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.
Related Insights
While platinum chemotherapy is considered the standard treatment after a patient progresses on a first-line ADC-IO combination, experts admit this is a standard "based on nothing." There is no clinical trial data to prove its efficacy in this specific setting; it serves only as a placeholder for new clinical trials.
Despite impressive data supporting HMA/Venetoclax, its application in younger, fit patients must be cautious. The pivotal VIALE-A trial excluded key subgroups like FLT3, core binding factor, and certain NPM1 patients, for whom intensive chemotherapy remains the standard.
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.
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.
Developers often test novel agents in late-line settings because the control arm is weaker, increasing the statistical chance of success. However, this strategy may doom effective immunotherapies by testing them in biologically hostile, resistant tumors, masking their true potential.
Actuate employed a master protocol that tested their drug alongside eight different standard-of-care chemotherapies in patients who had already failed them. This design efficiently demonstrated the drug's ability to reverse chemo-resistance across multiple histologies, informing their Phase 2 strategy.
The common practice of switching from one ARPI to another upon disease progression is now considered ineffective for most patients. With the advent of proven alternatives like chemotherapy and lutetium, using an "ARPI switch" as the sole control arm in clinical trials is no longer ethically or scientifically sound.
The ongoing Phase III trial for Sigvotatug Vedotin compares it against docetaxel, the current standard for second-line NSCLC. Docetaxel is known for modest efficacy and significant side effects, creating a major opportunity for the new drug to demonstrate superiority and rapidly become the new clinical standard.
The IMbark trial demonstrated that an ARPI (enzalutamide), either alone or with ADT, outperformed ADT monotherapy in high-risk patients. This pivotal finding raises the question of whether giving ADT alone in any setting, such as with radiation for localized disease, is now an outdated and inferior approach.
The PSMA edition trial's fixed six-cycle Lutetium regimen, designed nearly a decade ago, is now seen as suboptimal. This illustrates how the long duration of clinical trials means their design may not reflect the latest scientific understanding (e.g., adaptive dosing) by the time results are published and debated.