Aim: To investigate real-world time to next treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia initiating first-line (1L) ibrutinib or acalabrutinib. Materials & methods: US specialty pharmacy electronic medical records (21/11/2018-30/4/2022) were used; patients initiated 1L on/after 21/11/2019 (acalabrutinib approval). Results: Among 710 patients receiving ibrutinib, 5.9% initiated next treatment (mean time to initiation = 9.2 months); among 373 patients receiving acalabrutinib, 7.5% initiated next treatment (mean time to initiation = 5.9 months). Adjusting for baseline characteristics, acalabrutinib-treated patients were 89% more likely to initiate next treatment (hazard ratio = 1.89; p = 0.016). Conclusion: This study addresses a need for real-world comparative effectiveness between 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and shows that next treatment (a clinically meaningful measure for real-world progression) occurred less frequently with 1L ibrutinib.
Keywords: Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor; acalabrutinib; chronic lymphocytic leukemia; electronic medical records; first-line; ibrutinib; real-world; retrospective study; small lymphocytic lymphoma; time to next treatment.
Ibrutinib and acalabrutinib are oral medications taken once-daily and twice-daily, respectively. They are recommended as initial treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of these treatments as initial treatment for CLL. To meet this goal, real-world US specialty pharmacy electronic medical records between 11/21/2018–4/30/2022 were used. Patients treated with ibrutinib or acalabrutinib as initial treatment for CLL were studied. Treatment had to be started on or after the date of acalabrutinib approval for CLL (11/21/2019). Time to next treatment was used to estimate real-world disease progression. It was defined as the time from the initiation of initial treatment with ibrutinib or acalabrutinib to the initiation of a next treatment. Study results showed that patients were observed for a median of up to 1.5 years. Over this period, next treatment was more likely for acalabrutinib (7.5%) compared with ibrutinib (5.9%). After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, next treatment was 89% more likely with acalabrutinib than ibrutinib. This study addresses a need to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in the real-world. It helps better contextualize results from clinical trial data and shows that next treatment occurred less frequently with ibrutinib.