Hilal, Talal

339 Background: Limited health insurance literacy (HIL) has been linked to problems paying medical bills or delaying care among patients with cancer. In this study, we describe the prevalence and correlates of HIL in a cohort of cancer patients measured using a ten-question HIL quiz developed by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Methods: We examined HIL in 393 adult patients (aged >18 years) receiving cancer treatment in two ambulatory infusion centers, Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona (12/2019 to 2/2020 and 8/2020 to 10/2020) and University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi (9/2020 to 1/2021). HIL was categorized as low, moderate, or high based on the total number of correct answers: 0-4 (low), 5-6 (moderate), and 7-10 (high). Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and chi-square statistics compared HIL by sociodemographic factors. Results: Most patients understood basic insurance terms, such as premiums and deductibles (Table). However, fewer patients answered questions correctly about provider networks (46.1%), formularies (48.6%), and calculating out-of-pocket (OOP) spending (16.8%). 53 (13.5%), 69 (17.6%), and 271 (69.0%) patients had low, moderate, and high HIL scores, respectively. Lower HIL was more common among patients of younger age (<65 years: 17.8%, 65+ years: 8.7%), lower educational attainment (less than college: 23.2%; college or higher: 4.4%), and lower household income (<$4999: 21.1%, $5000+: 6.1%) (all p-values<0.05). Conclusions: Although HIL in our cohort of cancer patients was relatively high - 69% answered at least 7 questions correctly - there were gaps in understanding of provider networks, formularies, and calculation of OOP spending. Efforts to improve HIL and help with navigation of health insurance plans may be required, especially for socioeconomically vulnerable patients.[Table: see text]

Health insurance literacy (HIL) constructs are related to financial toxicity in patients with cancer.

Introduction: Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are a class of drugs that inhibit B-cell receptor (BCR) and are increasingly used in B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasms, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Ibrutinib, a first-generation BTK inhibitor has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events (AEs), including atrial fibrillation (AF), hypertension (HTN) and bleeding. These unique AEs are thought to be due to off-target effects. Acalabrutinib, a second-generation BTK inhibitor is characterized by less off-target effects, and is thought to be associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular and other AEs. However, a head to head comparison of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib has not been conducted. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of AEs from prospective clinical trials of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders to compare their safety profile. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception through November 15th 2019. Only full-text articles were included. Other inclusion criteria included prospective trials (single arm or randomized) with ibrutinib, ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody, or acalabrutinib as investigational agents. Trials investigating BTK inhibitor plus chemotherapy were excluded. When updated results of prospective trials were available, data were extracted from the most recent publication with the longest follow-up. Reports of 17 AEs of interest, including number of events (any grade and grade 3 or higher) were documented. Rate of discontinuation was investigated. Results: Twenty-seven prospective clinical trials, 12 multicenter single-arm, 9 multicenter randomized, 5 single center single-arm, and 1 single center randomized, were included. Data from 29 study arms including 3207 patients were analyzed in 3 groups - ibrutinib, ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody, and acalabrutinib with augmented Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression implemented in R including packages gemtc and rjags. The most common any grade AEs (&gt;20%) with ibrutinib were diarrhea (46%, 95% CI 36-55%), myalgias/arthralgias (37%, 95%CI 28-46%), fatigue (33%, 95% CI 24-42%), cough (26%, 95% 17-36%), anemia (23%, 95% 15-30%), thrombocytopenia (22%, 95% 15-30%), and pyrexia (21%, 95% 13-30%). The most common any grade AEs with acalabrutinib were headache (37%, 95%CI 26-48%), diarrhea (30%, 95% 20-41%), peripheral edema (21%, 95% 15-28%), fatigue (20%, 95% 11-29%), and myalgias/arthralgias (16%, 95% 8-24%). The most common any grade cardiovascular AEs with ibrutinib were bleeding/bruising (32%, 95% 23-41%), HTN (23%, 95% 15-32%), AF (9%, 95% 3-15%). The most common any grade cardiovascular AEs with acalabrutinib were bleeding/bruising (41%, 95% CI 30-52%), and HTN (6%, 95% 1-11%). The rate of AEs with ibrutinib compared to ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody were similar so the data was pooled. Of all AEs of interest, there was a significant difference in any grade AEs favoring ibrutinib for headache (12% vs. 37%), and infections (35% vs 57%). There was a significant difference in any grade AEs favoring acalabrutinib for myalgias/arthralgias (16% vs. 37%), anemia (6% vs. 23%), thrombocytopenia (5% vs. 22%), and HTN (6% vs. 23%). After adjusting for median follow-up and age, there was no significant difference in rates of bleeding/bruising and any grade infections between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib. However, there was a significant difference favoring acalabrutinib for any grade HTN (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.40) p&lt;0.0001, grade 3 HTN (OR 0.15, 95% 0.08-0.27) p&lt;0.0001, any grade AF (OR 0.35, 95% 0.18-0.66), p=0.0012, grade 3 AF (OR 0.04, 95% 0.01-0.25) p=0.0009, and grade 3 infections (OR 0.62, 95% 0.46-0.85),p=0.003. Conclusions: Acalabrutinib appears to have an overall improved safety profile compared to ibrutinib. This is particularly true for anemia, thrombocytopenia, and cardiovascular AEs, including AF and HTN. Figure 1 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

70 Background: The prevalence of health insurance literacy (HIL) and financial literacy (FL) in cancer patients is not well described. Further, a better understanding of the association between these constructs and the domains of financial hardship (FH) can guide potential interventions. Methods: We examined the prevalence of HIL and FL and FH in cancer patients on active treatment at our institution. HIL and FL were assessed using Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) and 5 questions from the National Financial Capability Study respectively. COST FACIT and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) questions were used to examine overall FH and its 3 domains (material, behavioral and psychological hardship). Pearson correlation coefficient was used to describe the relation between the COST score and FH domains assessed by NHIS questions. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the associations of overall FH (measured by COST FACIT) with FL and HIL. Results: Among 256 patients approached, 202 completed questionnaires. Median age was 67 (range 22 to 91) years. 51% were male, 93% Whites and 5% were Hispanic. 69% had a solid tumor with 37% stage IV. Median number of lines of treatment was 4 (range 1 to 18). 21% were currently employed, 59% had ≥college degree, 41% had private insurance and 42% had monthly income≥$7000. 50% participants answered at least 4/5 FL questions correctly, indicating high FL. Being male, White, having insurance, higher education and income ≥$7000 were associated with higher FL. 72% of participants had high HIL, and they were more likely to be Non-Hispanic, married and have received more lines of treatment. FL significantly correlated with HIL (r = 0.29, p < .001). 65% patients endorsed FH based on NHIS questions (10% behavioral, 20% material, and 62% psychological hardship). 48% patients had FH based on a COST score < 28 (Median score), which correlated with material (r = -0.59, p < .001), psychological (r = -0.55, p < .001) and behavioral FH (r = -0.42, p < .001). The association between FH and HIL was not significant (OR 0.78; p = 0.08), though higher FL was associated with lower FH (OR 0.69; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Despite high FL and HIL (as compared to national standards), the prevalence of FH in our relatively affluent patient cohort was high, driven mainly by psychological hardship. We did not find strong association between the HIL and FH unlike in the reported literature. Our findings behoove us to develop tailored interventions to address unique domains of the FH in a diverse population.

2057 Background: To date, a comprehensive evaluation of core limitations in clinical trials leading to anti-cancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been undertaken.The aim of this analysis was to assess the percentage of clinical trials with core limitations, defined as lack of randomization, lack of overall survival data, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of sub-optimal control arms that led to FDA approvals from 2014 to 2019. Methods: This observational analysis included all approved anti-cancer drug indications by the FDA from July 2014 through July 2019. All indications were investigated and each clinical trial evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary endpoints, and presence of core limitations. The standard of care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1-year prior to start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. We then calculated the percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all core limitations. Results: A total of 187 anti-cancer approvals were evaluated. The number of anti-cancer drug approvals doubled over time with 68 in first half of study period (June 2014 to December 2016) to 119 in second half of study period (January 2017 to July 2019). Of those, 125 (67%) were based on a clinical trial with at least one core limitation. 64 (34%) approvals were based on a single-arm clinical trial. Of the remaining 123 approvals based on randomized trials, 60 (32%) had a core limitation. Of all randomized trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a sub-optimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately. Conclusions: The majority of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with core limitations. Efforts to minimize core limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anti-cancer drugs being marketed truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.