Efficacy, safety, and quality of life of generic and innovator ibrutinib in Indian CLL patients

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.

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

Though the chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) management options in India are still limited compared to the novel drug options in resource-rich settings, the availability of less costly generics and the government health insurance scheme has enabled many patients to access the newer drugs in India. The current study compared the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of existing initial management options for the progression-free survival (PFS) time horizon from the patient's perspective. A two-health-state, PFS and progressive disease, Markov model was assumed for three regimens (generics): ibrutinib monotherapy, bendamustine-rituximab (B-R), and rituximab-chlorambucil (RClb) used as the frontline treatment of CLL patients in India. All costs, utilization of services, and consequences data during the PFS period were collected from interviewing patients during follow-up visits. The transition probability (TP) and average PFS information were obtained from landmark published studies. EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were utilized to assess the quality of life (QoL). Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were measured during the PFS period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were studied. Upon analysis, the entire monetary expense during the PFS time was ₹1581964 with ibrutinib, ₹171434 with B-R, and ₹91997 with RClb treatment arm. Pooled PFS and QALY gain was 10.33 and 8.28 years for ibrutinib, 4.08 and 3.53 years for the B-R regimen, and 1.33 and 1.23 years in RClb arms, respectively. Ibrutinib's ICER and ICUR were ₹214587.32 per PFS year gain and ₹282384.86 per QALY gain when assessed against the B-R regimen. Ibrutinib also performed better in ICER and ICUR against the RClb arm with ₹157014.29 per PFS year gain and ₹200413.6 per QALY gain. In conclusion, generic ibrutinib is a cost-effective initial line of management compared to other commonly used treatment regimes in resource-limited settings.