Optimal Management of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Economic Constraints

First-Line Treatment of Older Patients with CLL: A New Approach in the Chemo-Free Era

Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, with or without the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody Obinutuzumab, represent the preferred options for the first-line therapy of CLL because they are more effective and may improve quality of life. However, patient inclusion criteria are heterogeneous across trials designed for older patients, and the identification of CLL-specific parameters identifying unfit patients at risk of developing drug-specific adverse events is required to guide treatment choice. Due to inclusion/exclusion criteria in trials, higher discontinuation rates with BTKi were reported in real-world studies, and registry analyses provided useful information on factors predicting earlier discontinuation in a real-world setting. Though targeted agents were shown to be cost-effective treatments in high-income countries, the out-of-pocket expenses may limit accessibility to these drugs, and the overall expenditure for new drugs in CLL is projected to increase substantially, posing an issue for sustainability. This being said, the choice of a finite-duration treatment based on venetoclax-containing regimens or treatment until progression with BTKi is today possible in high-income countries, and the therapy choice drivers are represented by coexisting medical conditions rather than age, patient expectations, logistics, and sustainability.

Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil versus ibrutinib in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients without TP53 disruptions: A real-life CLL campus study

One of the main issues in the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) deals with the choice between continuous or fixed-duration therapy. Continuous ibrutinib (IB), the first-in-class BTK inhibitor, and obinutuzumab-chlorambucil (G-CHL) are commonly used therapies for elderly and/or comorbid patients. No head-to-head comparison has been carried out. Within the Italian campus CLL network, we performed a retrospective study on CLL patients without TP53 disruption treated with IB or G-CHL as first-line therapy. Patients in the G-CHL arm had a higher CIRS score and the worst renal function. The overall response rates between the G-CHL and IB arms were similar, but more complete remissions (CRs) were achieved with G-CHL (p = 0.0029). After a median follow-up of 30 months, the progression-free survival (PFS, p = 0.0061) and time to next treatment (TTNT, p = 0.0043), but not overall survival (OS, p = 0.6642), were better with IB than with G-CHL. Similar results were found after propensity score matching and multivariate analysis. While PFS and TTNT were longer with IB than with G-CHL in IGHV unmutated patients (p = 0.0190 and 0.0137), they were superimposable for IGHV mutated patients (p = 0.1900 and 0.1380). In the G-CHL arm, the depth of response (79% vs. 68% vs. 38% for CR, PR and SD/PD; p < 0.0001) and measurable residual disease (MRD) influenced PFS (78% vs. 53% for undetectable MRD vs. detectable MRD, p = 0.0203). Hematological toxicities were common in the G-CHL arm, while IB was associated with higher costs. Although continuous IB provides better disease control in CLL, IGHV mutated patients and those achieving an undetectable MRD show a marked clinical and economic benefit from a fixed-duration obinutuzumab-based treatment.