Abstract: High morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 were described in the pre-vaccination era in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). To evaluate COVID-19 morbidity after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, we carried out a prospective study in 200 CLL patients. The median age of patients was 70 years; 35% showed IgG levels ≤ 550 mg/dL, 61% unmutated IGHV, and 34% showed TP53 disruption. Most patients, 83.5%, were previously treated, including 36% with ibrutinib and 37.5% with venetoclax. The serologic response rates to the second and third dose of the vaccine were 39% and 53%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 23.4 months, 41% of patients experienced COVID-19, 36.5% during the Omicron pandemic, and 10% had subsequent COVID-19 events. Severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalization was recorded in 26% of patients, and 4% died. Significant and independent factors associated with the response to the vaccine and vulnerability to COVID-19 were age (OR: 0.93; HR: 0.97) and less than 18 months between the start of targeted agents and vaccine (OR: 0.17; HR: 0.31). TP53 mutation and ≥two prior treatments also emerged as significant and independent factors associated with an increased risk of developing COVID-19 (HR: 1.85; HR: 2.08). No statistical difference in COVID-19 morbidity was found in patients with or without antibody response to the vaccine (47.5% vs. 52.5%; p = 0.21). Given the persistent risk of infection due to the continuous emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, our results support the importance of new vaccines and protective measures to prevent and mitigate COVID-19 in CLL patients.

Abstract: The question of which parameters may be informative on venetoclax outcome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is still unclear. Furthermore, the choice to treat with venetoclax can be challenging in patients with baseline characteristics or comorbidities that may potentially favor some specific adverse events. Objectives: This study was aimed to evaluate whether age, fitness status, patients’/disease characteristics, or concomitant medications may predict outcomes in CLL patients receiving venetoclax. Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: Impact of age, presence of Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) 〉 6 or severe organ impairment (CIRS3+), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group–Performance Status (ECOG-PS), renal function, and concomitant medications were retrospectively analyzed on treatment management (definitive discontinuation due to toxicity, discontinuation due to toxicity, Tox-DTD; permanent dose reduction, PDR) and survival [progression free survival (PFS), event free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS)] in unselected patients receiving venetoclax monotherapy in common practice. Results: A total of 221 relapsed/refractory patients were included. Tox-DTD and PDR were reported in 5.9% and 21.7%, respectively, and were not influenced by any fitness parameter, age, number or type of concomitant medication, baseline neutropenia, or impaired renal function. None of these factors were associated with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) development. Age and coexisting conditions had no influence on PFS and EFS. At univariate analysis, OS was significantly shorter only in patients with ECOG-PS 〉 1 ( p  〈  0.0001) and elderly (⩾65 years) with CIRS 〉 6 ( p = 0.014) or CIRS3+ ( p = 0.031). ECOG-PS 〉 1 retained an independent role only for EFS and OS. While Tox-DTD affected all survival outcomes, no differences in PFS were reported among patients permanently reducing dose or interrupting venetoclax for 〉  7 days. Conclusion: Clinical outcome with venetoclax is not influenced by comorbidities, patients’ clinical characteristics, or concomitant medications. Differently from other targeted therapies, this demonstrates that, except ECOG-PS, none of the parameters generally considered for treatment choice, including baseline neutropenia or impaired renal function, should rule the decision process with this agent. Anyway, if clinically needed, a correct drug management does not compromise treatment efficacy and may avoid toxicity-driven discontinuations. Plain Language Summary Chapter 1: Why was this study done? Chapter 2: Which are the main findings of the study? Chapter 3: How these findings may impact on clinical practice? Coexisting conditions and concomitant medications do not affect venetoclax management and survival in chronic lymphocytic leukemia • The question of which parameters may be informative on venetoclax outcome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia is still unclear. Furthermore, the choice to treat with venetoclax can be challenging in patients with baseline characteristics or comorbidities that may potentially favor some specific adverse events (e.g. compromised renal function or baseline neutropenia). • In our large series of patients treated outside of clinical trials, we demonstrated that neither age, fitness, comorbidities nor concomitant medications impact on venetoclax management and survival. Importantly, patients presenting with baseline neutropenia or impaired renal function did not have a higher rate of dose reductions or toxicity-driven discontinuations, thus further underlining that venetoclax may be safely administered even in those categories with no preclusions. • Differently from other targeted agents, our data demonstrate that none of the baseline factors commonly considered in treatment decision process retains a role with venetoclax. Finally, permanent dose reductions and temporary interruptions did not adversely impact PFS suggesting that, if clinically needed, a correct drug management should be adopted with no risk of compromising venetoclax efficacy.

Abstract: Autoimmune cytopenias (AIC) affect 4-7% of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Targeted drugs (i.e. ibrutinib, idelalisib and venetoclax) have recently entered the therapeutic armamentarium for CLL showing excellent results in terms of efficacy. The activity of these compounds in CLL-associated AIC is largely unknown, due to the exclusion of patients with active AIC from the pivotal clinical trials and to the paucity of studies directly investigating the role of these novel inhibitors in this setting. Also, no guidelines are available to direct the management of patients who develop AIC during the treatment with targeted drugs. The purposes of this study were 1) to evaluate the characteristics and outcome of pre-existing AIC in patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib, idelalisib or venetoclax in the real-life setting, and 2) to describe the incidence, quality and management of treatment-emergent AIC during therapy with targeted drugs. We retrospectively collected data from patients with CLL treated with ibrutinib (n=379), idelalisib (n=100), or venetoclax (n=49) in 11 Italian centers. AIC status was defined as active when it was not controlled with current medical management, controlled/improved when blood counts did not reach the normal values or if subclinical hemolysis was still present, and resolved in the presence of a complete blood count normalization. Pre-existing AIC was reported in 38/379 (10%) of ibrutinib-treated patients, 20/100 (20%) of idelalisib-treated patients and 6/49 (12%) of patients who received venetoclax (Table 1). At the time of the start of ibrutinib, pre-existing AIC was considered active in 8/38 (21%) patients, controlled in 11/38 (29%) and resolved in 19/38 (50%). Among patients with active AIC, ibrutinib treatment induced AIC improvement in 1 patient and a resolution in 4. In addition, during ibrutinib treatment, in 1 patient active AIC was initially controlled but subsequently relapsed at CLL recurrence, in 1 patient concomitant steroid administration was required to maintain AIC controlled and in 1 patient AIC remained stable without needing additional therapy. Controlled AIC remained stable in 3 patients, improved in 3 and resolved in 5. Among 19 patients with a resolved AIC at the time of the start of ibrutinib, only 1 had an AIC relapse during ibrutinib therapy, which was successfully managed with steroids. At the time of the start of idelalisib, pre-existing AIC was considered active in 5/20 (25%) patients, controlled in 7/20 (35%) and resolved in 8/20 (40%). During idelalisib treatment, AIC improved in 2 patients with active AIC and in 1 patient with controlled AIC, and resolved in 2 patients with active AIC and in 5 patients with controlled AIC. No recurrence was observed in 7/8 patients who had resolved AIC at the time of the start of idelalisib. Overall, a recurrence or worsening of a pre-existing AIC occurred in 3/20 patients. In the venetoclax cohort, at treatment initiation, pre-existing AIC was active in 2/6 (33%) patients, controlled in 1/6 (17%) and resolved in 3/6 (50%). Active AIC resolved with venetoclax treatment in 1 patient and improved, albeit with concomitant steroid therapy, in the second. The patient with controlled AIC remained stable but needed additional AIC-directed therapy. AIC recurrence was observed in 1/3 patients with resolved AIC and was successfully treated with steroids. Regarding treatment-emergent AIC, they occurred in 8/379 (2%) patients during ibrutinib therapy, in 4/100 (4%) during idelalisib and in 7/49 (14%) during venetoclax (Table 1). Treatment-emergent AIC significantly correlated with pre-existing AIC in the three cohorts (p 〈 0.05). Interestingly, the percentage of patients with pre-existing AIC who experienced an autoimmune flare during treatment was 10% for ibrutinib and 20% for idelalisib, whereas it was 50% in the venetoclax cohort. Sixty-eight % of patients experiencing treatment-emergent AIC were able to continue the targeted drug at full dose, in combination with additional medications, mainly steroids. In conclusion, this study based on a large, multicenter, retrospective real-life analysis shows that 1) ibrutinib, idelalisib and venetoclax can induce an improvement or even a resolution of pre-existing AIC in CLL patients, and that 2) treatment-emergent AIC during targeted drugs administration is a rare event, which in most patients is manageable without requiring treatment interruption. Disclosures Trentin: ABBVIE: Honoraria, Other: board; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Board; gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Board. Tedeschi:Janssen spa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SUNESIS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mauro:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Foà:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Boccadoro:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Coscia:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract: Clinical or biological parameters useful to predict progression during treatment in real‐life setting with ibrutinib, idelalisib and venetoclax in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are still debated. We conducted a multi‐center retrospective study on CLL patients treated with ibrutinib and/or idelalisib who were switched to venetoclax for progression or due to adverse events to identify any clinical and/or biological parameters useful to predict progression during treatment with venetoclax. Of all the 128 evaluable patients, 81 had received ibrutinib prior to switching to venetoclax, 35 had received idelalisib and 12 both. When comparing the three subgroups, we did not notice any statistical difference in terms of clinical or biological features. No variable at baseline and at different time points during the follow‐up (at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) was found to predict progression nor to have significance for Progression Free Survival (PFS) in the ibrutinib group and in the idelalisib group and in subgroups according to the line of treatment. Analyzing the data of the venetoclax treatment, after a median follow up of 14.3 months, median PFS was not reached and estimated 3‐year PFS was 54%. Of the 128 patients treated with venetoclax, 28 (22%) experienced progressive disease. At multivariate analysis for predictive factors for progression, lymph node diameter 〉 56.5 mm before starting treatment emerged as an independent risk factor for progression. The lymph node predictive role for progression during venetoclax treatment could be a new parameter that deserves to be investigate in future studies.

Abstract: Autoimmune cytopenias (AICs) affect 5% to 9% of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Targeted drugs—ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax—have a prominent role in the treatment of CLL, but their impact on CLL-associated AICs is largely unknown. In this study, we evaluated the characteristics and outcome of preexisting AICs and described the incidence, quality, and management of treatment-emergent AICs during therapy with targeted drugs in patients with CLL. We collected data from 572 patients treated with ibrutinib (9% in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody), 143 treated with idelalisib-rituximab, and 100 treated with venetoclax (12% in combination with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody). A history of preexisting AICs was reported in 104 (13%) of 815 patients. Interestingly, 80% of patients whose AICs had not resolved when treatment with a targeted drug was started experienced an improvement or a resolution during therapy. Treatment-emergent AICs occurred in 1% of patients during ibrutinib therapy, in 0.9% during idelalisib therapy, and in 7% during venetoclax therapy, with an estimated incidence rate of 5, 6, and 69 episodes per 1000 patients per year of exposure in the 3 treatment groups, respectively. The vast majority of patients who developed treatment-emergent AICs had unfavorable biological features such as an unmutated IGHV and a del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation. Notably, despite AICs, 83% of patients were able to continue the targeted drug, in some cases in combination with additional immunosuppressive agents. Overall, treatment with ibrutinib, idelalisib, or venetoclax seems to have a beneficial impact on CLL-associated AICs, inducing an improvement or even a resolution of preexisting AICs in most cases and eliciting treatment-emergent AICs in a negligible portion of patients.

Abstract: Background. The PI3Kδ inhibitor idelalisib given in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL) has been associated with an objective response in 81% of cases with a median PFS of 20.3 months in a phase-3 clinical trial (Sharman et al, JCO 2019). Because the efficacy of new drugs reported in clinical trials may not translate into similar results in the day-to-day practice, we performed an observational retrospective-prospective study on the efficacy and safety of idelalisib and rituximab (IR) in R/R CLL patients treated outside of clinical trials in Italian centers belonging to the GIMEMA group. Methods. R/R CLL patients treated with IR outside of clinical trials between July 2014 and May 2017 were enrolled. Treatment was initiated at symptomatic progression; treatment response and disease progression were assessed according to the NCI criteria. The data were extracted from the medical files and entered into case record forms (CRF) by each treating physician. Computerized and manual consistency checks were performed by the GIMEMA data center on newly entered forms and queries were issued in case of inconsistencies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), the percentage of patients on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, overall survival (OS) and response to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment. Results. 149 R/R CLL patients from 35 Italian centers were included in the study. The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. At a median follow-up of 39.4 months, the median PFS was 22.9 months (95% CI 20.5-28.8). In univariate analysis, a shorter PFS was associated with ≥3 lines of therapy (p=0.0175) (Fig. 1a). The ORR (CR + PR) was 72.5%. Age ≤70 yrs (p=0.037) and a PS & lt;1 (p=0.014) were associated with a higher ORR. The median OS was 44.5 months (95% CI 32.5-NR). In univariate analysis, a shorter OS was associated with advanced stage (p=0.016) and ≥3 lines of therapy (p=0.0009) (Fig. 1b). Forty-eight%, 24.3% and 11.8% of patients were still receiving the study drug at 12, 24 and 36 months, respectively. Discontinuation at 12 months was due to toxicity in 60.8% of cases. Variables associated with a treatment duration & lt;12 months were advanced clinical stage (p=0.029) and a poor ECOG performance status (p & lt;0.001). Overall, 59 patients received a subsequent treatment, with an ORR of 64.4%. Median follow-up for these patients was 11 months (range 0.1-45.6). The 12-month OS were 85.5% (95% CI 74.6-98.1) for patients who discontinued RI for toxicity and 61.5% (95% CI 43.8-86.5) for those who discontinued for progression (p=0.0031) (Fig. 2). The only predictor for response to the new treatment was having received & lt;2 lines of therapy before RI (p=0.0153). Adverse events & gt;grade 3 during RI treatment were neutropenia (35% of cases), gastrointestinal disorders (17%), infections (17%) and transaminitis (6%). Conclusions. The results hereby observed show that the efficacy of IR in a cohort in a real-life RR/CLL with a long follow-up is superimposable to those reported in the pivotal clinical trial, suggesting that the patient population who received IR in the day-to-day clinical practice mirrored that enrolled in the trial. Advanced clinical stage and 3 or more previous lines of therapy were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Interestingly, PFS and objective measures of efficacy such as the proportion of patients still on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, as well as OS, were not influenced by the TP53 status. Furthermore, the majority of patents responded to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment and relatively durable responses were observed in patients who discontinued IR due to toxicity. Disclosures Rigolin: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Visentin:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Coscia:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Murru:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Varettoni:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses. Sportoletti:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Laurenti:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Marasca:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Marchetti:Takeda: Other: Sponsored meetings; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Sponsored meetings; Pfeizer: Other: Sponsored meetings. Mauro:Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octopharma: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Molica:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Pane:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis pharma SAS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gozzetti:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Krampera:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Montillo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Foà:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.