Dataset Information

Single-agent ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy regimens for treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A cross-trial comparison of phase 3 studies.

ABSTRACT: Chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with single-agent ibrutinib are both recommended first-line treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), although their outcomes have not been directly compared. Using ibrutinib data from the RESONATE-2 (PCYC-1115/1116) study conducted in patients ?65?years without del(17p), we performed a cross-trial comparison with CIT data from published phase 3 studies in first-line treatment of CLL. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety data for ibrutinib (median follow-up 35.7?months) were evaluated alongside available CIT data. CIT regimens included: fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab (CLL8, CLL10), bendamustine + rituximab (CLL10), obinutuzumab + chlorambucil and rituximab + chlorambucil (CLL11), and ofatumumab + chlorambucil (COMPLEMENT-1). Median age across studies was 61-74?years, with older populations receiving ibrutinib, obinutuzumab + chlorambucil, or rituximab + chlorambucil. Median follow-up varied across studies/regimens (range 14.5-37.4 months). Among all patients, PFS appeared longer with ibrutinib relative to CIT and OS appeared comparable. Relative to CIT studies that similarly excluded patients with del(17p) (CLL10) or enrolled older/less-fit patients (CLL11), PFS appeared favorable for ibrutinib in high-risk subgroups, including advanced disease, bulky lymph nodes, unmutated IGHV status, and presence of del(11q). Grade???3 infections ranged from 9% (ofatumumab + chlorambucil) to 40% (fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab), and was 25% with ibrutinib. Grade???3 neutropenia was 12% for ibrutinib and 26%-84% for CIT. Although definitive conclusions cannot be made due to inherent limitations of cross-trial comparisons, this report suggests that ibrutinib has a favorable benefit/risk profile and may potentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy in some patients. Randomized, comparative studies are needed to support these findings.

SUBMITTER: Robak T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6221114 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Single-agent ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy regimens for treatment-naïve patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A cross-trial comparison of phase 3 studies.

Robak Tadeusz T Burger Jan A JA Tedeschi Alessandra A Barr Paul M PM Owen Carolyn C Bairey Osnat O Hillmen Peter P Simpson David D Grosicki Sebastian S Devereux Stephen S McCarthy Helen H Coutre Steven E SE Quach Hang H Gaidano Gianluca G Maslyak Zvenyslava Z Stevens Don A DA Moreno Carol C Gill Devinder S DS Flinn Ian W IW Gribben John G JG Mokatrin Ahmad A Cheng Mei M Styles Lori L James Danelle F DF Kipps Thomas J TJ Ghia Paolo P

American journal of hematology 20181009 11

Chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with single-agent ibrutinib are both recommended first-line treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), although their outcomes have not been directly compared. Using ibrutinib data from the RESONATE-2 (PCYC-1115/1116) study conducted in patients ≥65 years without del(17p), we performed a cross-trial comparison with CIT data from published phase 3 studies in first-line treatment of CLL. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), a ...[more]

PMID: 30129285

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundData regarding the efficacy of treatment with ibrutinib-rituximab, as compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been limited.MethodsIn a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients 70 years of age or younger with previously untreated CLL to receive either ibrutinib and rituximab for six cycles (after a single cycle of ibrutinib alone), followed by ibrutinib until disease progression, or six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival, and overall survival was a secondary end point. We report the results of a planned interim analysis.ResultsA total of 529 patients underwent randomization (354 patients to the ibrutinib-rituximab group, and 175 to the chemoimmunotherapy group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the results of the analysis of progression-free survival favored ibrutinib-rituximab over chemoimmunotherapy (89.4% vs. 72.9% at 3 years; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.56; P<0.001), and the results met the protocol-defined efficacy threshold for the interim analysis. The results of the analysis of overall survival also favored ibrutinib-rituximab over chemoimmunotherapy (98.8% vs. 91.5% at 3 years; hazard ratio for death, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.54; P<0.001). In a subgroup analysis involving patients without immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region (IGHV) mutation, ibrutinib-rituximab resulted in better progression-free survival than chemoimmunotherapy (90.7% vs. 62.5% at 3 years; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.50). The 3-year progression-free survival among patients with IGHV mutation was 87.7% in the ibrutinib-rituximab group and 88.0% in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.36). The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (regardless of attribution) was similar in the two groups (in 282 of 352 patients [80.1%] who received ibrutinib-rituximab and in 126 of 158 [79.7%] who received chemoimmunotherapy), whereas infectious complications of grade 3 or higher were less common with ibrutinib-rituximab than with chemoimmunotherapy (in 37 patients [10.5%] vs. 32 [20.3%], P<0.001).ConclusionsThe ibrutinib-rituximab regimen resulted in progression-free survival and overall survival that were superior to those with a standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen among patients 70 years of age or younger with previously untreated CLL. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; E1912 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02048813.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ibrutinib has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) since 2016 but has not been compared with chemoimmunotherapy. We conducted a phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of ibrutinib, either alone or in combination with rituximab, relative to chemoimmunotherapy. METHODS:Patients 65 years of age or older who had untreated CLL were randomly assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib, or ibrutinib plus rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board made the decision to release the data after the protocol-specified efficacy threshold had been met. RESULTS:A total of 183 patients were assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, 182 to receive ibrutinib, and 182 to receive ibrutinib plus rituximab. Median progression-free survival was reached only with bendamustine plus rituximab. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 2 years was 74% with bendamustine plus rituximab and was higher with ibrutinib alone (87%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.58; P<0.001) and with ibrutinib plus rituximab (88%; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group and the ibrutinib group with regard to progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.62; P=0.49). With a median follow-up of 38 months, there was no significant difference among the three treatment groups with regard to overall survival. The rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 hematologic adverse events was higher with bendamustine plus rituximab (61%) than with ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus rituximab (41% and 39%, respectively), whereas the rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 nonhematologic adverse events was lower with bendamustine plus rituximab (63%) than with the ibrutinib-containing regimens (74% with each regimen). CONCLUSIONS:Among older patients with untreated CLL, treatment with ibrutinib was superior to treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. There was no significant difference between ibrutinib and ibrutinib plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01886872 .).

Project description:BackgroundStudies assessing ibrutinib's economic burden versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) focused on pharmacy costs but not medical costs. This study compared time to next treatment (TTNT), health care resource utilization (HRU), and total direct costs among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) initiating front-line ibrutinib single agent (Ibr) or CIT.Materials and methodsOptum Clinformatics Extended DataMart De-Identified Databases were used to identify adults with ≥ 2 claims with a CLL diagnosis initiating front-line Ibr or CIT from February 12, 2014 to June 30, 2017. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for potential differences in baseline characteristics between the Ibr and CIT cohorts. Two periods were considered: entire front-line therapy (until initiation of second-line therapy) and first 6 months of front-line therapy. Comparisons with a subgroup of CIT patients initiating bendamustine/rituximab (BR) were also conducted.ResultsTTNT was significantly longer for Ibr (N = 322) relative to CIT (N = 839; hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0163; Kaplan-Meier rates [24 months]: Ibr = 88.6%, CIT = 75.9%) and the subset of CIT patients treated with BR (N = 455; hazard ratio, 0.54; P = .0208; Kaplan-Meier rates [24 months]: Ibr = 89.0%, BR = 79.0%). During the entire front-line therapy, Ibr patients had significantly fewer monthly days with outpatient visits (rate ratio = 0.75; P = .0200). Ibrutinib's higher pharmacy costs (mean monthly cost difference [MMCD] = $6,849; P < .0001) were offset by lower medical costs (MMCD = -$10,615; P < .0001), yielding net savings (MMCD = -$3,766; P < .0001) versus CIT. Ibr was associated with net savings (MMCD = -$5,569; P < .0001) versus BR. Cost savings and reductions in HRU were more pronounced during the first 6 months of front-line therapy.ConclusionDuring front-line CLL treatment, Ibr was associated with longer TTNT, fewer monthly days with outpatient visits, and net monthly total cost reduction versus CIT and BR.

Dataset Information

Single-agent ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy regimens for treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A cross-trial comparison of phase 3 studies.

Publications

Single-agent ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy regimens for treatment-naïve patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A cross-trial comparison of phase 3 studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure