BeiGene Announces New Efficacy Analysis Comparing BRUKINSA vs Acalabrutinib in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

BeiGene, Ltd. (Nasdaq: BGNE; HKEX: 06160; SSE: 688235), a global oncology company, today announced a new matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the efficacy of BRUKINSA (zanubrutinib) versus acalabrutinib in relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) based on data from the Phase 3 ALPINE and Phase 3 ASCEND trials. The analysis suggests a progression-free survival and complete response advantage for BRUKINSA versus acalabrutinib, as well as potentially improved overall survival. These data will be presented during the 28th Annual International Congress on Hematologic Malignancies in Miami from February 29 - March 3.

“The CLL landscape is evolving rapidly, and this MAIC provides timely comparative effectiveness data for physicians, and reinforces zanubrutinib role as a foundational CLL treatment via a robust evaluation of the efficacy in the ASCEND and ALPINE studies; the presented analysis not only accounts for differences in key patient characteristics, but also clarifies the impact COVID-19 may have had on study outcomes,” said Mazyar Shadman, M.D. M.P.H, Study Author and Innovators Network Endowed Chair, Associate Professor of Hematology and Oncology, Lymphoid Malignancies and Immunotherapy, Fred Hutch Cancer Center and University of Washington. “Head-to-head randomized clinical trials are the gold standard when it comes to evaluating the potential impact of individual treatments for patients. MAICs are intended to be hypothesis-generating, provided they are conducted with appropriate rigor to minimize potential biases.”

In this MAIC, individual patient-level data from ALPINE was matched against the aggregate data from ASCEND. An unanchored MAIC was used due to the lack of a common comparator arm between the ALPINE and ASCEND trials. Given the differences in the timing of the studies, with respect to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the analysis adjusted for the impact of COVID-19 in the ALPINE study.

In a previously published MAIC of BRUKINSA versus acalabrutinib,¹ there were significant limitations that precluded a robust efficacy comparison, including the exclusion of data from the final analysis of ALPINE, lack of adjustment for the impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes, lack of adjustment for key differences in patient characteristics, the effective sample size, and the exclusion of complete response rate and overall survival from the analysis.