Introduction: Treatment guidelines recommend Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) ibrutinib (once-daily) and acalabrutinib (twice-daily) as preferred regimens for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL); however, there are no studies comparing the effectiveness of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib as first-line (1L) therapy in CLL. This study investigated time to next treatment (TTNT) for patients with CLL initiated on 1L ibrutinib or acalabrutinib in real-world (RW) clinical practice in the US. Methods: Specialty pharmacy electronic medical records from academic integrated care networks (11/21/2018-4/30/2022) were used to identify adults with CLL who initiated ibrutinib or acalabrutinib in 1L (index date) on or after the date of acalabrutinib approval for CLL (11/21/2019). A washout period of ≥12 months without antineoplastic agent use pre-index was required to confirm use as 1L therapy. Patients were excluded if there was concomitant use of another antineoplastic agent during the first 28 days post-index. Characteristics evaluated in the 12-month baseline period were compared between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib cohorts using t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. TTNT was defined as the time from the index date to the initiation a next or additional treatment. Patients without a next/additional treatment were censored at death or end of data (4/30/2022). Patients with a within-class BTKi switch at any time post-index were censored at time of switch, as this may have indicated a switch due to tolerability rather than progression. Patients who added an anti-CD20 antibody or venetoclax to the BTKi within 180 days post-index were censored at time of add-on, as these may not have indicated overt disease progression but rather late initiation of a second anti-cancer agent as a 1L combination treatment strategy. Beyond 180 days, anti-CD20 or venetoclax add-ons were considered as a next/additional treatment. TTNT was described using Kaplan Meier curves and compared between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the following baseline variables: age, gender, region, race, year of index date, Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index (Quan-CCI), chronic pulmonary disease (CPD), peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, atrial fibrillation (AF), metastatic cancer, use of corticosteroids, and use of antiplatelets. Results: Among 710 and 373 patients in the ibrutinib and acalabrutinib cohorts, respectively, mean age was 71.5 and 72.4 years (P=0.159) and 38.5% and 38.3% were female (P=0.971; Table). Mean baseline Quan-CCI score was similar for ibrutinib and acalabrutinib (3.1 vs 3.0; P=0.597); a higher proportion of patients in the ibrutinib cohort had CPD (13.6% vs 8.8%; P=0.024), peripheral vascular disease (7.8% vs 4.1%; P=0.022), and hypertension (41.4% vs 32.2%; P=0.003) at baseline, while AF was similar (7.0% vs 9.9%, P=0.098). Baseline corticosteroid use was lower in the ibrutinib cohort (14.5% vs 20.1%; P=0.018), but antiplatelet use was higher (7.0% vs 3.5%; P=0.017). Mean (median [range]) follow-up was 17.1 (18.1 [1.0-29.3]) months for the ibrutinib cohort and 12.5 (11.9 [1.0-29.1]) months for the acalabrutinib cohort. Four/710 (0.6%) patients in the ibrutinib cohort and 16/373 (4.3%) in the acalabrutinib cohort added an anti-CD20 antibody to the BTKi within 180 days and were censored at that point. Ten/710 (1.4%) and 8/373 (2.1%) patients added venetoclax to ibrutinib or acalabrutinib within 180 days and were censored at that point. The proportion of patients in the ibrutinib cohort who initiated a next or additional treatment was 5.9% relative to 7.5% for acalabrutinib. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients treated with acalabrutinib were 89% more likely to start a next or additional treatment than those treated with ibrutinib (hazard ratio = 1.89 [95% confidence interval] = [1.12, 3.13]; P=0.016; Figure). Results were similar when censoring anti-CD20 add-ons at any time (hazard ratio = 1.82 [95% confidence interval] = [1.08, 3.03]; P=0.025). Conclusions: In this large US RW study, patients with CLL treated with 1L acalabrutinib were significantly more likely to start a next treatment or add/intensify therapy than those treated with 1L ibrutinib. RW treatment patterns also suggest a higher propensity to add an anti-CD20 antibody to acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib in 1L CLL. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacobs et al. (2022) studied this question.