While pirtobrutinib works after covalent BTK inhibitors, no data shows covalent inhibitors work after pirtobrutinib failure. This uncertainty about future options makes clinicians cautious about using it as an initial therapy, especially for younger CLL patients who will need multiple treatments over their lifetime.
Related Insights
Non-covalent BTK inhibitors like pirtobrutinib are currently approved for use after covalent BTK inhibitors fail. Moving them to the frontline setting, as studied in BRUIN-313, disrupts the established treatment pathway and creates uncertainty for managing relapsed disease, as the standard 'next step' is removed.
Although continuous BTK inhibitors have the most prospective data for high-risk CLL (17p/TP53 mutations), some highly motivated patients still opt for fixed-duration treatment. This requires a detailed conversation where clinicians must explain the trade-off: achieving a treatment-free period may come at the cost of needing second-line therapy sooner.
Pirtobrutinib is the first BTK inhibitor to show a rate of atrial fibrillation equivalent to a chemoimmunotherapy control arm in a randomized trial. This uniquely safe cardiovascular profile makes it a strong first-line candidate for older Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients or those with significant heart-related comorbidities.
The DAYBREAK pivotal study focuses on third-line plus patients who have already failed both BTK and BCL2 inhibitors. By enrolling this high unmet need population, particularly those resistant to the newest non-covalent inhibitors, Neurix aims for an accelerated regulatory approval to get its drug to market faster.
The BRUIN-313 trial successfully compared pirtobrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab (BR). However, BR is no longer the frontline standard of care. This 'straw man' comparator makes it difficult to position pirtobrutinib against current preferred treatments like other BTK inhibitors or venetoclax regimens, limiting immediate clinical applicability.
Despite strong single-agent trial results, experts believe the field is shifting away from continuous monotherapy. The most significant future impact for pirtobrutinib will likely be as a backbone of fixed-duration combination therapies with drugs like venetoclax, aiming for deeper remissions without indefinite treatment.
Pirtobrutinib's registrational trials used control arms (ibrutinib, bendamustine-rituximab) that are no longer the standard of care in the US. This strategy reflects the long timeline of trial design and the need to use comparators that are still considered a standard globally, ensuring broader regulatory acceptance and allowing for cross-trial comparisons.
Even with positive results from two registrational Phase 3 trials, experts note a potential regulatory hurdle. The FDA has shown increasing concern over studies with a low proportion of patients from North America, a characteristic of these trials, potentially complicating an otherwise strong case for approval based on clinical merit.
Recent non-inferiority trials affirm that fixed-duration combination therapies are viable alternatives to continuous BTK inhibitors. However, clinicians must look beyond the headline conclusion, as numerical data can show slightly worse progression-free survival for high-risk subgroups within the acceptable non-inferiority margin, complicating treatment decisions.
Clinicians are hesitant to use newer, potentially safer non-covalent BTK inhibitors before established covalent inhibitors. While it's known that non-covalents work after covalents fail, the reverse is unproven, creating a one-way treatment path that reserves these newer agents for later lines of therapy.