Les sections suivantes présentent les principaux résultats des études cliniques portant sur l'efficacité et la sécurité de l'acalabrutinib dans la LLC.

81% risk reduction in disease progression or death with CALQUENCE^® vs GCIb after 4 years of follow-up

^aHazard ratio based on Cox-Proportional-Hazards model stratified by 17p deletion status (yes vs no based on interactive voice/web response system). ^bP-value based on log-rank test stratified by 17p deletion status (yes vs no based on interactive voice/web response system).

Consistent PFS improvement across patient subgroups in favour of CALQUENCE^® vs GCIb

Investigator-assessed PFS in patients with Del(17p) and/or Mutated TP53

^aHazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox-Proportional-Hazards model. ^bP-value was based on unstratified log-rank test.

Investigator-assessed PFS in patients with (A) Unmutated and (B) Mutated IGHV

IGHVum (A) 

^aHazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox-Proportional-Hazards model; ^bP-value was based on unstratified log-rank test.

IGHVm (B)

^aHazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox-Proportional-Hazards model; ^bP-value was based on unstratified log-rank test. 

Most common adverse events were Grade 1 or 2

Common adverse events (≥15%, all grades) with CALQUENCE^® ± G⁸

Data are n (%) unless otherwise specified.. 

Cliquez ici pour contacter votre délégué hospitalier hématologie si vous souhaitez recevoir une version imprimée ou numérique de la publication ELEVATE-TN.

CALQUENCE^® met its primary endpoint of PFS non-inferiority in head-to-head trial vs ibrutinib

Median IRC-assessed PFS was 38.4 months in both arms at a median follow-up of 40.9 months

Secondary endpoint: Atrial fibrillation/flutter events of any grade were significantly lower with CALQUENCE^® vs ibrutinib

*Difference in any grade incidence rates: -6.6% (95% CI -12.2 to -0.9), P=0.02. Data are n (%) unless otherwise specified  among patients with events of afib/flutter. Risk factors for atrial fibrillation/flutter were based on medical review and included hypertension, diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction/ischemia and cardiac disease

In a study by Shanafelt et al, 6.1% of CLL patients had a prior history of atrial fibrillation at diagnosis, with an annual incidence of 1%.¹¹

Lower cumulative incidences of any grade atrial fibrillation/ flutter, hypertension, bleeding events, diarrhea and arthralgia with CALQUENCE^® vs ibrutinib

Atrial fibrillation/flutter

Hypertension

Bleeding events

Diarrhea

Arthralgia

CALQUENCE^® demonstrated clear safety differences vs ibrutinib

Note: Data are reported as No. (%). Adverse events are reported as individual MedDRA preferred terms. Higher incidentes are shown in bold text for terms with statistical differences. Abbreviation: MedDRA, Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. a Descriptive two-sided P,.05 on the basis of Barnard's exact test without multiplicity adjustment for all-grade adverse events. b Descriptive two-sided P , .05 on the basis of Barnard's exact test without multiplicity adjustment for grade 3 or higher adverse events.

Discontinuation due to adverse events was lower with CALQUENCE^® than with ibrutinib

Median duration of exposure: CALQUENCE^®, 38.3 months; ibrutinib, 35.5 months

Cliquez ici pour contacter votre délégué hospitalier hématologie si vous souhaitez recevoir une version imprimée ou numérique de la publication ELEVATE-RR.

71% reduction in risk of progression with CALQUENCE^® vs IdR/BR

INV-assessed PFS after a median follow-up of 36 months 

CALQUENCE^® vs ldR/BR

^aPFS rates were based on the IWCLL 2008 criteria in patients with R/R CLL. Patients were censored at the time when any subsequent anticancer therapies were received. ^bHazard ratio was based on stratified Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in an interactive voice/web response system. ^cP-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in an interactive voice/web response system. ^dHazard ratios were based on unstratified Cox-Proportional-Hazards model. ^eP-values were based on unstratified log-rank test. 

CALQUENCE^® vs ldR vs BR

^aPFS rates were based on the IWCLL 2008 criteria in patients with R/R CLL. Patients were censored at the time when any subsequent anticancer therapies were received. ^bHazard ratio was based on stratified Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in an interactive voice/web response system. ^cP-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in an interactive voice/web response system. ^dHazard ratios were based on unstratified Cox-Proportional-Hazards model. ^eP-values were based on unstratified log-rank test.

PFS benefit with CALQUENCE^® independent of High-Risk Features

PFS by del(17p)

Note: PFS rates were based on the IWCLL 2008 criteria in patients with R/R CLL. Patients were censored at the time when any subsequent anticancer therapies were received.

^aBecause there were no IdR/BR-treated patients at risk by 42 mo in the del(17p) subgroup, 42-mo PFS rates were not available for that analysis. ^bHazard ratio was based on stratified Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in an interactive voice/web response system. ^cP-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in an interactive voice/web response system. ^dHazard ratios were based on unstratified Cox-Proportional-Hazards model. ^eP-values were based on unstratified log-rank test.

PFS by lGHV

Note: PFS rates were based on the IWCLL 2008 criteria in patients with R/R CLL. Patients were censored at the time when any subsequent anticancer therapies were received. 

^aBecause there were no IdR/BR-treated patients at risk by 42 mo in the del(17p) subgroup, 42-mo PFS rates were not available for that analysis. ^bHazard ratio was based on stratified Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in an interactive voice/web response system. ^cP-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in an interactive voice/web response system. ^dHazard ratios were based on unstratified Cox-Proportional-Hazards model. ^eP-values were based on unstratified log-rank test.

Cliquez ici pour contacter votre délégué hospitalier hématologie si vous souhaitez recevoir une version imprimée ou numérique de la publication ASCEND.

AstraZeneca, en collaboration avec le Dr Patel (Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle) et Ariez, a également enregistré un podcast dans lequel le Dr Patel discute des données à long terme de l'acalabrutinib dans la LLC présentées lors du congrès 2022 de l'EHA.