FDA Approval of Idelalisib (or CAL-101 or GS-1101 or now Zydelig) for CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia), SLL (small lymphocytic lymphoma) and FL (follicular lymphoma)

ME AND A GIANT TREE

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK

It was another good week for those of us with CLL/SLL and our friends with Follicular Lymphoma (FL).

CAL-101 AKA GS-1101 AKA idelalisib AKA Zydelig (See Dr. Sharman's post on the name game and his positive early experience with the drug) was approved last week by the FDA for relapsed CLL patients who would be consider candidates for rituximab (R) and for FL and SLL patients who have had 2 prior therapies.

I quote from the label:

----INDICATIONS AND USAGE---------------------------

Zydelig is a kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with:

            􏰅  Relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), in combination with 
rituximab, in patients for whom rituximab alone would be considered 
appropriate therapy due to other co-morbidities. (1.1)

            􏰅  Relapsed follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (FL) in patients 
who have received at least two prior systemic therapies. (1.2)

            􏰅  Relapsed small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) in patients who have 
received at least two prior systemic therapies. (1.3)

Let’s pause and consider this.

A few things should catch our attention and this post is about parsing this first part of the label..

First idelalisib is approved as mono-therapy for SLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma (and FL), but not CLL. With CLL it is only approved for use with rituximab. Moreover, for CLL we can use it on label if we have relapsed after one treatment, but for SLL (and FL), idelalisib must be at least our third therapy.

But aren’t CLL and SLL essentially the same disease? Though we may be starting to tease apart the biology of this pairing (see this article expectedly from Serbia: (Possible role of CD22, CD79b andCD20 expression in distinguishing small lymphocytic lymphoma from chroniclymphocytic leukemia; Danijela Jovanovic, Predrag Djurdjevic, Nebojsa Andjelkovic, LjubicaZivic Contemp Oncol (Pozn) 2014; 18 (1): 29–33 DOI: 10.5114/wo.2013.38570), in almost all practical circumstances, there is no distinction between CLL and SLL and we treat the two diseases as one entity. Until now, with perhaps the one exception to consider possibly curative surgery and/or local radiation for SLL when it is only found in a single node, treatment was the same whether our malignant B cell clone was strictly nodal or it had spilled over into the peripheral blood and marrow.

Now, if we are going to strictly follow the language on the Zydelig label, we will have for the first time both a different indication for treatment and a different treatment protocol for CLL and SLL.

While this is an interesting point, it is probably of little clinical import as SLL recurring three times as strictly nodal would be rare. Idelalisib might be a good choice, but ironically this is exactly where I personally would want to use it in combination, likely with antibody or even chemotherapy.

Next point.

For those of us with CLL, idelalisib is approved after our first relapse. This is different than the CLL indication for ibrutinib, where we only need to have received a single prior therapy and due perhaps to an adverse reaction or intolerance, are now looking for another treatment options but may not have relapsed. (The label says: IMBRUVICA™ is indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who have received at least one prior therapy.) Although the most common circumstance leading to a prescription of Imbruvica would still be relapse, it is possible that some of us couldn’t tolerate FCR or Chlorambucil or other treatments and then still needing some sort of therapy for our progressive CLL, but not having relapsed, would now qualify for Imbruvica but not for Zydelig.

This too would be a rare but possible occurrence.

The last item to be considered in the “Indications and Usage” of Zydelig quoting the label again is indicated, for relapsed CLL in combination with Rituximab:

….in patients for whom rituximab alone would be considered 
appropriate therapy due to other co-morbidities.

Who are these patients? What relapsed patient would ever be offered single agent R? Hard to imagine mono-therapy with rituximab where the response rate as a single agent in relapsed disease is dismal, ironically confirmed in the idelalisib pivotal trial where only 13% of those in the rituximab plus placebo arm got any benefit from treatment.

Before dismissing out of hand this possibility, there are several realities to consider.

First and foremost, the FDA approved the drug based on the trial data it was presented.

The FL and SLL gang were two subpopulations of a larger pool of patients with Non Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) that were studied. The data that the FDA used was from that lymphoma patient trial where everyone had to have received at least two prior therapies to be included. Of all those studied, these two subgroups, FL and SLL, responded very nicely to single agent idelalisib, hence the language of the approval.

For the CLL trial group, the phase III study was for patients who were considered too frail based on their co-morbidities (chronic kidney disease and others) for chemo-immunotherapy and thus would be considered for rituximab alone. The results of idelalisb with rituximab versus rituximab alone were, as we all would expect, very impressive.

Are the “Indications and Usage” starting to make sense?  This is the same reasoning that that explains why we have Gazyva only approved for use with Chlorambucil.  That's the way it was studied.


The FDA approvals tend to stick pretty closely to the exact way the drug was studied and thus the pharmaceutical companies tend to reap what they sow.

This is not as crazy as it seems on first blush. It can be dangerous to extrapolate data and the FDA has been burnt too often not be conservative. I am in fact impressed with the speed and the use of the new breakthrough pathways has allowed these important novel drugs to get to market so quickly.

In fact the Zydelig label also adds:

Accelerated approval was granted for FL and SLL based on overall response rate. Improvement in patient survival or disease related symptoms has not been established. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

As to the actual reasons for the pivotal CLL trial design, I discussed with Dr. Sharman and Dr. Furman in this and this past post about the strong trial data that lead to approval for CLL published in the NEJM and presented at ASH 2013. There are times when single agent rituximab might be considered for relapsed disease in the elderly or frail “slow-go” patients that could not tolerate chemo-immunotherapy. While most if not all CLL gurus that you see interviewed here on my blog and quoted elsewhere on the web, would rarely, if ever use single agent R, it is the real world treatment of choice for about 8% of all relapsed patient in the community. Rituximab maintenance which I discussed a few years back in this post, is also frowned upon by most experts, but is used 9% of the time. 

So again, what seems at first to be a strange qualifier on the relapsed CLL indication label, I suspect won’t prove to be much problem to us patients.

Moreover, how the doctors prescribe them and how insurance pays for them is a whole other topic.

Once it is approved, remember that a doctor can use it however he or she wishes.

Which is a good segue to my final subjects for this post.

Before I finish on this very good news, I wanted to share even more good news by means of this link to the Gilead website that will assist any one considering this important new drug. As does Pharmacyclics, Gilead is offering to help commercial and uninsured patients with practical and generous financial support to make this expensive breakthrough drug more affordable. It is also priced a full $1,000 lower per month that ibrutinib, but that doesn’t consider the additional cost of rituximab. Still cheaper is better.

Unfortunately, like all pharmaceutical companies, even if they wanted to, Gilead cannot directly help Medicare Part D patients. They do nice job explaining the financial hit a Medicare patient faces on their website here.

What they can do is support independent non-profit organizations such as LLS that can then offer financial assistance for both eligible federally-insured and privately-insured patients who need help covering out-of-pocket medication costs. On the LLS site, the income must be below 500% of the federal poverty guidelines, but for a family of four, that is anything below $119,250. 

For more details from Gilead and a number to call on how those of us with government insurance might qualify for financial aid, check here: There is of course no guarantee that help will be provided. Resources are limited, but it is certainly worth investigating.

And here is a link to active idelalisib trials. The expanded access program closed for new enrollees in the USA with Zydelig's approval, but will continue for those already enrolled. 

So in the end, good news. We all need more options, and now we have two great oral medications, both with strong help for most of us from their manufacturers to offset the considerable cost.

I will post more soon on how I see Zydelig fitting in, the the black box warnings and its strength and weakness, but for now I am just so happy we have this new weapon in our arsenal.

Thanks to all of you who volunteered for the trials that helped speed its approval. If appropriate, don't forget to consider trials for these two drugs and for several others existing antibodies and TKIs in the pipeline.

It is a good time in the CLL world and it will only continue to get better, quickly.

Only a few days later after this good news, Imbruvica was approved for front line therapy for those of us with 17p deletion. That is giant. More on that important expanded indication in another post soon. 

Much reason to celebrate as we now have two new powerful oral medications to help us live longer and better.

THE PLAN: More of the same

So here's the plan.

As of today. It could change tomorrow.

This is mostly a medical post, so those who aren't CLL or transplant aficionados might want to skim it quickly or skip to the last few paragraphs.

As you know from my spotty posting, my status has been delightfully boring with little new to report.

To understand what I am planning to do, it is important to see it for what it is: more of the same.

Let's go back to last spring when I started down this very smooth path.

Allow me to briefly summarize my journey over the last 12 months.

Almost two years post transplant, my platelets had fallen again, this time over four weeks from 242,000 to 32,000 in May 2010 despite low dose IVIG infusions (30 grams) twice a month.

With the platelet crash I was re-staged to be sure it was ITP.

It was.

My CT scan showed the largest cluster of nodes was way too big: 6.4 x 3.4 cm. on the right side of my mesentery. The flow cytometry showed CLL was back in my peripheral blood again. My ALC was normal but my atypical lymph count had reached 12%. Red cells were fine and I could feel some small palpable nodes in my neck, but nothing worrisome.

So besides the ITP, it was all too clear that the CLL was stealthily but forcefully on the move again.

Yucch.

That's when it was decided to go back to what had worked so well before my transplant, the unusual but magic mix of ciclosporin (CSP) 150 mg twice a day and some heavy cycles of rituximab (R) at 500/M2 weekly x 6. And continue the IVIG unchanged.

It worked quickly. My platelets jumped up immediately and were soon a non-issue again.

As of now, my ITP as measured by my platelet count seems to be stable or even trending upward with numbers often well above the amazing level of 400,000, and never below 270,000 for almost a year now. The therapy is working great for ITP!

After the first cycle of rituximab, my follow up CT scan in September 2010 showed my largest node was 3.8 x 1.7 cm, still much too big, but also much better. My ALC was low to low-normal ranging from 0.52 to 0.79, likely from the R wiping out all my B cells. My bone marrow showed about 5-10% CLL on the biopsy and 3% by flow cytometry.

Not just my ITP, but my CLL was responding to this non-chemo therapy as it had done before.

So I did a second round of 6 weekly doses of rituximab starting in October and finishing late in November. During this time, I also had to reduce the CSP because of its well known nasty side effects when my uric acid jumped to 9.4 (really should be less than 6 but we can accept as high as 8) and when my blood pressure shot up. Thankfully renal function (creatinine and eGFR) stayed in the normal range this time, unlike my last CSP scare.

I eventually readjusted my BP meds and halved the CSP to 75 mg twice a day, which is my present dose. Uric acid is fine again, creatinine has climbed a touch but is still normal, and my BP is great to high normal. It depends on who is checking it. It is always great at my office and alway borderline at the cancer center.

Not a perfect portrait, but not bad. I can't imagine what these renal parameters would be if I wasn't vegan. I do believe my anti-inflammatory diet moderates some of the toxicity of my disease and its treatments.

My ALC is now up to normal ranging from 0.7 to 1.2.

My Hgb has dipped as low as 12.7 but last week was a robust 15. It fluctuates between a bit low and low normal. My red cells are always slightly too big or macrocytic, but it is not progressive.

The few tiny nodes that never went away in my neck after the first round of R therapy didn't change much with the second hit of monoclonal antibody, but they were tiny.

The bone marrow biopsy on March 30 showed 3% CLL on flow, and < 5% on the biopsy. Even better than 6 months earlier. It also showed some mild hypocellularity (30%), which means it may have been beaten up more than I realize with the transplant. FISH studies for the usual suspects for MDS and CLL were negative. All in all a very good result.

The next important piece of the puzzle is the imaging.

Here there is a new wrinkle in the strategy. I am switching to MR. My hospital has just installed a new more powerful machine, and although the details won't be as precise as on a CT, it will be good enough for a new baseline. Truth is that I don't need to know if my nodes are 1.9 or 2.2 cm but I do need to know if they are 2 or 4 cm. All future imaging will be on this same machine, and hopefully this will eliminate the Morton's fork of too much radiation or not enough information. The scan will be in mid June.

What I do know is that my palpable nodes are definitely growing very slowly. Kipps agrees. Is it because of the reduction of the CSP as the nodes seemed to enlarge after the last drop in dosage, or is that the R finally wearing off (it has been 6 months since the last infusion), or is it just what it is.

Unless the MR finds the bad or good extreme of either massive nodes or no nodes, I will be doing 6 weeks of R again in late June through early August. 6-12 weeks later I will repeat the MR.

During this time I will continue on the same dose of CSP and then try to stretch out the IVIG to three weeks between treatments which will also spare my veins, which are getting a little inflamed from years of abuse by the IV nurses.

I hope to make only one change at a time so I can monitor the effect.

After that, I will try to reduce the CSP to 50 mg twice a day, but I am nervous about going lower than that. Rai is not keen on my stopping the ciclosporin, ever.

After that more R again in 6 months and another BMB and MR scan somewhere in there, depending on how things go this summer.

If this is smelling a lot like rituximab maintenance with the every six month dosing, it might be.

But I believe it is more than that because clearly the CSP has anti-leukemic properties proven in the test tube and a few published cases and at least twice in this little body of mine. It is a novel low toxicity combination therapy that probably should be better studied.

I believe this approach is using CSP and R to treat to goal, to shrink those mesenteric nodes.

Maybe I will need to add something like AMD3100 or CAL 101 to get the B cells out of the nodes, but I will cross that bridge if and when I need to.

Imagine no chemotherapy and getting a complete remission!

The plan:

More R, slowly reduce the CSP, and stretch out the IVIG, but don't totally stop either, and watch the nodes in the gut with a MR instead of a CT.

So I can avoid more chemo.

So I can feel well longer without damaging my marrow or likely making my cancer more aggressive or resistant and only mildly mangling my immunity.

So I can stay out of the 5th floor of City of Hope for a second transplant a little longer .

So I can wait out a possible cure without burning too many bridges.

So I can hug and hold my first grandchild, a girl due in July without dreading every cough or drool.

More good news in the marrow and the worst news on the ice

The Kings lost their 3rd game in OT, and are out of the playoffs again in the 1st round. They need a sniper, someone who can score. So sad.

I need a sniper too, something that can pick off my CLL clones and leave the rest of my body alone.

I may have a fair facsimile in my idiosyncratic mix of ciclosporin (CSP) and rituximab (R).

Dr. Kipps was very very very happy with my bone marrow report. His and my fears that the R was doing a good cosmetic job of cleaning up my blood and shrinking the nodes you could feel, while the marrow was loading up with cancer was not the case. In fact my marrow had less CLL than 3 months ago 3% by flow, and < 5% seen with special stains. The histology (the slide itself) looked normal to the hematopathologist.

That means no nodules of CLL like cells seen. And no excess blasts or increased marrow activity that might herald the dreaded MDS (See my friend's CarePage as he details his life saving transplant at MDACC for his CLL/MDS combo). (Update 8/2013: He is now long post transplant, disease-free, and doing great with a long cancer free life ahead of him.)

The cells lines for read and white and platelets were all just fine. The marrow's cellularity was a bit low, which Kipps think is from all the therapy I have had.

I guess I don't think of myself as having had that much therapy, if you don't count my transplant. (That's a joke.)

Anyway he is not worried and actually relieved that the marrow wasn't hypercellular like it usually is in MDS.

Also all my FISH studies for the common genetic irregularities associated with CLL and MDS were negative.

All this is old news.

The new news is that Kipps feel the ciclosporin is a big part of my success. He actually tried to get a study done on its efficacy in CLL. Apparently it doesn't help everyone and it is a generic drug, so funding would be tough.

But for me it works.

I think of it as the brakes on my ITP, but Kipps is reminding me of its antileukemic especially in combination with R.

The only bad news is my nodes have groin a bit again. All this has happened since I reduced the CSP.

Which also suggests it helps my CLL

So if I can find a dose that doesn't mess with my kidneys and still controls the CLL and the ITP, I may have the 1st piece of a winning strategy.

The second is also atypical: Maintenance Rituximab

I am going to wait for MR (more on that in the next post) before adding the R it has only been 4 months since my last dose, so my slowly growing nodes could be from the R starting to lose gas or from the reduced dose of the CSP or from both or neither.

I don't want my gut nodes to get gigantic and hard to treat, so I am thinking a course of "vitamin R" in June might be just what the doctor ordered. Kipps wouldn't say go for it, but he didn't say no either. Which is a lot for him considering this R+CSP is all unproven territory for a man who has built a world class reputation for elegantly clinical designed trials.

So all in all good news.

Watch the nodes with self examines in the shower, and a MR soon. BMB every 6-12 months.

Titrate to find the lowest dose of CSP that keeps things under control and add in some R every 6 months.

And the LA Kings sign a free agent snipe in July.

We have a plan.

How writing a helpful letter helped myself

Here's part of a letter I wrote to a friend with CLL struggling with her decision about what to do next.

The Byrd mentioned at the beginning is Dr. John Byrd out of Ohio State who so kindly and effectively helped me three years ago when I was running out of non-toxic options to treat my ITP, he suggested in a phone call that I try the combo of rituximab and cyclosporin. We have never met, but he was a life saver for me. His research is inventive and pertinent and his clinical care is compassionate and effective.

My letter gives you a sense of how I think. Writing to her about the issue of rituximab maintenance helped me sort out my own plans. That was not my intention when I wrote the letter, but that is what happened.

Is there a lesson there? You bet.

Nancy,

Very nice post about the good and bad with CLL. I agree with the mob. Get a CLL guru's opinion, and Byrd is one of the best.

Here's my 2 cents worth.

CLL is not FL (follicilar lymphoma) or even NFL (non-follicular lymphoma) so maintenance R (rituximab) is more a risk and here is why.

1: CLL unlike lymphomas is more in the marrow and R is often lousy for cleaning out the marrow on its own.So you think you are doing great with shrunken palpable doses, but the cancer is partying in the BM and the internal nodes. Though pleasant, this delusion may lead to more difficult treatment options down the line.

2: CLL patients are more immunosuppressed than lymphoma patients and R dampens the already weak immune system, by wiping out good B cells, changing the balance and signaling in the T cells, and plummeting the levels of antibody, and may even lead to late onset neutropenia (LAN) exactly what you don't need.

3: You can develop an allergy to it (mouse juice) like PC, though ofatuzamab is the solution to that issue

4: it can stop working and won't be there if you really need it, and finally you may be taking more of something that you don't need with all the risks, and should instead save it to use on as needed basis.

That said, there is some weak evidence in favor of R maintenance. A 2009 ASH abstract by Pieto used maintenance therapy with four monthly cycles of rtx at 375 mg/sqm followed by twelve monthly low doses of rtx (150 mg/sqm) (a very low dose) " CLL pts undergoing consolidation and maintenance therapy (n=54) showed a longer response duration vs MRD+ not consolidated pts (n=16; 75% vs 9% at 4 years; P<0.00001,>1 year) pts (n=43) showed a very long response duration (79% at 6 years, Figure). Moreover, OS was shorter in MRD+ not consolidated pts (0% vs 79% at 15 years; P=0.0007). Noteworthy, within the high risk subset (n=48), consolidated pts (n=17) showed a longer response duration (56% vs 0% at 2.5 years, P=0.003) vs MRD+ not
consolidated pts (n=11). A paper by Scrock uses 100mg/M2 q 4 weeks an even lower dose x 6 months with some success in a very few patients. Finally Ken Foon used R maintenance in his FRC lite protocol. It is pretty thin data, but it is not nothing. It is all I could find when I researched the topic.

You see I am facing a similar decision. The good thing about this list is that we are in this together. R + cyclosporin (CSP) has worked so well for ITP again and 3 years ago took my marrow from 90 to 3% I wondered with Drs. Kipps & Forman if I should stay on the R along with the CSP. I think we will let the BM guide us. If the 6 weeks of R used ostensively to control my ITP has cleaned out my marrow, then it argues in favor of maintenance. If not, then it is a cosmetic therapy shrinking palpable nodes, but the disease is progressing and I am wasting a good tool..

Maybe you should get a BM biopsy before deciding. Best to wait 8 weeks after the last dose of R due to its long half life of activity Hope this helps.

You are a special person, young Nancy.

Stay strong.

Brian bkoffman.blogspot.com