Skip to content

This site is intended for Irish healthcare professionals only. If you are not an Irish healthcare professional, please visit our dedicated site for more information at beonemedicines.co.uk

HSE recommends BRUKINSA as an option for treating adult patients with WM who have received at least one prior therapy, or as first-line treatment for patients unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy.1

ASPEN is the first and only head-to-head BTK inhibitor study in WM, with ~4 years median follow-up2–4

Waldenström’s macroglobulinaemia

Primary endpoint: CR+VGPR rate with BRUKINSA vs ibrutinib in patients with MYD88  mutation2

28%

BRUKINSA

(n=29/102)

VS

19%

ibrutinib

(n=19/99)

There were no CRs in either treatment arm2

While the primary endpoint of superiority did not reach statistical significance (p=0.09), numerically higher VGPR rates were achieved in the BRUKINSA treatment arm at a median follow-up of 19.4 months2

Numerically higher VGPR and MRR rates vs ibrutinib at extended follow-up4

Median follow-up 44.4 months; patients with MYD88 mutation

VGPR

36.3%

BRUKINSA

(n=37/102)

VS

25.3%

ibrutinib

(n=25/99)

MRR

81.4%

BRUKINSA

VS

79.8%

ibrutinib

Median follow-up: 44.4 months; patients with MYD88 mutation

VGPR/CR in TN patients

36.8%

BRUKINSA

(n=7/19)

VS

22.2%

ibrutinib

(n=4/18)

Patients with 1–3 lines prior therapy

36.8%

BRUKINSA

(n=28/76)

VS

25.7%

ibrutinib

(n=19/74)

Secondary endpoint: Responses in patients with MYD88  wild type4

Investigator-assessed; median follow-up: 42.9 months

Adapted from Dimopoulos, et al. 2023.4

Best overall response rates in patients with WM receiving BRUKINSA at extended follow-up5

Cohort 1: patients with MYD88 mutation, n=102; Cohort 2: patients with MYD88 wild type, n=28; median follow-up 69.8 months

Adapted from D'Sa, et al. 2024.5

Scroll left and right to see more

Less patient-reported diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting at the start of BRUKINSA treatment vs ibrutinib

Cycle 4; (N=201)

Diarrhoea: p=0.01
Nausea/vomiting: p=0.01

At 6 months, patients who had achieved a VGPR reported less fatigue with BRUKINSA vs ibrutinib

Cycle 25; (n=48)

Fatigue: p=0.0220
Physical functioning: p=0.0476

Any-grade; patients with >36 months follow-up

4%

BRUKINSA

(n=72)

VS

17%

ibrutinib

(n=64)

Treatment discontinuations

8.9%

BRUKINSA

(n=9/101)

VS

20.4%

ibrutinib

(n=20/98)

Dose reductions

15.8%

BRUKINSA

(n=16/101)

VS

26.5%

ibrutinib

(n=26/98)

Select an indication to learn more about BRUKINSA: