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
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
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.
Plain language summary
What is this article about?
Ibrutinib and acalabrutinib are recommended for first-line (1L) treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). This study compared the number of hospital admissions and outpatient visits, as well as healthcare costs between patients with CLL/SLL treated with either ibrutinib or acalabrutinib using two large databases representative of the US population.
What were the results?
Findings were similar for the two databases. Patients treated with ibrutinib had longer duration of 1L, fewer disease-related outpatient visits and consistently similar or lower healthcare costs compared with patients treated with acalabrutinib.
What do the results mean?
The use of two large databases allows for improved generalizability of study findings, and suggests that ibrutinib is a cost-effective option for 1L CLL/SLL therapy compared with acalabrutinib.
Tweetable abstract
A study found that patients with CLL/SLL treated with ibrutinib had fewer disease-related outpatient visits and similar or lower healthcare costs compared with patients treated with acalabrutinib. Results suggest ibrutinib can be a more cost-effective option for first-line CLL/SLL therapy.
Graphical abstract
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
Supplementary Material
File (supplementary data.docx)
- Download
- 26.83 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Program. Cancer stat facts: leukemia — chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) 2025 [cited: 28 March 2025]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/clyl.html
2.
American Cancer Society. Key statistics for chronic lymphocytic leukemia 2025. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/chronic-lymphocytic-leukemia/about/key-statistics.html
3.
Patel K, Pagel JM. Current and future treatment strategies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J. Hematol. Oncol. 14(1), 69 (2021).
4.
Barr PM, Owen C, Robak T et al. Up to 8-year follow-up from RESONATE-2: first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood Adv. 6(11), 3440–3450 (2022).
• Extended follow-up data from the RESONATE-2 phase III clinical trial in treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients. Over an 8-year follow-up period, ibrutinib was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chlorambucil.
5.
Fraser GAM, Chanan-Khan A, Demirkan F et al. Final 5-year findings from the phase III HELIOS study of ibrutinib plus bendamustine and rituximab in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 61(13), 3188–3197 (2020).
6.
Moreno C, Greil R, Demirkan F et al. First-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia with ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab: final analysis of the randomized, phase III iLLUMINATE trial. Haematologica 107(9), 2108–2120 (2022).
7.
Shanafelt TD, Wang XV, Hanson CA et al. Long-term outcomes for ibrutinib-rituximab and chemoimmunotherapy in CLL: updated results of the E1912 trial. Blood 140(2), 112–120 (2022).
8.
Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Heerema NA et al. Long-term results of Alliance A041202 show continued advantage of ibrutinib-based regimens compared with bendamustine plus rituximab (br) chemoimmunotherapy. Blood 138(Suppl. 1), 639 (2021).
9.
Burger JA, Barr PM, Robak T et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with CLL/SLL: 5 years of follow-up from the phase III RESONATE-2 study. Leukemia 34(3), 787–798 (2020).
10.
Moreno C, Greil R, Demirkan F et al. Ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (iLLUMINATE): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 20(1), 43–56 (2019).
11.
Shanafelt TD, Wang XV, Kay NE et al. Ibrutinib-rituximab or chemoimmunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(5), 432–443 (2019).
12.
Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Heerema NA et al. Ibrutinib regimens versus chemoimmunotherapy in older patients with untreated CLL. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(26), 2517–2528 (2018).
13.
CALQUENCE (acalabrutinib). Prescribing Information. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, DE, USA (2022).
14.
Lu X, Emond B, Qureshi Z et al. CLL-492 Real-world adherence to first-line ibrutinib and acalabrutinib single-agent among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. Clin. Lymph. Myeloma Leuk. 22, S280–S281 (2022).
15.
Lu X, Emond B, Morrison L et al. Real-world comparison of first-line treatment adherence between single-agent ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patient Pref. Adhere. 17, 2073–2084 (2023).
• Retrospective, real-world study comparing adherence between CLL/SLL patients treated with first-line (1L) ibrutinib or acalabrutinib in the US using electronic medical records (EMR) data. The study concluded that patients treated with 1L ibrutinib had higher adherence to treatment than patients treated with 1L acalabrutinib.
16.
Jacobs R, Levy M, Yazbeck V et al. Comparison of time to next treatment between patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia initiating first-line ibrutinib or acalabrutinib, overall and in a subgroup with high-risk characteristics. Presented at: International Ultmann Chicago Lymphoma Symposium and Eurporean Hematology Association (2024).
17.
Jacobs R, Lu X, Emond B et al. Time to next treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia initiating first-line ibrutinib or acalabrutinib. Future Oncol. 20(1), 39–53 (2024).
• Retrospective, real-world study comparing time to next treatment in patients with CLL/SLL treated with 1L ibrutinib or acalabrutinib in the US using EMR data. The study concluded that next treatment (a clinically meaningful measure for real-world progression) occurred less often with 1L ibrutinib.
18.
Akhtar OS, Attwood K, Lund I et al. Dose reductions in ibrutinib therapy are not associated with inferior outcomes in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Leuk. Lymphoma 60(7), 1650–1655 (2019).
19.
Ghosh N, Qureshi ZP, Ding Z et al. Ibrutinib dose adjustment does not impact time to next treatment in first-line patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a real-world analysis of electronic medical records from academic and non-teaching hospitals using target trial emulation. Blood 142, 1915 (2023).
20.
Ghosh N, Wang R, Ding Z et al. Comparative effectiveness of ibrutinib flexible dosing treatment strategies on time to next treatment in a largely community-based claims database: a target trial emulation study. Blood 142, 270 (2023).
•• Retrospective, real-world study evaluating time to next treatment in 1L ibrutinib patients with CLL/SLL with or without a dose reduction. After emulation of a target trial, dose reduction was not associated with increased risk of initiating a next treatment.
21.
Stephens DM, Brown JR, Shuo M et al. Ibrutinib dose modifications for management of cardiac adverse events in patients with B-cell malignancies: pooled analysis of 10 clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 41(Suppl. 16), 7538 (2023).
22.
Woyach JA, Barr PM, Kipps TJ et al. Characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma receiving ibrutinib for >/= 5 years in the RESONATE-2 study. Cancers (Basel) 15(2), 507 (2023).
23.
Shadman M, Karve S, Abbazio C et al. P1846: real-world clinical outcomes of first-line ibrutinib dose reduction versus acalabrutinib among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Presented at: European Hematology Association, Madrid, Spain, 13–16 June 2024.
24.
Huang Q, Emond B, Lafeuille M-H et al. Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with first-line ibrutinib compared to chemoimmunotherapy treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 36(12), 2009–2018 (2020).
•• Retrospective, real-world study comparing healthcare resource utilization and costs for Medicare beneficiaries with CLL/SLL who received ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in 1L. The study found that single-agent 1L ibrutinib was associated with lower monthly costs relative to CIT.
25.
Emond B, Sundaram M, Romdhani H et al. Comparison of time to next treatment, health care resource utilization, and costs in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia initiated on front-line ibrutinib or chemoimmunotherapy. Clin. Lymph. Myeloma Leuk. 19(12), 763–775.e2 (2019).
•• Retrospective, real-world study comparing time to next treatment, health care resource utilization (HRU) and total direct costs in patients with CLL initiating 1L ibrutinib or CIT. The study found that ibrutinib was associated with longer time to next treatment, fewer monthly days with outpatient visits and lower total monthly costs.
26.
Fradley M, Lafeuille MH, Emond B et al. Early adherence and persistence to first-line ibrutinib or acalabrutinib among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma and atrial fibrillation. Presented at: American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–13 December 2022.
27.
Davids M, Mato A, Hum J et al. Majic: a phase III prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of acalabrutinib plus venetoclax versus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Blood 138(Suppl. 1), 1553–1554 (2021).
28.
Davids M, Lampson B, Tyekucheva S et al. Acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab as frontline treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a single-arm, open-label, phase II study. Lancet Oncol. 22(10), 1391–1402 (2021).
29.
Jain N, Keating M, Thompson P et al. Ibrutinib and venetoclax for first-line treatment of CLL. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(22), 2095–2103 (2019).
30.
IMBRUVICA (ibrutinib). Prescribing Information. Janssen Biotech, Inc, PA, USA (2022).
31.
Muñoz J, Sarosiek S, Castillo JJ. Managing ibrutinib-intolerant patients with B-cell malignancies. Oncologist 28(4), 309–318 (2023).
32.
Stephens DM, Byrd JC. How I manage ibrutinib intolerance and complications in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 133(12), 1298–1307 (2019).
33.
Hallek M, Al-Sawaf O. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia: 2022 update on diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Am. J. Hematol. 96(12), 1679–1705 (2021).
34.
O'Brien SM, Brown JR, Byrd JC et al. Monitoring and managing BTK inhibitor treatment-related adverse events in clinical practice. Front. Oncol. 11, 720704 (2021).
35.
Morrison L, Lin D, Benson C et al. Projecting the economic outcomes of switching patients with schizophrenia from oral atypical antipsychotics to once-monthly, once-every-3-months, and once-every-6-months paliperidone palmitate. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 29(2), 161–171 (2023).
36.
Maeng DD, Stewart WF, Yan X et al. Use of electronic health records for early detection of high-cost, low back pain patients. Pain Res. Manag. 20(5), 234–240 (2015).
37.
Sheffield BS, Eaton K, Emond B et al. Cost savings of expedited care with upfront next-generation sequencing testing versus single-gene testing among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer based on current canadian practices. Curr. Oncol. 30(2), 2348–2365 (2023).
38.
Korjian S, Daaboul Y, Laliberté F et al. Cost implications of anticoagulation strategies after percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with atrial fibrillation (A PIONEER-AF PCI analysis). Am. J. Cardiol. 123(3), 355–360 (2019).
39.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat. Med. 28(25), 3083–3107 (2009).
40.
Quan H, Li B, Couris CM et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am. J. Epidemiol. 173(6), 676–682 (2011).
41.
Melgaard L,Gorst-Rasmussen A, Lane DA, Rasmussen LH, Larsen TB, Lip GYH, , Assessment of the CHA2DS2-VASc Score in Predicting Ischemic Stroke, Thromboembolism and Death in Patients With Heart Failure With and Without Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA. 314(10), 1030 (2015).
42.
January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society in Collaboration With the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 140(2), e125–e1 (2019).
43.
Cutler RL, Fernandez-Llimos F, Frommer M et al. Economic impact of medication non-adherence by disease groups: a systematic review. BMJ Open 8(1), e016982 (2018).
44.
Iuga AO, McGuire MJ. Adherence and health care costs. Risk Manag. Healthcare Pol. 7, 35–44 (2014).
45.
Santoleri F, Sorice P, Lasala R et al. Patient adherence and persistence with imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib in clinical practice. PLoS ONE 8(2), e56813 (2013).
46.
Gillespie CW, Morin PE, Tucker JM et al. Medication adherence, health care utilization, and spending among privately insured adults with chronic conditions in the United States, 2010–2016. Am. J. Med. 133(6), 690–704.e19 (2020).
47.
Li Q, Zhang H, Chen Z et al. Validation of real-world data-based endpoint measures of cancer treatment outcomes. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2021, 716–725 (2021).
48.
Rivera DR, Henk HJ, Garrett-Mayer E et al. The friends of cancer research real-world data collaboration pilot 2.0: methodological recommendations from oncology case studies. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 111(1), 283–292 (2022).
49.
Shadman M, Salkar M, Srivastava B et al. Real-world outcomes following ibrutinib dose reduction in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 66(1), 44–53 (2025).
50.
Ghosh N, Wang R, Qureshi ZP et al. Impact of ibrutinib dose adjustment on TTNT in first-line CLL/SLL: a real-world analysis using target trial emulation. Blood Neoplasia 1(3), 100022 (2024).
51.
Rogers KA, Lu X, Emond B et al. Real-world (RW) dosing patterns and outcomes among chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients (pts) with or without an ibrutinib (IBR) dose adjustment (DA) in first-line (1L). J. Clin. Oncol. 41(16), 7537 (2023).
52.
Fitzgerald L, Khan W, Bokun A et al. Overall survival of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with frontline bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors: an analysis of the United States Veterans Health Administration database. Blood 144, 7753 (2024).
53.
Alrawashdh N, McBride A, Abraham I. Cost-effectiveness analyses of first line ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib versus zanubrutinib followed by second line venetoclax plus rituximab in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients. Blood 140(Suppl. 1), 2155–2156 (2022).
54.
Paludo J, Sarosiek SR, von Keudell GR et al. Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization in patients with waldenström macroglobulinemia initiating first-line treatment with ibrutinib or zanubrutinib. Blood 142, 7385 (2023).
55.
Seiter K, Latremouille-Viau D, Guerin A et al. Burden of infections among chronic myeloid leukemia patients receiving dasatinib or nilotinib: a real-world retrospective healthcare claims study in the United States. Adv. Ther. 35(10), 1671–1685 (2018).
56.
Narezkina A, Akhter N, Lu X et al. Real-world persistence and time to next treatment with ibrutinib in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma including patients at high risk for atrial fibrillation or stroke. Clin. Lymph. Myeloma Leuk. 22(11), e959–e971 (2022).
57.
Kabadi SM, Goyal RK, Nagar SP, Kaye JA, Davis KL. Treatment patterns, adverse events, and economic burden in a privately insured population of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States. Cancer Med. 8(8), 3803–3810 (2019).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2025 The authors. This work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License
History
Received: 8 November 2024
Accepted: 7 April 2025
Published online: 22 April 2025
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
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. (2025) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.57264/cer-2024-0210
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Lindsey Fitzgerald, Sabyasachi Ghosh, Alex Bokun, Angela Lax, Fan Mu, Eric Wu, Yilu Lin, Lizheng Shi, Zaina P Qureshi, Solomon A Graf, Healthcare cost comparison between first-line ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients in the Veterans Affairs, Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 10.57264/cer-2025-0084, 14, 11, (2025).