Xue, Mei

Abstract Introduction Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) have changed the treatment algorithm for patients with high-risk relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Efficacy was demonstrated for zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in high-risk R/R CLL patients in the ALPINE (NCT03734016) trial, for ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in the ELEVATE-RR (NCT02477696) trial, and for acalabrutinib in the ASCEND (NCT00135226) trial. While there is limited head-to-head comparative trial data of all covalent BTKis in the treatment of high-risk R/R CLL, a previously published network meta-analysis (NMA) used data from the ALPINE, ELEVATE-RR, and ASCEND trials, and reported that zanubrutinib demonstrated significantly improved relative efficacy compared to ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in high-risk R/R CLL (Shadman 2025). Within this NMA, high-risk R/R CLL populations were defined based on the prespecified definitions within each trial, including patients with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations in the ALPINE and ASCEND trials, and del(17p)/del(11q) in the ELEVATE-RR trial. This study aimed to compare zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in high-risk R/R CLL by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one progression or death. Methods A model was developed to evaluate the NNT among high-risk R/R CLL patients to avoid a progression or death. Progression free survival (PFS) data for zanubrutinib in high-risk patients were extracted from the ALPINE trial. PFS values for ibrutinib and acalabrutinib were derived from the previously published NMA study. PFS for ibrutinib and acalabrutinib were calculated by applying PFS hazard ratio from the NMA results to the zanubrutinib PFS value for the high-risk population in the ALPINE trial. 24-month PFS (72.6% for zanubrutinib, 52.0% for ibrutinib, and 55.9% for acalabrutinib) were used for the base case analysis of the model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the impact of alternative PFS inputs for ibrutinib, derived directly from the high-risk populations in ALPINE trial (unadjusted). Results The base case results from the NNT model indicate that for the treatment of patients with high-risk R/R CLL over 24-months, every five patients treated with zanubrutinib instead of ibrutinib results in the avoidance of one disease progression or death and every six patients treated with zanubrutinib instead of acalabrutinib results in the avoidance of one disease progression or death. Applying the model result to a hypothetical scenario of 100 patients with high-risk R/R CLL treated with zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib for two years finds approximately 20 patients will avoid disease progression events or deaths. Treating the same population with zanubrutinib versus acalabrutinib for two years will result in the avoidance of 17 disease progression events or death. Sensitivity analysis showed consistent NNT results.Conclusions The NNT analysis suggests that among high-risk R/R CLL patients, zanubrutinib is associated with more favorable clinical outcomes compared to ibrutinib and acalabrutinib. Over 24 months, zanubrutinib demonstrated a NNT of five to prevent one disease progression or death compared to ibrutinib, and an NNT of six compared to acalabrutinib, in high-risk R/R CLL patients. Study findings should be interpreted based on modeling assumptions and potential patient population differences across trials.

Abstract Introduction: CLL disease control and survival outcomes have improved since the introduction of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis). Since CLL often requires treatments, understanding patient preferences is critical in optimizing adherence and overall satisfaction. However, there are limited published data on how Korean patients prioritize treatment efficacy, safety and the convenience of administration. To address this gap, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology was applied in a comprehensive quantitative analysis to evaluate patient preferences for BTKi treatment attributes among patients with CLL in Korea. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a confirmed diagnosis of CLL in Korea were recruited by The Korea Blood Disease & Cancer Association to participate in an online DCE survey questionnaire from April 30, 2025 to May 22, 2025. Treatment attributes and levels were identified based on published literature and clinical inputs. Efficacy attributes included progression-free survival (PFS); safety attributes included impacts of adverse events (AEs), including diarrhea, headache, atrial fibrillation and hypertension, on quality of life (QoL); convenience attributes included formulation type (including tablet or capsule) and dosing frequency (including once daily or twice daily). Preference data was analyzed using a conditional logistic regression. Relative importance of BTKi treatment attributes were calculated to measure the importance of each attribute in treatment decision-making. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted among patients aged <60 years and ≥60 years, those who received 2 or more lines (2L+) of treatments, and those who experienced AEs from CLL treatment. Results: A total of 57 patients completed the survey. The mean age was 61 years, with 46% aged <60 years and 54% aged ≥60 years. Female patients comprise 35% of the sample. Around 33% had a high school education or less, and 23% were employed full-time. More than half (54%) reported no comorbid conditions, and 70% were diagnosed ≥5 years ago (26% diagnosed 1 to <5 years ago; 4% diagnosed less than a year ago). In terms of treatment experience, 11% were treatment naive, while 89% received ≥1 treatment (61% first-line, 21% second-line and 7% third-line or later). In the context of CLL treatment preferences, patients showed a significant preference (P < .05) for therapies that minimized the impact of AEs on QoL, offered longer PFS, and required less frequent dosing. Formulation type did not have a statistically significant impact on treatment choice. Overall, patients placed greater importance on how treatment-related attributes affect their QoL and dosing frequency. The highest-ranked factors were the impact of headache (22%) and diarrhea (21%) on QoL, followed by dosing frequency (19%), the impact of atrial fibrillation (16%) and hypertension (14%) on QoL, PFS (7%), and formulation type (0.6%). Results from the subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the full sample analysis, with impacts of AEs on QoL being the most important factors for treatment decision-making, especially among older patients, although the relative ranking of impacts of AEs varied by age groups and treatment experience. Regarding efficacy, younger patients (<60 years of age) valued PFS slightly more than older patients (≥60 years of age), ranking it 4th and 6th out of the 10 attributes, respectively. Additionally, preference on dosing frequency was more important for 2L+ patients, reflecting the treatment burden experienced from previous regimens. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the treatment preferences of Korean patients with CLL, highlighting the importance of QoL considerations for treatment decision-making. Among the evaluated attributes, patients placed the greatest weight on minimizing the impacts of AEs, particularly headache and diarrhea, on daily functioning, followed by dosing frequency. These preferences underscore the need for patient-centered care that prioritizes not only clinical efficacy but also tolerability and convenience. These insights can inform shared decision-making and support the development of personalized treatment strategies that better align with patient needs and expectations in Korea.

Introduction: The prognosis for CLL/SLL has improved with the advent of novel therapeutic classes, including BTKis. While comparative data for several BTKis have been published, there are limited data on patient preferences in BTKi treatment selection. Understanding and integrating patient perspective in the BTKi treatment selection process is crucial to shared decision-making and attaining optimal treatment outcomes. To understand patients' priorities for different treatment attributes that impact their treatment decisions, a comprehensive quantitative analysis of patient preferences on BTKi treatment attributes was conducted. Methods: A patient survey with a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) design was conducted from March to June 2024 among USA adults (≥18 years) with confirmed diagnosis of CLL/SLL, recruited through online patient panels, physician referrals, and support groups. BTKi treatment attributes were selected based on results of a targeted literature review and clinical inputs. Patients responded to DCE questions on attributes related to efficacy, safety (eg, impacts of diarrhea, headache, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension on quality of life [QoL]), formulation type, and dosing frequency. The impact of adverse events (AEs) on QoL was defined as the extent to which AEs caused interruptions in patients' ability to engage in their usual day-to-day activities. A conditional logistic regression model was used to calculate the relative importance of each attribute, as well as patient willingness to trade off specified BTKi treatment attributes. Results: A total of 200 patients with CLL/SLL completed the survey (median age: 61 years; 78% White; 55% female; 60% commercially insured; 82% suburban/urban residence). Less than half (43%) were diagnosed ≥5 years ago, and 61% received ≥3 lines of therapy. Almost all (89%) patients reported having experienced ≥1 AE from treatment previously, with the most common AEs being fatigue (76%), diarrhea (51%), headache (51%), and nausea and/or vomiting (51%). When considering the importance of efficacy measures, most patients prioritized CLL/SLL treatments that extended life expectancy (93%), followed by those that increased the likelihood of remission or cure (84%) and those that paused the progression of disease (67%). Patients preferred treatments with higher efficacy, less impact of AEs on QoL, and lower dosing frequency (P<.001). The top 3 treatment attributes with the highest relative importance to patients were impact of atrial fibrillation on QoL (24%), progression-free survival (PFS; 19%), and impact of headache on QoL (18%), followed by impact of diarrhea (14%) and hypertension (14%) on QoL, dosing frequency (9%), and formulation type (3%). On average, patients were willing to accept a reduction of 2.6, 1.9, 1.4, and 1.4 years of PFS to receive a treatment with less (none or mild vs significant) impact of atrial fibrillation, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension on QoL, respectively. Patients were willing to accept a reduction of 1.0 year of PFS to receive once-daily vs twice-daily treatment. Conclusions: Findings from this patient preference survey suggested that impact of atrial fibrillation on QoL, PFS, and impact of headache on QoL were the most important attributes of BTKi treatment for patients with CLL/SLL in the USA. Shared decision-making in CLL/SLL treatment selection should include an informed discussion about AEs, as besides efficacy comparisons, patients may prefer treatments with less impact of AEs on their QoL. Future prospective studies evaluating the effects of shared treatment decision-making on treatment adherence and outcomes are needed to better understand their impact on CLL/SLL patient care and inform clinical practice.