A comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs between patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with first-line ibrutinib or acalabrutinib using two large US real-world databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Real-world evidence comparing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, two Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is limited. Materials & methods: Commercial claims from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus and electronic medical records from Acentrus were used to separately evaluate HRU and costs in CLL/SLL patients initiating first-line (1L) single-agent ibrutinib or acalabrutinib on or after 21 November 2019 (index date). Imputed costs were used for Acentrus using previously published assumptions. Regression analyses adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to compare HRU and costs between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib during 1L therapy. Results: In IQVIA, 537 and 355 patients initiated 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively; in Acentrus, 710 and 373 patients initiated 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively. The mean duration of 1L (in years) was longer for ibrutinib (IQVIA: 1.2; Acentrus: 1.3) than acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.8; Acentrus: 0.9). The number of CLL/SLL-related outpatient visits were significantly lower for ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.86 vs 1.09 per-patient-per-month, rate ratio: 0.85, p = 0.018; Acentrus: 0.57 vs 0.74 per-patient-per-month, rate ratio: 0.80, p = 0.036). Using claims data for IQVIA and imputed costs for Acentrus, total all-cause costs (IQVIA: mean monthly cost difference [MMCD]: -$764, p = 0.279; Acentrus: MMCD: -$1355, p = 0.004) and CLL/SLL related costs (IQVIA: MMCD: -$649, p = 0.133; Acentrus: MMCD: -$1215, p = 0.004) were lower for ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib. Conclusion: In this large real-world study using a mix of claims data and imputed cost estimates, CLL/SLL patients treated with ibrutinib had longer duration of 1L, fewer days with CLL/SLL-related outpatient services and numerically lower all-cause and CLL/SLL-related costs versus acalabrutinib, showing that ibrutinib can be an optimal cost-effective option in 1L.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".