The Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Channel on VJHemOnc is an independent medical education platform, supported with funding from AstraZeneca (Diamond), AbbVie (Platinum), BeOne Medicines (Silver) and Lilly (Silver). Supporters have no influence on the production of content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given.
EHA 2025 | The economic impact of treatment sequencing in CLL
Andrea Visentin, MD, PhD, University of Padua, Padua, Italy, comments on the economic impact of treatment sequencing in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Dr Visentin highlights that starting with a fixed-duration treatment can decrease overall costs, and retreatment with a fixed-duration treatment after ibrutinib plus venetoclax can further reduce costs. This interview took place at the 30th Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Milan, Italy.
These works are owned by Magdalen Medical Publishing (MMP) and are protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All rights are reserved.
Transcript
Yes, this is another important point as again also for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia we have several treatment options that range from continuous treatment with covalent BTK inhibitor, we have three different drugs, to continuous treatment with non-covalent BTK inhibitor and in the next future we also have continuous treatment with BTK degraders but we had also some fixed duration treatments such as the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab in the front line, venetoclax and rituximab in relapsed refractory patients, and also the combination of oral drugs with venetoclax and ibrutinib or acalabrutinib and venetoclax and zanubrutinib-venetoclax...
Yes, this is another important point as again also for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia we have several treatment options that range from continuous treatment with covalent BTK inhibitor, we have three different drugs, to continuous treatment with non-covalent BTK inhibitor and in the next future we also have continuous treatment with BTK degraders but we had also some fixed duration treatments such as the combination of venetoclax and obinutuzumab in the front line, venetoclax and rituximab in relapsed refractory patients, and also the combination of oral drugs with venetoclax and ibrutinib or acalabrutinib and venetoclax and zanubrutinib-venetoclax. So, this time we did not focus on percentage and rates of remissions on detectable MRD progression-free survival but we want to address the cost of all drugs given a time span of 5 and 10 years through the horizons. We analyzed all the different sequences in patients with high risk features and without high risk features. We were able to identify 14 different sequences of treatments in patients without risk factors and 18 different treatment sequences for patients with high risk factors. We compared the cost of the drugs, but also we take into consideration the cost for the management of the adverse events, the cost of hospitalizations, the cost of the ramp up phases, and so on. Overall, we can see that either in low risk patients and patients with high risk features, such as those with TP53 abnormalities, starting with a fixed duration treatment allows to decrease the overall cost of the patients yet the decrease is about 50% of the cost in patients without risk factors and 30% of cost saved in patients with high risk features. Again, if we also take into consideration retreatment with a fixed duration treatment after I plus V, we were able to decrease more the cost of the overall drugs. And we, of course, we utilized the data of the cost of the drug related to the Italian Drug Agency, but I think this can be applied in every country of the world.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.
Read more...
