Yang, Keri

Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common leukaemia type. In 2020, there were an estimated 207,463 people living with CLL, with an annual incidence of approximately 4.9 per 100,000 in the United States (US). Zanubrutinib is a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is FDA-approved and an NCCN preferred and recommended treatment of CLL. In the phase 3 ALPINE trial (NCT03734016), zanubrutinib elicited a significantly higher overall response rate and significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) than ibrutinib. This study aimed to compare zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib in Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) CLL by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one progression or death and associated incremental costs. Methods:A health-economic model was developed to evaluate the number of R/R CLL patients needed to be treated to avoid a progression or death from the US payer perspective. Payer blend was assumed with 40% Commercial and 60% Medicare payer mix. Clinical efficacy data were extracted from the ALPINE trial. Final analysis result of 24-month PFS (79.5% for zanubrutinib and 67.3% for ibrutinib) was used for the base-case analysis in the model. Treatment, adverse event management, other medical resource use, and subsequent treatment costs were considered in the model. The NNT, incremental cost per treated patient, and incremental cost per additional patient with progression or death were captured. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess parameter uncertainties and explore key model drivers. Scenario analyses were conducted to test the impact of different PFS estimates. Results: The base-case results fromthe NNT model showed that for every 8 patients treated with zanubrutinib, 1 event of progression or death would be avoided compared to using ibrutinib. The total costs per patient treated with zanubrutinib and ibrutinib are $370,558 and $430,150, respectively, with a cost savings of $59,593 associated with using zanubrutinib (Table). Drug costs and PFS have the greatest impact on the incremental cost per patient. Varying the PFS scenarios, including adjustment with drug interruption, COVID death, or treatment discontinuation, change the NNT from 8 to 12, and are associated with cost savings of $58,179 to $67,153 per zanubrutinib-treated patient in a 24-month time frame. Applying the model result to a hypothetical scenario of a clinical practice of 100 patients treated with zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib suggest that approximately 13 patients will avoid disease progression events or death. Conclusions: The NNT model suggests thatusing zanubrutinib to treat R/R CLL patients, compared to ibrutinib, will result in more favorable clinical and economic outcomes in the US.

Background: The treatment landscape for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is evolving at a rapid pace, with development of several targeted therapies. The real-world applicability of clinical trial effectiveness is markedly influenced by treatment choices, the specific characteristics of patients' diseases, their overall health, and individual preferences. However, there is limited evidence to understand the impact of multiple treatment options on real-world effectiveness in CLL in routine clinical practice. This study aimed to characterize recent real-world treatment sequencing patterns and associated time to next treatment among patients with CLL in the United States. Methods: This retrospective observational study included patients diagnosed with CLL (≥18 years at diagnosis) from January 1, 2018, through January 1, 2023, who received ≥1 treatment after initial diagnosis. Patients were sourced from the ConcertAI RWD360 dataset, a real-world de-identified dataset >6 million patients from across the United States derived from various electronic health record systems and integrated with a large administrative open claims dataset. Patients were followed through the end of the record or death, whichever occurred first. Patients were classified into the following treatment categories: chemotherapy (including bendamustine-based and other chemotherapy), anti-CD20-based, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)-based (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib), and venetoclax-based therapy. Demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment sequencing pattern, and time to next treatment were examined across lines of therapy for each treatment category. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate median time to next treatment. Results: The study included 3,431 patients with CLL (median age: 69 years; male: 63.8%). There was a significant variation in average age among the 4 treatment groups ( P<0.0001). Compared with the overall population, patients who received anti-CD20-based therapy were slightly older (median age: 71 years), while patients who received venetoclax-based therapy were relatively younger (median age: 67 years). Patients were primarily treated in community rather than academic settings (76.4% vs 21.3%). First-line patients were most commonly treated with BTKi (60.1%), venetoclax (16.0%), and anti-CD20 (15.4%) regimens. Among patients who initiated BTKi therapies, zanubrutinib use (2.6%) was limited; this may be due to the recent approval date (January 2023). Among CLL patients, 35.0% received second-line treatment and BTKi stayed dominant (35.7%), followed by anti-CD20 (29.6%) and venetoclax (25.8%) therapies. From first- to second-line therapy, the prevailing sequencing pattern was from either one BTKi to another BTKi (23.5%), venetoclax to anti-CD20 (13.2%), or BTKi to an anti-CD20 (9.7%). From second- to third-line therapy, patients most frequently switched from anti-CD20 to venetoclax (24.6%), anti-CD20 to BTKi (13.3%), or one BTKi to another BTKi (12.6%). From third- to fourth-line therapy, the predominant sequencing pattern was from venetoclax to anti-CD20 (21.3%), anti-CD20 back to venetoclax (20.6%), or one BTKi to another BTKi (11.6%). Median time to next treatment in first line was significantly longest for patients receiving BTKi (53.9 months) and shortest for patients treated with venetoclax (7.7 months) ( P<0.0001) (Figure 1). Median time to next treatment in second line was not reached among patients using BTKi, while it was significantly shorter for those on venetoclax and anti-CD20 (10.4 months and 1.5 months, respectively; P<0.0001) (Figure 2). Conclusions: This studydemonstrated unique treatment sequencing patterns among patients with CLL in the real-world setting.As the most commonly used regimen, BTKi therapy was shown to have significantly improved time to next treatment compared with other treatment regimens in first and second lines of therapies. Future studies with extended follow-up are needed to allow for assessment of newer treatments and enable evaluation of long-term clinical outcomes.

e19526 Background: Zanubrutinib is an oral, highly selective, next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Efficacy of zanubrutinib was compared with bendamustine + rituximab (BR) in adult patients with treatment-naïve (TN) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in the phase 3 SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333). However, efficacy of zanubrutinib compared with other frontline CLL treatments remains unknown. The goal of this network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to estimate the relative efficacy of zanubrutinib compared with standard frontline treatments for CLL. Methods: A total of 4 relevant RCTs were identified by a targeted literature review conducted throughout January 2022, CLL11 (NCT01010061), ALLIANCE (NCT01886872), MABLE (NCT01056510), and SEQUOIA. A feasibility assessment was performed to ensure that RCTs included within each population strata did not differ with respect to effect modifiers including presence of mutation, age, del11, and del17 status. A network was constructed for the composed 4 RCTs to compare the efficacy of zanubrutinib with bendamustine + rituximab, chlorambucil + obinutuzumab, chlorambucil + rituximab, and ibrutinib in patients with previously untreated CLL. Bayesian NMA models were conducted to simultaneously synthesize hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CI) for investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). A constant hazard ratio was assumed in the NMA analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using codes suggested by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Results: The efficacy results of the NMA indicated a statistically significant improvement in PFS for zanubrutinib over bendamustine + rituximab (HR=0.42; [95% CI=0.27, 0.65]), chlorambucil + obinutuzumab (0.45 [0.23, 0.86]), and chlorambucil + rituximab (0.22 [0.12, 0.41]). Zanubrutinib achieved comparable PFS to ibrutinib (1.07 [0.59, 1.94]). Conclusions: This is the first NMA to compare the efficacy of zanubrutinib with all commonly utilized first-line treatment for TN CLL. Results from this indirect treatment comparison suggested that the PFS for zanubrutinib may be statistically significantly better than immunochemotherapy. Findings from this study require validation with further large scale RCTs with longer follow up time.[Table: see text]

e19514 Background: Zanubrutinib, a next-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), demonstrated superior overall response rate and a trend toward improved progression-free survival (PFS) as compared to ibrutinib in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in the phase 3 ALPINE trial (NCT03734016) based on interim analysis. However, its comparative efficacy with other treatments is not known. The goal of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy of zanubrutinib compared with standard treatments for R/R CLL through a network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: The efficacy of zanubrutinib from ALPINE (study of zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with R/R CLL was compared to ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, bendamustine and rituximab (BR), and venetoclax + rituximab (V+R) using data from 4 RCTs. Relevant RCTs were identified using a systematic literature review. A network was constructed that composed RCTs (ALPINE, ELEVATE-RR [NCT02477696], ASCEND [NCT02970318], and MURANO [NCT02005471]). Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) models were used to simultaneously synthesize hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for investigator-assessed PFS and overall survival (OS) to estimate the relative efficacy of zanubrutinib versus comparators of interest. An assumption of constant hazard ratio was applied in the NMA analysis. Analyses were performed using well-established codes published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit and were implemented with OpenBUGS (version 3.2.3). Results: The NMA suggested a significant improvement in PFS for zanubrutinib over acalabrutinib (HR=0.52, 95% CrI [0.30, 0.90]), ibrutinib (0.47, [0.29, 0.76]), and BR (0.13, [0.06, 0.26]). Zanubrutinib had a numerically better PFS than V+R (0.69, [0.32, 1.46]) while not reaching statistical significance. For OS, NMA results showed a trend favoring zanubrutinib over acalabrutinib (0.75, [0.35, 1.59]), ibrutinib (0.62, [0.31, 1.22]), and BR (0.52, [0.21, 1.24]). The difference was not statistically significant with wide CrIs, suggesting a high uncertainty as inherent limitation of the analysis. Conclusions: This NMA reports the first summary of comparative PFS of available treatments for R/R CLL. Indirect treatment comparisons suggest PFS on zanubrutinib may be superior to other BTKis and immunochemotherapies in R/R CLL patients.[Table: see text]

e18729 Background: While the incidence of AF in CLL has been increasing, the implications of AF in real-world CLL patients remain understudied. This study aimed to assess the impact of AF on clinical and economic outcomes in CLL patients. Methods: This retrospective observational study used the US IBM MarketScan® commercial claims/Medicare supplement database (2017-2020) to identify newly diagnosed CLL patients (≥18 years) and incidence of AF after index date, defined as the first CLL diagnosis date. Patients were followed for ≥3-months pre-index, and from index to last follow-up or death. In addition to patient characteristics, clinical outcomes (incidence of heart failure [HF], bleeding and stroke) and economic outcomes (costs and healthcare resource utilization [HRU]) were compared between CLL patients with AF (CLL+AF) and CLL patients without AF (CLL-AF). HRU was evaluated by inpatient, outpatient, ER, and pharmacy visits. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to examine the association between AF and clinical outcomes. Results: Among a total of 16,800 newly diagnosed CLL patients included in the study, 20% developed AF. CLL+AF were significantly older than CLL-AF (median: 77 vs 62 years; P < .001). Compared to CLL-AF, CLL+AF also had significantly more comorbidities at baseline, as shown by higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) (median: 1.0 vs 3.0; P < .001) and more patients with previous AF history (0.3% vs 8.4%; P < .001). Further assessing clinical outcomes in CLL+AF vs CLL-AF, significantly higher incidence of HF (26.3% vs 3.0%; P < .001), bleeding (12.2% vs 4.8%; P < .001) and stroke (6.6% vs 1.2%; P < .001) were observed. For HRU, CLL+AF were reported to have significantly higher rates of ER visits (29.4% vs 12.9%; P < .001) and hospitalizations (42.2% vs 14.5%; P < .001) than CLL-AF. In CLL+AF, the average total AF-related costs were $13,520.21 within 30 days after AF diagnosis, and $22,304.82 within 60 days after AF diagnosis. Controlling for demographics and comorbidities, multivariable regressions reported statistically significant associations between AF and HF, as well as AF and stroke (Table). Conclusions: This real-world study reported significantly higher incidence of HF, bleeding and stroke incurred by CLL patients who developed AF compared with those who did not. The presence of HF, bleeding and stroke further increased HRU and costs. These findings highlight the importance of better disease management and treatment selection to prevent AF in CLL patients.[Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are subtypes of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Collectively, these subtypes constitute a large proportion of all B-cell malignancies; however, they are typically associated with survival spanning several years with multiple interspersed treatment periods due to frequent relapses. This can predispose patients to repeated hospitalization resulting in significant economic impact. The objectives of this study were to examine real-world treatment patterns, costs and healthcare resource utilization for patients with these lymphomas, as well as identify disparities and risk factors associated with costs incurred in US hospitals. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database, a geographically diverse all-payer, hospital administrative database containing more than one billion inpatient and hospital-based outpatient encounters. Patients aged ≥18 years with at least 1 inpatient or 2 hospital-based outpatient visits with a MCL, WM, CLL, or MZL diagnosis, and who received treatment for these conditions from 1/1/2014 to 10/31/2019 were included in the study. Descriptive analysis was conducted to examine patient sociodemographic and hospital characteristics, all-cause and lymphoma-related healthcare resource utilization and costs. Costs were obtained from patients' discharge files and hospital billing records. Multivariable analysis was performed using generalized linear models to examine risk factors associated with costs and LOS for each lymphoma type. Treatment evaluated including any use of supportive care (blood transfusion, granulocyte colony stimulating factors [GCSF]), and by regimen (steroids alone, chemotherapy alone, chemo-immunotherapy, rituximab alone, targeted therapy alone, targeted therapy in combination with chemotherapy, other). Statistical significance was determined as a p-value of &lt;0.05. Results: The study population included 23,952 CLL, 3,387 MCL, 2,655 MZL, and 1,811 WM patients in the US hospital database. Patients with WM were statistically significantly older (77 ± 58.5 years) compared to patients with CLL (74.2 ± 30.2 years), MCL (70.7 ± 37.3 years) or MZL (69.3 ± 33.8 years). More male (71.7%) and white (87.8%) patients were identified in the MCL cohort compared to the general lymphoma cohorts (Males: 58.7%; whites: 86.3). The most common comorbidities included chronic pulmonary disease (27.1%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (17.6%), moderate-severe renal disease (16.6%), congestive heart failure (15.7%) and diabetes without chronic complications (15.2%). Overall, more than two-thirds of patients in each lymphoma group received treatment with steroids alone during hospitalizations. While the use of steroids alone was higher among whites compared to non-white patients (69.5% vs. 60.4%), the use of chemo-immunotherapy was lower in whites compared to non-whites (11.9% vs. 16.2%). The average LOS of inpatient hospitalization ranged from 6.3 days for CLL to 7.4 days for MCL, with the mean costs per hospitalization from $19,566 (CLL) to $24,439 (MCL). Non-white patients have significantly longer mean LOS days compared with white patients (CLL: 18.3 vs. 14.8; MCL: 21.7 vs. 18.3; MZL: 21.6 vs. 18.5; WM 19.0 vs. 14.5). Across the 4 lymphoma types, multivariable regression confirmed the descriptive results and demonstrated that higher hospitals costs were associated with patients who were non-white, Hispanic/Latino, treated in hospitals located in the Northeast or West, or had Medicaid; statistically significant increased cost of care was also noted for patients who received targeted therapy or supportive care, such as blood transfusion or GCSF (Table 1). Conclusions: Real-world data demonstrated the significantly high total hospital costs once patients with MCL, WM, MZL, and CLL patients were hospitalized, with significantly higher impact to minority populations. Given the increased availability of effective oral therapeutics, optimal and timely disease control in the outpatients setting can potentially prevent or decrease hospitalizations and reduce economic burden on healthcare. Future studies are needed to explore the reason for admission, clinical outcomes, and potential preventive interventions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Cao: Premier, Inc.: Current Employment; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy. Baumer: BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Premier, Inc.: Current Employment. Krishnaswami: BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Premier, Inc.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Ailawadhi: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Clinical availability of highly effective novel agents (including Bruton tyrosine kinase [BTK] and B-cell lymphoma 2 [BCL-2] inhibitors) is rapidly altering the therapeutic landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) necessitating a review of treatment guidelines. However, there is limited real-world data to validate if the availability of these novel agents has translated to a true shift in treatment paradigm for patients treated in the community. As the majority of CLL patients are treated in non-academic community-based settings, we investigated the clinical adoption trends of commercially available FDA approved novel agents for treatment of CLL patients. In addition, given that the COVID-19 pandemic led to major alteration in clinical oncology practices, we further studied if this contributed to an alteration in the selection of therapeutic agents resulting in changes of CLL treatment patterns and the utilization of novel agents in the real-world setting. Thus, the objectives of this study were to examine the utilization pattern of various CLL therapies, as well as evaluate the pattern of adoption of novel agents for treatment and the impact of COVID. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using the Flatiron Health database that comprised EHR-derived de-identified data. Adult patients (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed CLL from January 2014 to May 2021, with no prior treatment and who were continuously enrolled for at least 6 months before and 3 months after the index date, defined as the first date of CLL/SLL diagnosis were included. Treatment regimens were classified into seven mutually exclusive categories: bendamustine-based chemotherapy, other chemotherapy, anti-CD20-based therapy, ibrutinib, idelalisib, acalabrutinib and venetoclax. Further treatment categorization included chemotherapy vs. targeted therapy, and traditional IV vs. novel oral agents. The impact of the pandemic was examined by comparing the pre- and post-COVID cohorts (defined as 15 months pre- and post- of March 1, 2021). Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the frequency of use of treatment regimens by quarter in each year, line of therapy and between different age, gender, US geographical region, insurance status, and race/ethnicity subgroups. Multivariable regression was conducted to examine factors associated with the likelihood of adoption of novel and oral agents. Statistical significance was determined at a p-value of less than 0.05. Results: A total of 3,037 newly diagnosed CLL patients (median age =73) were included in the study. Over half were male (62.3%), white (74.6%) and commercially-insured (54.1%). Patients were primarily treated in community practices (92%). Overall, a significant trend in adoption of novel agents was observed throughout the years following their approval (Figure 1A). Across the evaluation period, a significant decrease in chemotherapy use was observed from 61.3% (quarter 1, 2014) to 20% (quarter 2, 2021) in favor of targeted therapy as first-line therapy (Figure 1B). In contrast, the utilization of novel oral agents (vs. traditional IV agents) for first-line therapy increased from 9.5% to 70.9% for the same period (Figure 1C). Similar trends were observed for second-line and third-line therapies. Encouragingly, this change in treatment patterns was adopted comparably in all sociodemographic subgroups with no evidence of disparity. While there was no statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-COVID treatment landscape, the adoption of target and novel oral agents has been more pronounced with the COVID pandemic. Conclusions: Results from real-world data suggest that there is a clear shift towards the adoption of novel therapies with preference given to targeted agents and oral therapies in the US since 2014. Further research examining real-world outcomes associated with treatment regimens are needed to inform decision makers. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Zimmerman: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Ailawadhi: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The impact of cancer care and management beyond treatment is significantly high for cancer patients. Due to the complexities of cancer treatment, patients are heavily reliant upon ancillary support often rendered by friends and family. One significant yet unquantifiable impact of cancer on society is productivity loss of both patients and their caregivers. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is considered largely incurable with a protracted clinical course punctuated with multiple remission and relapses, warranting repeated treatment and intensive clinical testing, which necessitates significant engagement of patients and caregivers. Many patients are members of the workforce at the age of diagnosis. Both working patients and caregivers need time for medical care, which translates to indirect economic impact due to lost productivity. The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate the productivity loss and indirect costs in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), or Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) and their caregivers. Methods: The MarketScan Commercial and Health and Productivity Management databases were used to identify patients with CLL, MCL, MZL, and WM (using ICD-9/ICD-10 codes) who were continuously enrolled for ≥6 months pre- and ≥1 month post-diagnosis (index date) from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2019. The final study cohort included patients aged 18-64 who were full-time workers with eligibility of absentee, or short-/long-term disability on index date and for ≥1 month in follow-up. Those who were pregnant during the study period were excluded. Adult, full-time employed caregivers, defined as family members covered under the same health plan as the patient, and continuously enrolled ≥6 months pre- and ≥1 month post-index, were also identified. Among those with eligibility, the percentage with a claim of absentee, short- or long-term disability (patients only), and associated productivity time loss and indirect costs during follow-up were examined. Lost wages were calculated using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019 report. For short- or long-term disabilities, mean daily wages were reduced to 70% of typical wages. Productivity time loss and costs were reported per-patient-per-month (PPPM) for each lymphoma. Results: The final patient cohort included 3,450 CLL, 448 MCL, 1,052 MZL and 394 WM patients; the caregiver cohort included 1,435 CLL, 171 MCL, 437 MZL and 190 WM caregivers. Among eligible patients, there were higher proportions of patients that had absentee claims (CLL, 76%; MCL, 72%; MZL, 72%; WM, 82%), followed by short-term disability (CLL, 16%; MCL, 36%; MZL, 18%; WM, 17%) and long-term disability (CLL, 3%; MCL, 10%; MZL, 3%; WM, 3%) (Figure 1A). The proportions of caregivers with absentee claims (CLL, 78%; MCL, 90%; MZL, 69%; WM, 75%) were also higher than those with short-term disability (CLL, 7%; MCL, 10%; MZL, 4%; WM, 8%) (Figure 1B). For all 4 lymphoma types, average illness-related absentee hours were higher in patients than caregivers (CLL, 9.5 vs 6.9; MCL, 44.5 vs 3.6; MZL, 17.0 vs 5.0; WM, 18.2 vs 8.1). A similar pattern was observed for short-term disability days (CLL, 6.9 vs 4.2; MCL, 10.8 vs 3.4; MZL, 7.0 vs 2.2; WM, 6.7 vs 4.8). Average PPPM indirect costs were higher for patients with long-term disability (CLL, $1,433; MCL, $1,233; MZL, $1,302; WM, $2,056) than with short-term disability (CLL, $1,203; MCL, $1,950; MZL, $1,145; WM. $1,177) or absentee claims (CLL, $365; MCL, $1,606; MZL, $612; WM, $662), except for patients with MCL (Figure 2A). Similar trends were observed among caregivers, though the indirect costs due to absenteeism and short-term disability were higher in patients than caregivers (Figure 2B). Conclusions: This real-world evidence study uncovered patients with CLL, MCL, MZL and WM and their caregivers incur substantial disease burden as shown by their productivity loss and indirect costs. Effective treatments that can offer a cure or better remission rates and shorter duration with less toxicity may not only enhance the patients and caregivers' quality of life but also reduce work loss. The availability of oral, targeted therapies has resulted in higher remission rates, durable responses, manageable toxicities and improved quality of life in trials. Future studies are needed to understand the impact of these oral, targeted therapies on patients' and caregivers' productivity. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Irwin: IBM Watson Health: Current Employment; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy. Packnett: IBM Watson Health: Current Employment; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy. Lew: BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; IBM Watson Health: Current Employment. Noxon: BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; IBM Watson Health: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Chanan-Khan: BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Ascentage: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic leukemia (SLL) are the most common types of leukemia in adults in the United States. The US veteran population, predominantly older males, are at high risk for CLL/SLL, especially with prior exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service. With the increasing availability of novel agents and associated improved survival, there is a need to assess the real-world evidence of CLL/SLL burden in US veterans, as well as the clinical and economic outcomes associated with current treatments. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the clinical burden, costs and healthcare resource utilization of CLL/SLL in veterans. Methods: Adults who were newly diagnosed with CLL/SLL were identified in the Veteran Health Administration dataset from October 2014 to September 2019. Eligible patients were required to have at least 2 visits with CLL/SLL diagnosis, and continuous enrollment of 6 months pre- and 3 months post-index date, defined by the first diagnosis date. The study population was further required to have at least 1 CLL/SLL treatment on or after the index date. Treatment regimens were identified by line of therapy and categorized mutually exclusively as: bendamustine-based (alone or in combination) therapy, other chemotherapies, ibrutinib, rituximab-monotherapy, or other regimen. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine patient sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, concurrent medications, and treatment patterns including the frequency and duration of each treatment regimen. Adherence was measured by discontinuation and switching rates. Discontinuation was defined as no treatment for 90 days from the last day of supply during the study period. To ensure only patients who prematurely discontinued chemotherapy treatment and not those who completed their treatment cycles are captured, premature discontinuation was defined as a treatment duration of &lt;90 days for bendamustine-based and &lt;120 days for rituximab monotherapy. Costs and healthcare resource utilization were examined by first-, second-, and third-line therapy. Healthcare resource utilization examined included hospitalization and length-of-stay (LOS). Total costs were reported for all-cause and CLL/SLL-related, and calculated as the sum of inpatient, outpatient and pharmacy costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM). Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with costs, frequency and LOS of hospitalizations. Results: Among the 13,664 veteran patients diagnosed with CLL/SLL, 79% were in watch-and-wait and the final study population consisted of 2,861 patients who received at least 1 line of CLL/SLL therapy (mean duration=465 days). Most patients were elderly (median age =70 years), white (83%), and male (98%). Approximately 39% of veterans had concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors at baseline. Average time to treatment initiation from diagnosis to first-line therapy was 315 days. A total of 770 (26.9%) patients further received second-line therapy (mean duration of treatment=318 days) and 199 (7.0%) patients received third-line therapy (mean duration of treatment=229 days). Ibrutinib was the most common treatment regimen across all lines of therapy (first-line: 39%; second-line: 55%; third-line: 43%) with discontinuation rates at 59.6%, 60.1%, and 55.2% in first-, second-, third-line therapy respectively (Figure 1 and 2). The CLL/SLL-related hospitalization rate was 39% with an average LOS of 7 days. Total PPPM all-cause and CLL/SLL-related costs were $26,709 and $17,233, respectively; these costs were increased by line of therapy. Controlling for patient clinical and demographic covariates, treatment discontinuation and treatment switching were statistically significant predictors of higher inpatient admissions, LOS of hospitalizations, and costs. Conclusions: This real-world data demonstrated significant clinical and economic burden associated with CLL/SLL among the US veterans. Furthermore, the suboptimal adherence, as reported by high treatment discontinuation rates and its impact on increasing costs and healthcare resource use, highlights the real-world unmet needs of CLL/SLL management in the veteran population. Future studies are needed to further understand the long-term outcomes of each treatment regimen. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Chanan-Khan: Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Prognostic testing, including immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IgHV) mutation status, cytogenetic abnormalities by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and immunophenotyping has been recommended in all newly diagnosed patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) prior to treatment initiation, and even in previously treated patients in some settings. Recent data have shown that disease with high-risk genetic features is better managed with novel agents than traditional chemoimmunotherapy. As such, the need for testing has become more relevant for disease management. However, there is limited recent data on real-world patterns of testing for risk factor assessment and in-turn, patterns of evidence-based treatment selection. This study aimed to examine: (1) the frequency and results of testing, (2) timing of testing by line of therapy, and (3) factors associated with the receipt of testing. Methods: De-identified data from the Flatiron Health EHR-derived database was used to identify patients who were ≥18 years old with newly-diagnosed CLL/SLL, who had ≥6-month continuous enrollment, and no prior treatment from January 2014 to May 2021. Testing evaluated included IgHV mutation status, FISH cytogenetic (11q deletion [del(11q)], 13q deletion [del(13q)], 17p deletion [del(17p)], Trisomy 12 [+12]) and other biomarkers (including CD38 and ZAP-70) by immunophenotyping. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the frequency and results in the overall population, and compared by patient characteristics and across sociodemographic groups. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with the likelihood of receiving testing. Statistical significance was determined as a p-value of &lt;0.05. Results: A total of 3,037 CLL patients were included (median age=73, 62.3% male, 74.6% white). The majority of patients (92%) received treatment in community practices, with 54.1% commercially-insured. We observed over half of CLL patients did not receive risk factor testing (Figure 1): IgHV mutation analyses (76.2%, n=2,315), FISH (61.5%, n=1,868) and immunophenotyping (72.1%, n=2,190). Of those who had testing, the majority (99%) had it done once prior to starting first-line therapy. Significant differences in the receipt of testing were observed between different age, gender, race/ethnicity, and regional subgroups (Table 1). Among patients who received testing, the presence of high-risk biomarkers was as follows: unmutated IgHV (56.1%), del(17p) present (14.4%), del(11q) present (16.9%), and CD38 present (30.8%). Compared to patients &lt;65 years, testing results in elderly patients ≥65 years showed a lower presence of unmutated IgHV (53.8%) and del(11q) (15.7%) while higher del(17p) (14.7%) and +12 (28.1%). No significant disparity was observed in white vs. non-white patients except for a lower incidence of mutated IgHV and del(13q) presence. Compared to tested men, tested women had a lower presence of unmutated IgHV (53.9%), del(11q) (11.4%) and CD38+ (25.8%) while higher del(17p) (18.2%). We then investigated the impact of risk testing on therapy selection, and noted that patients with del(17p) had a higher likelihood than those who tested negative (73.6% vs. 48.4%) of being treated with novel agents (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or venetoclax). In contrast, 26.4% of those who tested del(17p) present and 39.8% among those who did not get tested received chemotherapy. Multivariable regression showed that patients who were older (≥65 years), female or those living in the west of U.S. were significantly less likely to receive testing. Conclusions: The NCCN guidelines recommend novel agents for patients with high-risk CLL/SLL. Thus, all patients are advised to complete risk-factor testing for both prognostication and selection of optimal, evidence-based therapy. Our real-world data highlights not only a significant gap in testing, but that this suboptimal testing is more common in vulnerable populations. We observed that despite identification of del(17), a quarter of CLL patients failed to receive novel agents in the frontline setting. Our analysis identified an unmet need for further education and refinement of clinical practice. This is necessary to achieve the best clinical outcome in CLL patients through robust risk-assessment testing and optimal therapeutic triaging. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Zimmerman: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Ailawadhi: Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy.