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.
Related Insights
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.
BTK degraders work despite most kinase inhibitor resistance mutations. However, resistance to degraders themselves alters the BTK binding pocket so significantly that subsequent targeting with any BTK kinase inhibitor is unlikely to be effective, positioning them as a potential end-of-line therapy.
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.
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.
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.
