Real-World Treatment Patterns and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients with Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Initiating First-Line Treatment with Ibrutinib or Zanubrutinib
Authors: Paludo Jonas , Sarosiek Shayna R , von Keudell Gottfried R. , Salkar Monika , Zhou Summera , Kim Sonia , Cheng Ning , Pacia Michelle , Karve Sudeep , Castillo Jorge J. 
Published: December 2023

Background: A pivotal clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib with zanubrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) did not achieve its primary endpoint of complete response or very good partial response. In addition, median progression-free survival was not reached in either treatment arm. In the absence of treatment effectiveness differentiation based on clinical trial evidence, we conducted a real-world study to assess patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients with WM who received ibrutinib or zanubrutinib as first-line (1L) therapy.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we used the ConcertAI Database to collect claims data of patients with WM aged ≥18 years who initiated single-agent ibrutinib (420 mg/day) or zanubrutinib (320 mg/day) as 1L therapy on or after 9/1/2021 (index date). A 6-month washout period of guideline-recommended WM antineoplastic agents was required to confirm 1L status. Patients were excluded if they were receiving ibrutinib and zanubrutinib concurrently, died within 30 days of the index date, had a record of hematopoietic stem cell transplant, had a record of other ibrutinib indications in the 6 months before index, or were participating in a clinical trial. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, therapy duration (number of days between the first and last day of the medication supply), and HRU (all-cause and WM-specific) per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were assessed.

Results: The study included 51 patients (ibrutinib, n=30; zanubrutinib, n=21). In both cohorts, most participants were male (ibrutinib, n=20 [67%]; zanubrutinib, n=16 [76%]), and the mean age at baseline was 73 years and 75 years, respectively. At baseline, the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0, and the WM-related and ibrutinib/zanubrutinib-related clinical events were similar between the two cohorts. While the zanubrutinib cohort had a higher prevalence of infections (33% vs 3%) and musculoskeletal pain (24% vs 7%) at baseline, the ibrutinib cohort had a higher prevalence of hypertension (20% vs 14%). The baseline prevalence of anemia was similar in both cohorts (ibrutinib, 27%; zanubrutinib, 29%). Mean follow-up was 6.9 months (ibrutinib) and 6.3 months (zanubrutinib). The mean ± SD duration of therapy was 152 ± 112 days (ibrutinib) and 113 ± 99 days (zanubrutinib; p=0.195). The ibrutinib cohort had a significantly lower all-cause HRU PPPM (4.53 ± 3.96 vs 8.53 ± 6.66, p=0.020) and lower WM-specific HRU PPPM (0.11 ± 0.26 vs 0.54 ± 1.14, p=0.104).

Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, patients with WM treated with 1L ibrutinib had a numerically longer duration of therapy and lower all-cause and WM-specific HRU PPPM, compared to those treated with 1L zanubrutinib. Due to a small sample size and short follow-up, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.