Stilgenbauer, Stephan

Abstract Advancements in the understanding of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have transformed patient care, leading to the development of novel targeted therapies. Traditionally, patient fitness for treatment was based on the tolerability of chemoimmunotherapy such as fludarabine–cyclophosphamide–rituximab. As the CLL patient population is predominantly older, age has historically been a major factor in how a physician selects a patient's treatment. However, as a patient's fitness goes beyond age, the definition of patient fitness should also evolve. Here, we provide suggestions for the current best practice on assessing fitness for treating CLL. Considerations for treatment include assessment of polypharmacy, history of infections, cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, functional status, cognitive and psychological status, nutritional status, and social support. The flow of assessments can start with a typical clinical evaluation followed by geriatric, cardiovascular, and renal reviews, if needed, and include collecting a patient's full history to evaluate their risk of complications with specific CLL treatments. The severity of a patient's cardiovascular profile can range from low to high risk; for those at high risk, collaboration with a cardiologist is recommended. Geriatric assessment is advised to determine baseline frailty and resilience to tolerate treatments, to avoid inappropriate treatment or undertreating patients based on chronological age, and to align the patient's fitness status with the most optimal treatment. Continuous monitoring and assessment, regardless of therapy, are recommended. Patient preferences are also integral to this decision‐making process. Looking beyond a patient's age and basing treatment selection on their fitness is key in the new era of treatment in CLL.

Abstract ELEVATE-RR demonstrated noninferior progression-free survival and lower incidence of key adverse events (AEs) with acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We further characterize AEs of acalabrutinib and ibrutinib via post hoc analysis. Overall and exposure-adjusted incidence rate was assessed for common Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–associated AEs and for selected events of clinical interest (ECIs). AE burden scores based on previously published methodology were calculated for AEs overall and selected ECIs. Safety analyses included 529 patients (acalabrutinib, n = 266; ibrutinib, n = 263). Among common AEs, incidences of any-grade diarrhea, arthralgia, urinary tract infection, back pain, muscle spasms, and dyspepsia were higher with ibrutinib, with 1.5- to 4.1-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rates. Incidences of headache and cough were higher with acalabrutinib, with 1.6- and 1.2-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rate, respectively. Among ECIs, incidences of any-grade atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding were higher with ibrutinib, as were exposure-adjusted incidence rates (2.0-, 2.8-, and 1.6-fold, respectively); incidences of cardiac events overall (the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities system organ class) and infections were similar between arms. Rate of discontinuation because of AEs was lower for acalabrutinib (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.93). AE burden score was higher for ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib overall and for the ECIs atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding. A limitation of this analysis is its open-label study design, which may influence the reporting of more subjective AEs. Overall, event-based analyses and AE burden scores demonstrated higher AE burden overall and specifically for atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and hemorrhage with ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02477696.