An indirect comparison of acalabrutinib with and without obinutuzumab versus zanubrutinib in treatment-naive CLL.

The efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab and acalabrutinib monotherapy versus zanubrutinib in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) without del(17p) were compared using an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Individual patient-level data (IPD) from ELEVATE-TN (acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab, n = 162; acalabrutinib monotherapy, n = 163) were weighted to match published aggregate baseline data from SEQUOIA cohort 1, which excluded patients with del(17p) (zanubrutinib, n = 241), using variables that were prognostic/predictive of investigator-assessed progression-free survival (INV-PFS) in an exploratory Cox regression analysis of ELEVATE-TN. Post-matching, INV-PFS was longer with acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23-0.74) and comparable with acalabrutinib monotherapy (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.53-1.56) versus zanubrutinib. Acalabrutinib monotherapy had significantly lower odds of any grade hypertension versus zanubrutinib (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20-0.99), while acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab had significantly higher odds of neutropenia (odds ratio [OR]: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.33-3.60) and arthralgia (OR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.37-3.96) versus zanubrutinib. No other significant differences in safety were observed. In summary, compared with zanubrutinib, acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab had longer INV-PFS with increased odds of neutropenia and arthralgia, whereas acalabrutinib monotherapy had similar INV-PFS with lower odds of any grade hypertension.

Activity of venetoclax in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: analysis of the VENICE-1 multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia progress after treatment or retreatment with targeted therapy or chemoimmunotherapy and have limited subsequent treatment options. Response levels to the single-agent venetoclax in the relapsed setting is unknown. We aimed to assess venetoclax activity in patients with or without previous B-cell receptor-associated kinase inhibitor (BCRi) treatment. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b trial (VENICE-1) assessed activity and safety of venetoclax monotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, stratified by previous exposure to a BCRi. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with previously treated relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Presence of del(17p) or TP53 aberrations and previous BCRi treatment were permitted. Patients received 5-week ramp-up to 400 mg of oral venetoclax once daily and were treated for up to 108 weeks, with 2 years follow-up after discontinuation, or optional extended access. The primary activity endpoint was complete remission rate (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery) in BCRi-naive patients. Analyses used the intent-to-treat (ie, all enrolled patients, which coincided with those who received at least one dose of venetoclax). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02756611, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2016, and March 11, 2022, we enrolled 258 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (180 [70%] were male; 252 [98%] were White; 191 were BCRi-naive and 67 were BCRi-pretreated). Median follow-up in the overall cohort was 49·5 months (IQR 47·2-54·1), 49·2 months (47·2-53·2) in the BCRi-naive group, and 49·7 months (47·4-54·3) in the BCRi-pretreated group. Of 191 BCRi-naive patients, 66 (35%; 95% CI 27·8-41·8) had complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery. 18 (27%; 95% CI 16·8-39·1) of 67 patients in the BCRi-pretreated group had complete remission or complete remission with incomplete marrow recovery. Grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 203 (79%) and serious adverse events were reported in 136 (53%) of 258 patients in the overall cohort. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (96 [37%]) and the most common and serious adverse event was pneumonia (21 [8%]). There were 13 (5%) deaths reported due to adverse events; one of these deaths (autoimmune haemolytic anaemia) was possibly related to venetoclax. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: These data demonstrate deep and durable responses with venetoclax monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, including BCRi-pretreated patients, suggesting that venetoclax monotherapy is an effective strategy for treating BCRi-naive and BCRi-pretreated patients. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Hypertension treatment for patients receiving ibrutinib: a multicenter retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: Although Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) are generally well tolerated and less toxic than chemotherapy alternatives used to treat lymphoid malignancies, BTKis like ibrutinib have the potential to cause new or worsening hypertension (HTN). Little is known about the optimal treatment of BTKi-associated HTN. Randomly selected patients with lymphoid malignancies on a BTKi and antihypertensive drug(s) and with at least 3 months of follow-up data were sorted into 2 groups: those diagnosed with HTN before BTKi initiation (prior-HTN), and those diagnosed with HTN after BTKi initiation (de novo HTN). Generalized estimating equations assessed associations between time varying mean arterial pressures (MAPs) and individual anti-HTN drug categories. Of 196 patients included in the study, 118 had prior-HTN, and 78 developed de novo HTN. Statistically significant mean MAP reductions were observed in patients with prior-HTN who took ß blockers (BBs) with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), (-5.05 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0 to -0.0596; P = .047), and patients diagnosed with de novo HTN who took either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with HCTZ (-5.47 mmHg; 95% CI, 10.9 to -0.001; P = .05). These regimens also correlated with the greatest percentages of normotensive MAPs. Treatment of HTN in patients taking a BTKi is challenging and may require multiple antihypertensives. Patients with prior-HTN appear to benefit from combination regimens with BBs and HCTZ, whereas patients with de novo HTN appear to benefit from ACEi/ARBs with HCTZ. These results should be confirmed in prospective studies.

The effect of mobilizing large numbers of CD34 + cells (super-mobilizers) on the engraftment and survival in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation.

With the use of plerixafor in addition to growth factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, the yield of autologous stem cell harvest has been higher while the length of apheresis days has become shorter. There is still debate whether higher cell collection efficacy in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) affect outcomes. In this retrospective study, we defined two groups of patients, group 1, super-mobilizers, with more than double the target cell dose collected (n = 15), while group 2 included all other patients (n = 75). Multiple myeloma (MM) and lymphoma patients were combined. Patients with chemo-mobilization, those needed more than one day apheresis, or with less than 100 days after ASCT were excluded. Correlations were performed between cell collection efficacy and post thaw CD34 cell viability (by 7AAD flow cytometry method), product HCT, and engraftment of neutrophils and platelets. We performed multiple linear regression using the above variables in addition to age, sex and disease type. We used Kaplan Meier's curves to show effect of cell collection efficacy on 1-year overall survival (OS). Our results show that all super-mobilizers received plerixafor in addition to G-CSF, while 83% did in group 2. Correlations between cell collection efficacy and neutrophil and platelet engraftment in group 1 and 2 was modest and better in group 1 (R=0.449 Vs 0.233 for neutrophils; R=0.464 Vs 0.110 for platelets, respectively). However, multiple linear regression showed statistically significant association between cell collection, as a continuous variable, with disease type (P < 0.001), product HCT (P < 0.001), post thaw viability (P = 0.003), and age (P = 0.013). MM patients were more likely to be super-mobilizers, while the product HCT was higher in the super-mobilizers. No significant effect of cell collection efficacy was found on engraftment of neutrophils or platelets. With relatively short post ASCT follow up, 6 patients in group 2 died of any cause while no deaths were recorded in the super-mobilizers group (P = 0.1892 by log-rank test). In conclusion, stem cell collection efficacy in ASCT is more frequent in MM than lymphoma patients, but is not predictive of faster engraftment. On the other hand, 1-year OS was 100% in the super-mobilizers group versus 93% in the other group.

Treatment Discontinuation Patterns for Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Real-World Settings: Results From a Multi-Center International Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed treatment discontinuation patterns and reasons among chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients initiating first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) treatments in real-world settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using deidentified electronic medical records from the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence, premature treatment discontinuation was assessed among FCR, BR, BTKi-based, and BCL-2-based regimen cohorts. RESULTS: Of 1364 1L patients (initiated in 1997-2021), 190/13.9% received FCR (23.7% discontinued prematurely); 255/18.7% received BR (34.5% discontinued prematurely); 473/34.7% received BTKi-based regimens, of whom 28.1% discontinued prematurely; and 43/3.2% received venetoclax-based regimens, of whom 16.3% discontinued prematurely (venetoclax monotherapy: 7/0.5%, of whom 42.9% discontinued; VG/VR: 36/2.6%, of whom 11.1% discontinued). The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were adverse events (FCR: 25/13.2%; BR: 36/14.1%; BTKi-based regimens: 75/15.9%) and disease progression (venetoclax-based: 3/7.0%). Of 626 2L patients, 20/3.2% received FCR (50.0% discontinued); 62/9.9% received BR (35.5% discontinued); 303/48.4% received BTKi-based regimens, of whom 38.0% discontinued; and 73/11.7% received venetoclax-based regimens, of whom 30.1% discontinued (venetoclax monotherapy: 27/4.3%, of whom 29.6% discontinued; VG/VR: 43/6.9%, of whom 27.9% discontinued). The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were adverse events (FCR: 6/30.0%; BR: 11/17.7%; BTKi-based regimens: 60/19.8%; venetoclax-based: 6/8.2%). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study highlight the continued need for tolerable therapies in CLL, with finite therapy offering a better tolerated option for patients who are newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory to prior treatments.

Treatment selection for patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the second most common lymphoma in the United States and is characterized by a variable clinical course, disease heterogeneity, and a relapse-and-remittance pattern historically accompanied by successive shortening of clinical response with every line of treatment. Factors such as progression of disease within 24 months of initial treatment are associated with poor survival outcomes. Although rituximab-based regimens are preferred for early lines of treatment, no clear standard of care exists for treatment of FL in the third-line setting or later as approved third-line treatments have not been compared in a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Rather, physicians may choose from several therapeutic classes with different safety profiles and dosing regimens, with consideration of patient and disease factors. Here we describe 2 hypothetical patients with relapsing or remitting FL, an elderly patient with comorbidities, and a younger patient whose FL progressed within 24 months. These cases are used to highlight key factors that clinicians should consider when selecting therapies for relapsed or refractory FL, such as patient frailty, age, comorbidities, as well as quality of life and patient-specific preferences for less intrusive treatment regimens or longer remission times.

Ibrutinib for First-Line Treatment of Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease: Results From the Randomized Phase III iNTEGRATE Study.

PURPOSE: To present primary and final analyses from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III iNTEGRATE study, which evaluated the safety and efficacy of ibrutinib with prednisone in previously untreated patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). METHODS: Patients (age ≥ 12 years) with newly diagnosed moderate or severe cGVHD, requiring systemic corticosteroid therapy, and with no prior systemic treatment for cGVHD were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ibrutinib 420 mg once daily plus prednisone, starting at 1 mg/kg once daily or placebo plus prednisone. The primary end point was response rate at 48 weeks according to 2014 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project Criteria. Other end points included event-free survival, duration of response, time to withdrawal of immunosuppressants, improvement in Lee cGVHD Symptom Scale score, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Ninety-five and 98 patients enrolled in the ibrutinib-prednisone and placebo-prednisone arms, respectively. At 48 weeks, response rates were 41% (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 37% (placebo-prednisone; P = .54). At 33 months of follow-up, median duration of response was 19 months (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 10 months (placebo-prednisone; P = .10). Median event-free survival was 15 months (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 8 months (placebo-prednisone; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.1; P = .11). Improvement in overall Lee cGVHD Symptom Scale was 43% (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 31% (placebo-ibrutinib; P = .07). Median OS was not reached in either arm. The 24-month Kaplan-Meier OS estimates were 80% for both arms (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.90). Grade ≥ 3 serious adverse events occurred in 49% (ibrutinib-prednisone) and 47% (placebo-prednisone) of patients. CONCLUSION: There was no statistical difference observed in the primary and secondary end points with ibrutinib-prednisone treatment. No new safety signals were observed with ibrutinib treatment in previously untreated patients with cGVHD. The primary end point of iNTEGRATE was not met.

Brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab after autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for adult patients with high-risk classic Hodgkin lymphoma: a multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: After autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), consolidation with brentuximab vedotin in patients with high-risk relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with placebo. Brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab is a safe and effective treatment for relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma; therefore, we aimed to evaluate the safety and activity of this drug combination post-autologous HSCT consolidation in patients with high-risk relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre phase 2 trial at five centres in the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with high-risk relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma, had an ECOG performance status of 0-2, and had adequate organ and bone marrow function. Enrolled patients received brentuximab vedotin (1·8 mg/kg) and nivolumab (3 mg/kg) intravenously starting 30-60 days after autologous HSCT on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for up to 8 cycles. Nivolumab dose reduction was not allowed. Brentuximab vedotin dose reduction to 1·2 mg/kg was permitted. If one drug was discontinued because of a toxic effect, the other could be continued. The primary endpoint was 18-month progression-free survival in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03057795. FINDINGS: Between May 3, 2017, and July 13, 2019, 59 patients were enrolled and received the study therapy. Patients initiated brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab for a median of 54 days (IQR 46-58) after autologous HSCT and received a median of 8 cycles (8-8). 34 (58%) of 59 patients were male, 29 (49%) completed 8 cycles of brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab, and 45 (76%) completed 8 cycles of at least one drug. The median follow-up time was 29·9 months (IQR 24·6-34·8). The 18-month progression-free survival in all 59 patients was 94% (95% CI 84-98). The most common adverse events were sensory peripheral neuropathy (31 [53%] of 59) and neutropenia (25 [42%]), and immune-related adverse events requiring corticosteroids occurred in 17 (29%) of 59 patients. No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Brentuximab vedotin plus nivolumab was highly active post-autologous HSCT consolidation for patients with high-risk relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma, most of whom had previous exposure to either brentuximab vedotin or PD-1 blockade. Combination immunotherapy in this setting should be further studied in patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma with further refinement of the regimen to mitigate toxic effects, particularly in high-risk patients in whom more intensive therapy to prevent relapse is warranted. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Lymphoma Research Foundation, and National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Recognizing Unmet Need in the Era of Targeted Therapy for CLL/SLL: "What's Past Is Prologue" (Shakespeare).

The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.

Tocilizumab and remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" was 14 (95% CI 12-15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11-16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78-1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Safety and Efficacy of Consolidation Therapy with Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard-of-care treatment for many hematologic malignancies. Progression of disease after ASCT is the primary cause of treatment failure. In this Phase Ib trial, we studied the safety and clinical effect of combined checkpoint inhibition therapy (CPIT) with ipilimumab and nivolumab as a consolidation strategy after ASCT for patients with high-risk diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mature T cell lymphoma (TCL), and multiple myeloma (MM). Starting at 14 to 28 days after ASCT, patients received ipilimumab (1 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 of weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, and 22) and nivolumab (3 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 of weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26). Patients received a median of 5 doses of ipilimumab and 8 doses of nivolumab. Thirty-five patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Ninety-four percent of the patients experienced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade. Ninety-seven percent of irAEs resolved spontaneously or after holding study drugs and instituting high-dose corticosteroid therapy. Progression-free and overall survival at 18 months post-ASCT for each disease cohort were 85.7% and 100% for primary refractory DLBCL, 28.6% and 57.1% for relapsed DLBCL, not evaluable and 80% for frontline TCL, 25% and 75% for relapsed TCL, 57.1% and 87% for high-risk transplant-naïve MM, and 40% and 100% for MM relapsed within 3 years of first ASCT. We conclude that combined CPIT appears to be tolerable as a consolidation strategy after ASCT and in addition to the potential clinical efficacy observed in some subsets of disease, T cell receptor repertoire, T regulatory cell phenotype, and gut microbiota profiles provide a biologic rationale warranting further study of this approach.

Phase 2 study of the safety and efficacy of umbralisib in patients with CLL who are intolerant to BTK or PI3Kδ inhibitor therapy.

Intolerance is the most common reason for kinase inhibitor (KI) discontinuation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Umbralisib, a novel highly selective phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase Î´ (PI3Kδ)/CK1ε inhibitor, is active and well tolerated in CLL patients. In this phase 2 trial (NCT02742090), umbralisib was initiated at 800 mg/d in CLL patients requiring therapy, who were intolerant to prior BTK inhibitor (BTKi) or PI3K inhibitor (PI3Ki) therapy, until progression or toxicity. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included time to treatment failure and safety. DNA was genotyped for CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and CYP2D6 polymorphisms. Fifty-one patients were enrolled (44 BTKi intolerant and 7 PI3Kδi intolerant); median age was 70 years (range, 48-96), with a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range, 1-7), 24% had del17p and/or TP53 mutation, and 65% had unmutated IGHV. Most common adverse events (AEs) leading to prior KI discontinuation were rash (27%), arthralgia (18%), and atrial fibrillation (16%). Median PFS was 23.5 months (95% CI, 13.1-not estimable), with 58% of patients on umbralisib for a longer duration than prior KI. Most common (≥5%) grade ≥3 AEs on umbralisib (all causality) were neutropenia (18%), leukocytosis (14%), thrombocytopenia (12%), pneumonia (12%), and diarrhea (8%). Six patients (12%) discontinued umbralisib because of an AE. Eight patients (16%) had dose reductions and were successfully rechallenged. These are the first prospective data to confirm that switching from a BTKi or alternate PI3Ki to umbralisib in this BTKi- and PI3Ki-intolerant CLL population can result in durable well-tolerated responses.

Efficacy of bendamustine and rituximab in unfit patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Indirect comparison with ibrutinib in a real-world setting. A GIMEMA-ERIC and US study.

Limited information is available on the efficacy of front-line bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with reduced renal function or coexisting conditions. We therefore analyzed a cohort of real-world patients and performed a matched adjusted indirect comparison with a cohort of patients treated with ibrutinib. One hundred and fifty-seven patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) <70 mL/min and/or CIRS score >6 were treated with BR. The median age was 72 years; 69% of patients had ≥2 comorbidities and the median CrCl was 59.8 mL/min. 17.6% of patients carried TP53 disruption. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 45 months; TP53 disruption was associated with a shorter PFS (P = 0.05). The overall survival (OS) at 12, 24, and 36 months was 96.2%, 90.1%, and 79.5%, respectively. TP53 disruption was associated with an increased risk of death (P = 0.01). Data on 162 patients ≥65 years treated with ibrutinib were analyzed and compared with 165 patients ≥65 years treated with BR. Factors predicting for a longer PFS at multivariable analysis in the total patient population treated with BR and ibrutinib were age (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10, P < 0.01) and treatment with ibrutinib (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.93, P = 0.03). In a post hoc analysis of patients in advanced stage, a significant PFS advantage was observed in patient who had received ibrutinib (P = 0.03), who showed a trend for OS advantage (P = 0.08). We arrived at the following conclusions: (a) BR is a relatively effective first-line regimen in a real-world population of unfit patients without TP53 disruption, (b) ibrutinib provided longer disease control than BR in patients with advanced disease stage.

The Impact of Age on Survival in CLL Patients Receiving Ibrutinib as Initial Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Recent randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of ibrutinib-based therapy in the treatment of patients with CLL. In Alliance A041202, a higher than expected number of unexplained deaths were reported with front-line ibrutinib in a patient population aged at least 65 years compared to ECOG 1912, which included patients up to 70 years of age. METHODS: Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis to investigate whether ibrutinib was associated with a greater mortality in older patients outside of a clinical trial setting. This multicenter analysis was performed by investigators at 20 academic and community practices. RESULTS: Amongst the 391 patients included, there was no correlation between age and response rate, PFS, or OS. However, there was a trend to higher rate of deaths in patients >65-years-old (8.7% vs 3.8%, p=0.097), with an increased number of early deaths (13 vs 4, p=0.3). CONCLUSION: These data suggest greater intolerance, and possibly mortality, with ibrutinib in an older population. Patients should be educated regarding the potential complications related to ibrutinib and symptoms of concern to report.