorporating an opinion poll from 44 hemato-oncologists across India on the common issues in CLL to give an idea of the practice pan-India.

RECENT FINDINGS

More CLL patients are being diagnosed in their early stages. There is an attempt to use prognostic and predictive markers in making shared decisions for managing CLL. There is still a role for chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in India, given limited health insurance coverage. But with the availability of inexpensive generics, the patient preference for non-CIT options like Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors is palpable. The CLL scene in India is changing rapidly. With the wide availability of economical generic small molecule inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and coverage by social health insurance schemes, India is poised to cater to most CLL patient needs.

Ibrutinib Plus RCHOP versus RCHOP Only in Young Patients with Activated B-Cell-like Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (ABC-DLBCL): A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The standard treatment for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) is rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP). However, many patients require subsequent treatment after relapsed disease. The ABC subtype of DLBCL (ABC-DLBCL) has a worse prognosis, and the PHOENIX trial explored adding ibrutinib to RCHOP for this patient population. The trial showed favorable outcomes for younger patients, and our study aimed to inform clinical decision-making via a cost-effectiveness model to compare RCHOP with and without ibrutinib (I-RCHOP). A Markov decision analysis model was designed to compare the treatments for patients younger than 60 years with ABC-DLBCL. The model considered treatment pathways, adverse events, relapses, and death, incorporating data on salvage treatments and novel therapies. The results indicated that I-RCHOP was more cost-effective, with greater quality-adjusted life years (QALY, 15.48 years vs. 14.25 years) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 34,111.45/QALY compared to RCHOP only. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the model's robustness. Considering the high market price for ibrutinib, I-RCHOP may be more costly. However, it is suggested as the preferred cost-effective strategy for younger patients due to its benefits in adverse events, overall survival, and quality of life. The decision analytic model provided relevant and robust results to inform clinical decision-making.

Ibrutinib versus bendamustine plus rituximab for first-line treatment of 65 or older patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia without del(17p)/TP53 mutation in China: a lifetime economic research study

BACKGROUND

The incidence and mortality rates of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in China have recently increased. This study performed a long-term economic evaluation of the first-line treatment strategies ibrutinib (IB) or bendamustine (BE) plus rituximab (RI) for previously untreated older patients with CLL without the del(17p)/TP53 mutation in China.

METHODS

Based on clinical data from large, randomized trials, a Markov model including four disease states (event-free survival, treatment failure, post-treatment failure, and death) was used to estimate the incremental costs per quality adjusted-life year (QALY) gained from the first-line IB strategy versus the BE plus RI strategy over a 10-year period. All costs were adjusted to 2022 values based on the Chinese Consumer Price Index, and all costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the robustness of base-case results.

RESULTS

Compared to the first-line BE plus RI strategy, first-line IB treatment achieved 1.17 additional QALYs, but was accompanied by $88,046.78 (estimated in 2022 US dollars) in decremental costs per patient over 10 years. Thus, first-line treatment with IB appeared to have absolute dominance compared to the BE plus RI strategy. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these results.

CONCLUSIONS

The first-line treatment with IB is absolutely cost-effective compared to the first-line BE plus RI treatment strategy for 65 or older patients with CLL without the del (17p)/TP53 mutation from the Chinese payer perspective. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that Chinese health authorities select the former strategy for these CLL patients.