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.

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.

A common assumption that older patients may prefer simpler, continuous medication regimens is often incorrect. Clinical experience shows that the vast majority of patients, regardless of age, are interested in a time-limited therapy option, provided it can be delivered conveniently without infusions.

With pirtobrutinib, time to next treatment often exceeds progression-free survival. This discrepancy exists because disease progression is frequently slow and asymptomatic, meaning clinicians do not need to switch therapies immediately upon seeing radiographic changes, allowing for longer treatment duration.

Early data from the CLL 314 study shows a progression-free survival benefit for pirtobrutinib over ibrutinib in frontline CLL patients. This finding suggests a potential future shift where non-covalent BTK inhibitors could become the initial standard of care.

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.

While pirtobrutinib is effective after covalent BTK inhibitors, the reverse is unproven. Starting with pirtobrutinib frontline raises a critical unanswered question about whether patients will still respond to older covalent inhibitors, complicating sequencing decisions, especially for younger patients.

While pirtobrutinib was already used off-label per NCCN guidelines, its official FDA approval provides a government-sanctioned alternative, forcing a direct decision between it and a venetoclax-based regimen for patients relapsing on a prior BTK inhibitor.