Tag Archive for: CLL side effect management
Empowering Providers to Enhance CLL Patient Care
Empowering patients is at the core of efforts at Patient Empowerment Network (PEN), and work toward reducing health disparities is part of conversations among healthcare professionals. With this in mind, PEN has taken on a new initiative for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the Empowering CLL Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP) initiative. The program multiplies PEN’s reach to healthcare professionals with the aim to improve physician-patient communication; shared decision-making; and the role that CLL patients, survivors, care partners, and healthcare professionals each play in the shared decision-making process.
The EPEP CLL initiative includes the following resources:
- Needs Assessment outlines key factors that enable patient empowerment, attributes of an empowered patient, and advice for healthcare professionals to perform a needs assessment for each patient.
- EPEP Roundtables with CLL experts Dr. Jennifer Brown, Dr. Callie Coombs, Dr. Daniel Ermann, and Dr. Andres Chang as they discuss a range of topics including how to help your CLL patients play an active role in managing their care, healthcare provider recommended strategies for managing disease burden, the importance of advanced practice clinicians on the CLL health care team, and ins and outs of clinical trials and communication about clinical trials.
- EPEP Resources includes the resource guide, infographics, blog, and other resources to improve patient care.
- EPEP Peer Insights with PEN’s Vice President of Programs Aïcha Diallo breaks down the differences between cultural competence versus cultural humility and barriers that HCPs may encounter and ways to overcome cultural humility barriers.
- EPEP Portal utilizes PEN’s robust resource library and that of numerous trusted advocacy partners to create a vetted list of patient education resources. PEN delivers a curated PDF according to your interests and delivers it efficiently to your inbox.
Key Takeaways for CLL Patient Care
PEN had the opportunity to interview CLL experts Dr. Jennifer Brown from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dr. Callie Coombs from the University of California, Irvine, Dr. Daniel Ermann from Huntsman Cancer Institute, and Dr. Andres Chang from Emory University School of Medicine to learn about some of their expertise. They shared their views about essential ways that they work with patients to help empower them and to educate them about CLL mutations and side effect management.
A team-based approach is the ideal model for taking optimal care of CLL patients. Dr. Callie Coombs stressed the key roles that pharmacists, oncology nurses, and nurse practitioners play in CLL patient care. “…I think it comes down to your internal resources, but I would say taking care of CLL patients is clearly a team effort. And so it’s not just me, but also a team of additional practitioners that I work with. So I’d like to emphasize how important pharmacists are because I’ve definitely seen some side effects that come about because a patient is now on a medication that interacts with whatever their CLL therapy is, which drives up the levels of the drug and then brings out certain toxicities so they can help us identify these if perhaps I missed it or didn’t ask the patient about a supplement, et cetera.”
The advances in CLL treatment have expanded tremendously over the past several years leading to refined treatments. Expert Dr. Callie Coombs shared her perspective about how patient care has changed. “…CLL is a chronic disease that affects our primarily elderly patients, and so it’s a marathon, not a sprint. However, with all of the advances that we’ve had in excellent drug therapies, despite these resistance mutations, patients can attain many, many, many years of high quality of life. But it’s incumbent upon us as their providers to help ensure that quality of life through effective management of side effects that may be encountered over the course of their time on therapy for the patients that do need therapy.”
Switching treatments can be an effective method for resolving side effects in some patients. Dr. Callie Coombs discussed some changes she’s seen in some of her patients. “…I’ve had patients with chronic long-standing toxicities to ibrutinib (Imbruvica) that perhaps went underrecognized where I say, ‘Hey, I’ve notice your blood pressure has gone up a lot…Let’s switch you over to acalabrutinib,” or other patients, “Oh, you’ve had issues with atrial fibrillation…let’s try switching you to zanubrutinib.’..Because the rates are a lot lower and a lot of patients can have improvement or just complete resolution of the prior side effect. And so I hope that that emphasizes this is something that we think about every day, and switching is appropriate in the setting of intolerance.”
CLL Mutations and Side Effect Management
Although CLL is not defined by any specific mutation, CLL care providers see a large number of different mutations at low percentages. Dr. Jennifer Brown discussed how mutations can come into play with CLL treatment. “So at baseline, the most common mutations, which are somewhere in the 10 to 20 percent range of patients, although less than that if you have very early stage patients, affect the p53 gene, NOTCH1, SF3B1, and ATM. P53 is the most important because that one does influence our thinking about the patients and our choice of therapy in some cases.”
TP53 aberrations are especially vital in relation to chemotherapy. Dr. Callie Coombs explained the impact of these specific mutations. “…when patients have TP53 aberrations, whether that’s 17P or a TP53 mutation or both, given that they can occur in isolation or together, these patients should never get chemotherapy, because they have extremely terrible responses to chemo, and that should not be part of the therapies offered to these patients.”
Warning CLL patients ahead of time about common treatment side effects is recommended to help prepare them for treatment. Dr. Jennifer Brown explained some common side effects with her patients. “…headaches often happen early on when you initiate acalabrutinib (Calquence) but they go away typically very quickly. And so if patients know that, then they’re much less worried, and then you can talk to them about the strategies, because caffeine or acetaminophen (Tylenol) will often help with that. If you warn them that they may have some joint aches or pains, that can also help, since those are often transient…With venetoclax, warning them about some nausea or diarrhea, and then we often manage that by subsequently moving the drug to the evening after they’re done with their ramp up, or initiating an antiemetic, things like this.”
Dose adjustments to CLL treatment may prove to be a highly effective method of side effect management for some patients. Dr. Daniel Ermann shared his perspective about dose adjustments. “…I think dose reduction can make a big difference in the side effect profiles of these medications. I’ve seen reduced bleeding, for example, reduced rates of atrial fibrillation. With BCL-2 inhibitors, I’ve seen reduced rates of neutropenia, for example. And I’ll just say from my experience, I haven’t seen too much compromise in efficacy. So I think I would recommend for providers when you’re thinking about dose reduction, it’s really a balance of toxicity and efficacy. And I think with just how good our treatments are for CLL these days, I try to reduce toxicity. And I think in that way, it does maximize their efficacy.”
Dr. Andres Chang also shared his perspective on dose escalation and dose reduction in CLL patient care. “…whether to dose-escalate or dose-reduce really depends on the treatment we’re talking about. For new therapies like BCL-2 inhibitors such as venetoclax (Venclexta), we do dose escalation at the beginning of therapy to mitigate potential side effects such as tumor lysis syndrome, whereas in most of the other scenarios we will try to do dose reductions in order to mitigate adverse events.”
Even though CLL treatments have shown increases in the number and complexity of treatment options, vital HCP best practices can help further expansion in empowering CLL patients. How do we improve care of patients? And how do we work with dose adjustments and side effect management in patient care? We hope healthcare providers can take advantage of these timely resources of the EPEP initiative to work toward optimal and equitable treatment for all CLL patients.
Can Digital Tools Enhance Side Effect Management in CLL?
Can Digital Tools Enhance Side Effect Management in CLL? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
Experts Dr. Andres Chang from Emory University and Dr. Daniel Ermann from Huntsman Cancer Institute highlight the benefits of platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn for providers seeking up-to-date information, while advising caution for patients, recommending they rely on trusted resources and direct communication with their healthcare team to navigate potentially misleading online content.
Download Resource Guide | Descargar guía de recursos
Related Resources:
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
We know that social media is often leveraged in healthcare among providers. And I think you mentioned, Dr. Chang, an app. So are there any other digital tools or are there ways that either of you leverage social media in order to manage side effects, either with education to providers or to patients? And, Dr. Ermann, I’ll start with you on this one.
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
Sure. So social media is a tricky one, because not everyone uses it. Also in CLL in particular, our median patient age is around 70 years of age, and not too many of my 70-year-old patients are on, but they can be. So I think as a provider, there are a couple of things. I’ll be honest, Twitter is actually, can be a great resource. If you follow certain providers in the field, you’ll get some updated information before anyone else, including especially during our annual ASH meeting, there’s an ASH app. And if you could attend the meeting, you’ll see that most updated data. And you can see that on Twitter and/or X as well. Other than that, we also have a Huntsman app similar to Emory. But I think that that’s about as far as social media goes for me. What about you, Dr. Chang?
Dr. Andres Chang:
I agree with Dr. Ermann that places like X and LinkedIn, if you follow the right people, you can get very useful information. And I think that that’s particularly true for people within the academic community and healthcare providers. But for patients per se, I think that this could be a little bit more tricky. And so I try to steer them away from that, in fact, and I try to kind of keep them within the main resources. And if they have any questions or they have…or they’re confused about something, I always tell them, feel free to send me a message, and we’re happy to discuss whatever you read. And so I find that patients really appreciate the openness of discussing data because sometimes the data might be not very accurate. And by having that trust, they find it comfortable talking about things that might not be as conventional as we might think so.
Share Your Feedback
Innovative Strategies for Healthcare Provider Education on Side Effect Management in CLL
Innovative Strategies for Healthcare Provider Education on Side Effect Management in CLL from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What are some strategies and approaches to CLL side effect management? Experts Dr. Andres Chang from Emory University and Dr. Daniel Ermann from Huntsman Cancer Institute discuss ways they provide information on CLL side effect management to other healthcare providers.
Download Resource Guide | Descargar guía de recursos
Related Resources:
The Role of Patient Education in Managing Treatment-Related Side Effects in CLL |
|
How Can CLL Patients and Providers Be Empowered for the Best Care? |
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Dr. Chang, I’m going to stay with you for a moment. Can you share any successful strategies for healthcare provider to healthcare provider education, any innovative approaches with regard to side effect management in CLL?
Dr. Andres Chang:
Yeah, I think that as important as educating patients, educating other healthcare providers is as critical. And as such, I think one of the missions that we have at academic institutions is that we should also offer some educational aspect to our consultant physicians across the community or nurse practitioners or nursing staff. And so one of the things that I commonly do is that my notes tend to have a couple of paragraphs that explain my rationale behind the recommendations with sources, primary sources of information if they want to look up any particular data where I’m basing my decision on. And that happens both in terms of picking this treatment versus this other treatment, what is the efficacy data, but also for side effect and adverse events data.
I also, as part of the Winship Cancer Institute, we have a big outreach program to our community. And I’m sure Dr. Ermann has [this] too over at Utah, where we have outreach programs and reach out to other community oncologists, trying to give them information about the newest and latest therapies. We do symposia. And we also have an app where community oncologists can actually look us up directly and give us a call or something that, in case they run into problems. And then we are happy to talk to them and help guide the management of their particular patients. I find that this kind of verbal communication and live direct provider-to-provider contact has been very useful. And I think that the community oncologists have really appreciated that.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
I’m sure that they do. That is amazing. That’s awesome. What about you, Dr. Ermann? Do you have anything to add in terms of what you all are doing at your institution to communicate with other healthcare providers?
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
I just have to say Dr. Chang and I were on the same page. I completely agree with everything he said. I think that he is…it’s we’re super imposable at this point. I do the exact same things as he does, which is great, I think. I think that that’s fantastic. A couple other things I would just say as well is that I agree 100 percent. Communication is the biggest thing. Communication is not only one of the most important things, but it also can be a big barrier. So I think fostering communication between, a lot of what I do is deal with local oncologists as the academics. So I may only see patients a couple times a year, whereas the local oncologist may see them a couple times a month.
And so having an open line of communication, whether it be cell phone, like occasionally I’ll be texting local providers, calling them, having their phone number is very helpful, emailing back and forth. And then after I see patients, similar to Dr. Chang, I document well in my notes. And I also have my team send the note to them through fax or other means. So things like that, I think are very valuable and important and I think are game-changers when it comes to excellent patient care, because the communication barrier can sometimes be one of the biggest ones.
Share Your Feedback
HCP Roundtable: Fine-Tuning CLL Dose Modification and Side Effect Management Strategies
HCP Roundtable: Fine-Tuning CLL Dose Modification and Side Effect Management Strategies from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
What is the rationale and evidence behind dose optimization approaches in CLL treatment? What role does patient education play in recognizing and managing CLL treatment-related side effects? Dr. Andres Chang of Emory Healthcare and Dr. Daniel Ermann of Huntsman Cancer Institute discuss optimizing CLL care and the importance of empowering your CLL patients during their treatment journey.
Download Resource Guide | Descargar guía de recursos
Related Resources:
How Can CLL HCPs Gain More Understanding of Mutation Profiles? |
CLL Expert Updates on Diagnostic Tool and Technology Advances |
|
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients (EPEP) program. I’m your host, Dr. Nicole Rochester. EPEP is a Patient Empowerment Network program that serves as a secure space for health care providers to learn techniques for improving physician-patient communication and overcome practice barriers. In this CLL roundtable, we are exploring fine-tuning CLL dose modification and side effect management strategies.
As the chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatment landscape evolves, we’re going to talk about the rationale and evidence behind dose optimization approaches in CLL treatment for those who may need therapy. We’ll also discuss strategies for dose modifications to mitigate adverse events while maintaining treatment efficacy, as well as approaches that are transforming CLL side effect management.
It is my honor and privilege to be joined by Dr. Andres Chang, Instructor in the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine. Dr. Chang specializes in treating patients with hematological malignancies including leukemia and lymphoma. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Chang.
Dr. Andres Chang:
Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
It is also my pleasure to be joined by Dr. Daniel Ermann, Assistant Professor in the Division of Hematology and Hematologic Malignancies at the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Ermann specializes in the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and other forms of Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and he is passionate about working towards a cure. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Ermann.
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
Great to be here. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
So let’s start the conversation with dose modification, and I’m going to start with you, Dr. Chang. As the treatment landscape evolves for CLL, for some patient populations that need therapy, what is the rationale and evidence behind both dose escalation and dose reduction?
Dr. Andres Chang:
Well, so I think that the question of whether to dose-escalate or dose-reduce really depends on the treatment we’re talking about. For new therapies like BCL-2 inhibitors such as venetoclax (Venclexta), we do dose escalation at the beginning of therapy to mitigate potential side effects such as tumor lysis syndrome, whereas in most of the other scenarios we will try to do dose reductions in order to mitigate adverse events.
In all of these patients and in all of these cases, we do take into account the patient’s comorbidities. In the case of venetoclax, for instance, we think of whether patients have kidney dysfunction, and in the case of BTK inhibitors whether they have concomitant heart disease, hypertension, whether they are on anticoagulation, and also we take into account what other medications they have, in particular whether they have medications that affect their cytochrome P450 system.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Awesome. Thank you so much, Dr. Chang. Is there anything specific that you think healthcare providers need to know with regard to dose escalation and dose reduction?
Dr. Andres Chang:
So dose escalation in terms of venetoclax initiation is, we already have a pretty well-established protocol that is on the label of the medication, and this is really mainly to mitigate the risk of tumor lysis syndrome. And in terms of dose reduction, I think it really depends again on which therapy we are talking about and also on which particular side effect we’re talking about. And so I really encourage all the providers to really inquire and look into what potential side effects the patient might have so that you can adequately address this, because each side effect can be addressed or should be addressed with a different kind of strategy.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Chang. Dr. Ermann, I’m going to come to you. How do CLL healthcare providers better understand dosing, particularly with the emergence of novel CLL therapies?
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
Yeah. Thank you so much for the question. So I think nowadays, most of us in the CLL community, we’re really no longer using chemotherapy. We’re using, like Dr. Chang said, we’re sticking to these novel agents, BCL-2 inhibitors, BTK inhibitors in the frontline setting. All of these medications have been studied to the optimal dose in their respective trials. And for the most part, we start every patient, except for the venetoclax ramp-up, we start all patients at the optimal dose for what we think for them is the maximum tolerated dose in the studies, which is the dose seen in the FDA package inserts and the recommended starting dose.
So I think for most patients, generally we start at what dose that is recommended. And then the only time we really begin to dose-reduce is as Dr. Chang mentioned, if we’re seeing side effects or intolerance. So these are things that I always start looking at very early when I start patients on treatments. I check in with my patients within the first two weeks of them starting a BTK inhibitor. And then during the venetoclax ramp-up with BCL-2 inhibitors, I keep a very close eye on them.
So I think though these novel therapies are extremely effective at treating CLL, they do come with some toxicities. And it’s important to be aware of the toxicities, to keep an eye on the patients when you start them and know what the dose reductions are and how to effectively manage them.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Ermann. And I just want to acknowledge and thank both of you for highlighting the importance of partnering with patients, particularly in an Empowering Providers to Empower Patients program. We understand that this is a partnership between the healthcare providers and the patients. And so I appreciate both of you really highlighting the importance of engaging with the patients and then making necessary adjustments.
So, Dr. Chang, can you speak to any unforeseen or outdated practice-related barriers that may actually hinder your work and that of your colleagues as it relates to understanding CLL dosing?
Dr. Andres Chang:
Yeah, even though most of us in the CLL community have already moved to these novel targeted therapies, we do occasionally still see patients are referred to our centers who have undergone frontline chemo-immunotherapy, which for the vast majority of the patients nowadays, there really shouldn’t be an indication for that sort of treatment anymore. And so I think one of the main limitations is that we are using or at least some providers are using frontline chemo-immunotherapy and by doing so, they negate the great benefits that these novel targeted therapies have, particularly again in frontline setting.
Other unforeseen or outdated practices might be related to how patients, how we optimally mitigate the tumor lysis risks. And also occasionally, we might see some referrals from community practice physicians with patients who have CLL, and they have recurrent cytopenias or persistent cytopenias while in therapy, and they attribute it to toxicity of the therapy. Where in reality, if you do a bone marrow biopsy, they might be having a lot in the bone marrow, and that might be the answer for this particular so-called toxicity, but in reality it’s actually disease progression.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Chang. So, Dr. Ermann, based on what Dr. Chang just shared and some of these, sounds like maybe knowledge or practice gaps, what are some solutions? How can we begin to bridge these gaps so that patients are receiving the best of the best with regard to therapy?
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
So there’s a little bit of, I would say that there can be a little bit of delay in certain providers changing their practice to the current academic approach. I think that from what I’ve seen, the best way to manage it is when patients are seen in the community by providers, I personally have quite a good relationship with many community providers in the community setting. And I encourage those providers if they get a new patient diagnosed with CLL, to recommend a CLL consultation.
And I would advocate that the patients also look into their disease and see whether or not a CLL consultation with an expert in the field of lymphoma or CLL may be good for them. And in those ways I’ve seen, personally I co-manage many patients across the Western United States. They’re still able to be seen by their local oncologist and also be seen for consideration of clinical trials in the CLL space when indicated for their more rare disease.
So I do think it comes from both providers and patients, but I think empowering your patients, letting them know that there are other doctors who may specialize in a condition that they have is really important. And when patients do that, not only are they happy, their local oncologist is happy. It makes it kind of better for everyone.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Absolutely. Thank you, Dr. Ermann. I love that idea of a team-based approach. Thank you so much. Well, let’s move into talking about side effects. And you all have already alluded to the importance of dose modification with regard to side effects and minimizing toxicity. So I’m going to go to you, Dr. Ermann. What techniques do you use in your practice for optimizing treatment efficacy while minimizing toxicity? And feel free, if you’d like, to share a specific example.
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
Yeah. Great question. So in CLL, there are a lot of unique toxicities with our CLL-directed therapies. I’ll take, for example, BTK inhibitors. So BTK inhibitors have certain off-target effects. The way these medications work is they turn off BTK, and that’s like flipping a switch that decreases the growth of the CLL cells and eventually causes them to die. However, some of the unique toxicities we see are things like atrial fibrillation, bleeding, bruising, infections, to name a few.
So, for example, you would like to start a patient optimally on the maximum dose, which is the kind of recommended starting dose. However, let’s say a patient gets a side effect such as bleeding or atrial fibrillation, I usually will follow the package insert pretty closely. In most cases, the recommended management is to hold the drug until a side effect resolves and then resume at the same dose. In my practice, I found that with many of our novel therapies, there are some cases where you can continue the same dose, but oftentimes you’ll need to dose-reduce.
And I will say from my personal experience, I think dose reduction can make a big difference in the side effect profiles of these medications. I’ve seen reduced bleeding, for example, reduced rates of atrial fibrillation. With BCL-2 inhibitors, I’ve seen reduced rates of neutropenia, for example. And I’ll just say from my experience, I haven’t seen too much compromise in efficacy. So I think I would recommend for providers when you’re thinking about dose reduction, it’s really a balance of toxicity and efficacy. And I think with just how good our treatments are for CLL these days, I try to reduce toxicity. And I think in that way, it does maximize their efficacy.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Ermann. What about you, Dr. Chang? How do you approach dose adjustments for CLL patients, particularly those who may be experiencing severe side effects? And what factors influence your decision-making process?
Dr. Andres Chang:
Yeah, so first of all, I agree with Dr. Ermann that I think trying to mitigate side effects and oftentimes following the package insert is really, really helpful. One of the things that I want to add, though, is I do spend quite a bit of time before starting any medication, educating patients and trying to teach them about what potential side effects, what to look for. And importantly, if there are mechanisms to mitigate or prevent those side effects, I will spend quite a bit of time talking about that. And these can be things such as taking caffeine to prevent an acalabrutinib-induced (Calquence) headaches, for example, maintaining adequate fluid intake and hydration to minimize the risk of tumor lysis, and so forth.
I find that by spending that time with patients ahead of starting therapy, that oftentimes it allows patients to identify the side effect and also start addressing it even before needing to come back to the clinic. My team, in addition to myself, also spends quite a bit of time, and we perform phone calls, follow-up phone calls, and things like that, that are conducted by my pharmacist or by my nurse. And together, I find that oftentimes just by talking through these potential issues, patients will feel a lot better.
Now, depending on how severe an adverse event is, or a side effect is, I tend to potentially dose-reduce somewhat quicker. Or if there’s an alternative, like in the case of BTK inhibitors, I will be a little bit more prone to switching from one BTK inhibitor to another, because there is data suggesting that if you don’t tolerate one BTK inhibitor, you can tolerate a second one.
And that’s particularly true if we are seeing some of these side effects that arise in the long term, particularly with ibrutinib (Imbruvica), and switching them to acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), oftentimes resolve those kinds of side effects. And I’ve seen that particularly true in cases where I see hypertension induced by ibrutinib (Imbruvica). I have a couple of patients where they are four or five years into ibrutinib therapy, came in with uncontrolled hypertension, I switched them to another BTK inhibitor, and the hypertension gets better controlled.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Chang. I just really appreciate again how both of you are continuing to highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary team. So the importance of involving the patients, educating the patients, both ahead of time and as you’re beginning treatment. And also, you mentioned bringing in the pharmacists and bringing in your nurses and all of the other members of the support team. So I really, I really appreciate that. And speaking of patient education, Dr. Ermann, I’d love for you to share if you can have any ideas around the role that patient education plays in recognizing and managing treatment-related side effects.
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
Yeah, absolutely. So I’m a big advocate on educating patients, and I completely agree with what Dr. Chang mentioned. I think prevention is the key. I think the more work you can do up front to improve the outcomes down the road, the better. So in my experience, what I do for my patients in the clinic when it comes to education is I actually, I do quite a bit of, quite a few things. So I not only do I myself personally educate the patient on the drug, I also have my pharmacist meet with the patient either in person or over the phone depending on where things are at. I also print out handouts, because occasionally we hear a lot of things and as patients, sometimes it can be overwhelming, even as doctors, it can be overwhelming hearing a lot of things at once.
So I like to print things out for my patients, whether it be from UpToDate pages, whether it be from things like the websites that have drug information like Chemocare, etcetera etcetera. And I also utilize kind of these free sheets that you can find throughout…from many different organizations such as, like Lymphoma Research Foundation or others that have drug information, safety information.
And then I also recommend them easy ways to contact us, whether it be through like a messaging app or calling our office with questions. I think that educating your patients on what to expect with these drugs is really important. Fortunately in CLL, a lot of our medications, though there are some unique toxicities, are overwhelmingly much better tolerated than many other therapies for other cancers. So that is one good thing. So you want to give them enough information, but you don’t want to scare them to thinking that they’re going to have the worst of every situation, but I think it’s very important, especially up front, and then most patients will see how different drugs affect them.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Ermann. I love that you’re offering multiple different ways, because like you said, some people may be auditory learners. Many of the patients, when they’re hearing this information for the first time, as you alluded to, they’re going to be overwhelmed. They’re not going to remember. So I love the idea of also leaving them with something in writing that they can refer to later. What about you, Dr. Chang? You’ve been doing this for a while now. Are there any specific strategies or something that works really well for you, a particular tactic as it relates to educating your patients about side effects?
Dr. Andres Chang:
Yeah, I couldn’t agree more with Dr. Ermann. I spend quite a bit of time, again, speaking directly to my patients, having my team speak to my patients, and I follow many of the similar strategies that Dr. Ermann has already mentioned. In particular, places like Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Leukemia Lymphoma Research Foundation, the CLL Society, all those societies have a wealth of information about the different treatments and approaches that we normally use for CLL. And I find it very useful that as part of our discharge paperwork from clinic, we do include links to those societies so that they can find additional information.
And aside from that, I think once you have a good rapport with a patient and your team has a good rapport with a patient, as long as there’s good communication either through the patient portal, through phone calls, through return visits, I find that once patients are very well-educated, then they are actually very comfortable starting therapy and pretty much know exactly what to expect at each step in the therapy. Whether it is a dose escalation week for venetoclax, for example, or what happens when we have to hold a medication for a procedure, when to restart, and those sorts of things.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. Thank you both. Well, we’ve talked about the importance of educating patients. We’re going to circle back to our healthcare providers. And, Dr. Chang, I’m going to stay with you for a moment. Can you share any successful strategies for healthcare provider to healthcare provider education, any innovative approaches with regard to side effect management in CLL?
Dr. Andres Chang:
Yeah, I think that as important as educating patients, educating other healthcare providers is as critical. And as such, I think one of the missions that we have at academic institutions is that we should also offer some educational aspect to our consultant physicians across the community or nurse practitioners or nursing staff.
And so one of the things that I commonly do is that my notes tend to have a couple of paragraphs that explain my rationale behind the recommendations with sources, primary sources of information if they want to look up any particular data where I’m basing my decision on. And that happens both in terms of picking this treatment versus this other treatment, what is the efficacy data, but also for side effect and adverse events data.
I also, as part of the Winship Cancer Institute, we have a big outreach program to our community. And I’m sure Dr. Ermann has [this] too over at Utah, where we have outreach programs and reach out to other community oncologists, trying to give them information about the newest and latest therapies. We do symposia. And we also have an app where community oncologists can actually look us up directly and give us a call or something that, in case they run into problems.
And then we are happy to talk to them and help guide the management of their particular patients. I find that this kind of verbal communication and live direct provider-to-provider contact has been very useful. And I think that the community oncologists have really appreciated that.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
I’m sure that they do. That is amazing. That’s awesome. What about you, Dr. Ermann? Do you have anything to add in terms of what you all are doing at your institution to communicate with other healthcare providers?
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
I just have to say Dr. Chang and I were on the same page. I completely agree with everything he said. I think that he is…it’s we’re super imposable at this point. I do the exact same things as he does, which is great, I think. I think that that’s fantastic. A couple other things I would just say as well is that I agree 100 percent. Communication is the biggest thing. Communication is not only one of the most important things, but it also can be a big barrier. So I think fostering communication between, a lot of what I do is deal with local oncologists as the academics. So I may only see patients a couple times a year, whereas the local oncologist may see them a couple times a month.
And so having an open line of communication, whether it be cell phone, like occasionally I’ll be texting local providers, calling them, having their phone number is very helpful, emailing back and forth. And then after I see patients, similar to Dr. Chang, I document well in my notes. And I also have my team send the note to them through fax or other means. So things like that, I think are very valuable and important and I think are game-changers when it comes to excellent patient care, because the communication barrier can sometimes be one of the biggest ones.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Absolutely. Thank you for that. Before we wrap up, we know that social media is often leveraged in healthcare among providers. And I think you mentioned, Dr. Chang, an app. So are there any other digital tools or are there ways that either of you leverage social media in order to manage side effects, either with education to providers or to patients? And, Dr. Ermann, I’ll start with you on this one.
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
Sure. So social media is a tricky one, because not everyone uses it. Also in CLL in particular, our median patient age is around 70 years of age, and not too many of my 70-year-old patients are on, but they can be. So I think as a provider, there are a couple of things. I’ll be honest, Twitter is actually, can be a great resource. If you follow certain providers in the field, you’ll get some updated information before anyone else, including especially during our annual ASH meeting, there’s an ASH app. And if you could attend the meeting, you’ll see that most updated data. And you can see that on Twitter and/or X as well. Other than that, we also have a Huntsman app similar to Emory. But I think that that’s about as far as social media goes for me. What about you, Dr. Chang?
Dr. Andres Chang:
I agree with Dr. Ermann that places like X and LinkedIn, if you follow the right people, you can get very useful information. And I think that that’s particularly true for people within the academic community and healthcare providers. But for patients per se, I think that this could be a little bit more tricky. And so I try to steer them away from that, in fact, and I try to kind of keep them within the main resources.
And if they have any questions or they have…or they’re confused about something, I always tell them, feel free to send me a message, and we’re happy to discuss whatever you read. And so I find that patients really appreciate the openness of discussing data because sometimes the data might be not very accurate. And by having that trust, they find it comfortable talking about things that might not be as conventional as we might think so.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. Fully understood. There are certainly some risks associated with getting information from social media. So I appreciate you all providing that balance. Well, it’s time to wrap up our roundtable. And, as always, this has been an incredibly enlightening conversation. So as we close, I’d love to get closing thoughts from each of you. And I’ll start with you, Dr. Chang. What is the most important takeaway that you want to leave with those healthcare providers who are listening and watching this program?
Dr. Andres Chang:
Yeah, I think that the most important takeaways are actually two things, I think. One is really, really important to educate patients about their disease, about their treatment, about the potential side effects, and also to try to anticipate and mitigate those potential side effects so that patients know exactly what they’re expecting.
And then the second thing is really essential to have a great team around you because practicing medicine, particularly oncology, is not a solo practice. We really need a village to take care of our patients. And so having well-trained nurses, having excellent clinical pharmacists, all of them are essential members of the team that will help with patient care.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful, Dr. Chang. Thank you. And, Dr. Ermann, what are some closing thoughts you’d like to leave with our audience today?
Dr. Daniel Ermann:
I would say is that I would say don’t be afraid. In medicine, there’s often this thought that reducing treatment doses or things like that is a bad thing and you shouldn’t do it. I would say I would empower providers to not be afraid to dose-reduce, especially to mitigate very undesirable toxicities. So I’d say don’t be afraid to dose-reduce. There’s a lot of, at least in some of our medications, good efficacy data showing that dose reductions can have similar, if not the same, efficacy profile while mitigating toxicity. So I would say don’t be afraid to dose reduce, especially if the toxicities are not improving. Don’t be afraid to dose-hold.
And when it comes to empowering our patients more, I’m a big advocate on empowering patients. Particularly diseases like CLL, where two-thirds of patients at diagnosis don’t require treatment, and they’re told that they have cancer, and then all of a sudden they’re told that they don’t need treatment can be very scary. And I think that’s when patients feel like they have their disease understood and that they’re doing the best that they can for their own disease, it makes it better for everyone involved.
So I think empowering both providers and patients is kind of the optimal way to do things. And those are the best patients. When you deal with someone who knows their cancer, knows what’s going on, sometimes I get patients they know as much or more than me and I’m like, wow, this is incredible. Those are the best.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
That is such a perfect way to end this program. An empowered patient is the best patient. Thank you so much, Dr. Chang. Thank you so much, Dr. Ermann, for this amazing discussion about managing side effects and managing dose modifications and educating patients and educating providers with regard to CLL. Thank you again for tuning in to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients, Patient Empowerment Network Program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester. Have an amazing day.
Share Your Feedback
HCP Roundtable: Exploring CLL Mutations and Best Practices for Side Effect Management
HCP Roundtable: Exploring CLL Mutations and Best Practices for Side Effect Management from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.
As the chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) treatment landscape evolves, how can healthcare professionals deepen their understanding of mutation profiles, including the emergence of novel CLL mutations over time? What innovative approaches are transforming the management of CLL side effects? Additionally, how can barriers in CLL practice be removed to enhance physician-patient communication and promote shared decision-making?
Dr. Jennifer Brown from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Callie Coombs from the University of California, Irvine, share their expertise and best practices for CLL healthcare providers.
Download Resource Guide | Descargar guía de recursos
Related Resources:
Peer Insights: Understanding Cultural Competence vs. Cultural Humility |
|
Peer Insights: Practicing Cultural Humility to Empower Your Patients |
Transcript:
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients or EPEP Program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester, founder and CEO of Your GPS Doc. EPEP is a patient empowerment network program that serves as a secure space for healthcare providers to learn techniques for improving physician-patient communication and overcome practice barriers.
In this CLL roundtable, we are tackling exploring CLL mutations and best practices for side effect management. As the chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatment landscape evolves, how do CLL healthcare providers better understand mutation profiles, including the emergence of novel CLL mutations over time? What groundbreaking CLL therapeutic targets are emerging, tailored specifically to molecularly defined patient subgroups? And what innovative approaches are transforming CLL side effect management? These are just some of the things that we’re going to discuss today. We’re going to talk about the complexities of CLL mutations and the clonal evolution and resistance mechanisms in CLL.
We’ll discuss clinical trials and novel targets focused on molecularly defined patient subgroups. And lastly, we’ll talk about strategies for healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication regarding the management of side effects.It’s my privilege to be joined by Dr. Jennifer Brown, Director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and the Worthington and Margaret Collette Professor of Medicine in the field of Hematologic Oncology at Harvard Medical School. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Brown.
Dr. Jennifer Brown:
My pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
It’s also my privilege to be joined by Dr. Callie Coombs, an Associate Clinical Professor at the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Coombs primary clinical focus is in the care of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma. She has participated in multicenter studies examining the real world implications of novel therapeutic agents on the lives of patients, and has served as an investigator on a number of clinical trials. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Coombs.
Dr. Callie Coombs:
Thank you for having me as well.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
So let’s jump in as we have a lot to discuss as it relates to understanding CLL mutations and best practices for side effect management in CLL. So we’re going to start with the complexities of CLL mutations. And the first question, I’ll start with you, Dr. Brown, how do CLL healthcare providers better understand mutation profiles including the emergence of novel CLL mutations over time?
Dr. Jennifer Brown:
Well, the first thing that’s important to recognize is that CLL is not defined by any particular mutation. The landscape is quite varied and we see a large number of different mutations at low percentages. Well, the second key point to remember is that there are different mutations at baseline and then there can be acquired mutations that include some of what we see at baseline, but also novel resistance mutations that we don’t ever see at base.
So at baseline, the most common mutations, which are somewhere in the 10 to 20 percent range of patients, although less than that if you have very early stage patients, affect the p53 gene, NOTCH1, SF3B1, and ATM. P53 is the most important because that one does influence our thinking about the patients and our choice of therapy in some cases. P53 can be altered in CLL in two different ways. Actually, the most common way is as a deletion, deletion of the short arm of chromosome 17 or 17P deletion. About 75 to 80 percent of patients that have that deletion will have a point mutation usually in the other p53 allele. So they have double knockout of p53.
A small percentage of people with the deletion will not have the mutation. And then a certain number of patients will have just the mutation without the deletion. And one of the things that I’ve been very interested in for a while that we’re still trying to understand better is the implications of these different combinations of the way p53 can be affected in people with CLL, and that it may, in fact, be more adverse to have both alleles knocked out than single, although we don’t have great data for that as yet because most of the data that we have has combined all of it together.
But it’s very important to test for the p53 mutation alone because even if patients have only that one, at present, we consider the treatment implications of it all similarly regardless of how the p53 gene is affected. And then NOTCH1 is a fairly common mutation that always worries us a lot, because it’s associated with Richter’s transformation, which is a very high-risk event, but we don’t know anything to do about that to try and prevent it or to alter our therapy based on it.
So at the moment it’s mostly something that we are aware of that we keep an eye on but not that changes therapy. And SF3B1, ATM, and this long list of other genes that can be mutated in just a few percent of CLL, and mostly what we know about them is some biology that’s been studied, and then the fact that the more of these mutations are mutated in a patient that is associated with a worse prognosis, just a total number.
But that’s not something also that really alters our therapy. And then when patients go through lines of therapy, they can sometimes acquire mutations in these genes. So a patient can acquire a mutation in p53 or in NOTCH after their second or third line of therapy. But the mutations that are hottest right now, or that people are most interested in are some of the mutations that occur as resistance to therapy. So in particular, that means BTK mutations.
Covalent BTK inhibitors have transformed the therapy of CLL, and they bind to the cysteine 481 residue of BTK. So that means, as you might imagine, that if you mutate that cysteine so that the inhibitor can’t bind, that will be associated with resistance. And that, in fact, is what has been found that the cysteine to serine mutation at 481 is the most common resistance mutation in patients on covalent BTK inhibitors.
And in the case of ibrutinib (Imbruvica), it makes the inhibitor into a much weaker and non-covalent inhibitor. In the case of acalabrutinib (Calquence) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), it probably abrogates all activity. And so that’s a mutation that we will sometimes look for in patients with clinical progression on those drugs. There’s also a mutation in BCL2 that can occur in patients in venetoclax (Venclexta).
So another example of an on target resistance mutation. The role of that one is a little bit less clear, and testing for it is not as widely available, but we’re still working on that. Resistance to venetoclax is probably more complicated than resistance to BTK inhibitors, although there’s also a subset of patients who will get BTK inhibitors who have novel mechanisms of resistance not related to BTK that we don’t really know anything about as yet.
And then finally, the non-covalent BTK inhibitors are becoming available, pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) was approved for CLL in the United States in December for patients who’ve had covalent BTK inhibitors and venetoclax. And we’re starting to see different mutations in BTK at different sites, even though pirtobrutinib has activity against the 481 mutation. So there’s going to be a lot of activity in this area in the next few years probably.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you so much, Dr. Brown, that was a very comprehensive overview of the mutations. Dr. Coombs, do you have anything that you want to add to what Dr. Brown said perhaps specifically around mutations associated with the progression of CLL?
Dr. Callie Coombs:
Sure. So, that’s a hard act to follow. She really took us through a whirlwind of everything mutation-related. I think what I would like to focus on in my answer is, well, what should we be testing for on a day-to-day basis in our CLL practices and what are some common misconceptions? So specific to TP53, I would say this is the most important test as far as all of the genetic tests that influences what we do day to day in the care of patients with CLL.
I test for this for my newly diagnosed patients who I think may be interested in enrolling in a clinical trial, first of all, so the standard of care in CLL is watch and wait, however, patients with higher risk disease may be eligible for trials looking at early intervention specifically the SWOG EVOLVE trial looking at early treatment. And so that’s one of the risk markers that can get a patient into the higher risk category of CLL where they could be eligible for a trial.
A common misconception I see is that 17p is the same thing as a TP53 mutation, it’s definitely not. So these are two different tests that have to be sent. 17p can be picked up on karyotype testing and on FISH testing where it looks for 17p deletion. However, mutations are a different test. And so I usually send a next gen sequencing assay that includes other genes.
However, you can test purely just for mutations in the TP53 gene, but again, that’s a sequencing test, so I’d like to convey that, somewhat a misunderstanding, but it’s such an important gene in CLL because when patients have TP53 aberrations, whether that’s 17p or a TP53 mutation or both, given that they can occur in isolation or together, these patients should never get chemotherapy, because they have extremely terrible responses to chemo, and that should not be part of the therapies offered to these patients.
The other interesting, I’d say controversy at least in 2024, is what is the role for mutation testing in the clinic in the setting of acquired resistance to inhibitors? So I think it’s very clearly important in the research setting where I think learning about the C481 mutation among others in the setting of covalent BTK inhibitors has shown us a lot about mechanism of resistance. But in the clinic, I don’t necessarily think that’s something that needs to be universally applied, given that it most of the time doesn’t affect what we would do clinically.
And so one example is a patient comes in progressing on ibrutinib, maybe about two-thirds of them may have a mutation in the C481S. However, if they’re clinically progressing, they need to switch therapy. And so I think an argument could be made in practice whether or not sending these mutation tests is beneficial, but research, clearly important, and I think it’s going to give us key insights into our therapeutic sequencing strategies going forward. So I’m certainly a proponent of doing the testing in a well-monitored setting, but I don’t think it’s ready for prime time to be applied completely broadly to our patients.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Coombs, and I appreciate you adding that additional practical tips and information specifically for our healthcare providers. And you kind of moved into the next topic, which was really around new diagnostic tools and technologies that are available to detect and monitor mutations. So I’m going to go back to you, Dr. Brown, to see if you have any additional information that you’d like to share about new diagnostic tools, technologies with regard to these mutations and any other tips perhaps for our healthcare provider audience.
Dr. Jennifer Brown:
Well, really the only issue is what Dr. Coombs mentioned that it’s very important to get a next generation sequencing test to evaluate the p53 mutation, that it really is not well-evaluated by any other test, and is often missed because it’s thought that checking for the deletion is sufficient. So I would just reemphasize that point that she made very clearly. Other than that, we don’t really need any additional tools to monitor for mutations.
In the research setting we’re trying to do more and more sensitive assays to try and see when the earliest time that these mutations may emerge is and is there a way we could prevent that or, and just to better understand some of the biology, but it’s not really anything that’s needed in clinical practice. And we’re also not using the mutations to monitor residual disease. It turns out that the best way to do that is probably looking at the B-cell receptor itself, which is again, something that we’re studying in the research setting, but is not really something that needs to be done in clinical practices yet.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Brown. We definitely want to leverage you all’s expertise in this area. And so my next question has to do with practices. And you’ve really kind of addressed this to some extent already. Are there any unforeseen or perhaps outdated practice-related barriers that may either hinder your work or that of your colleagues specifically related to better understanding CLL mutations?
Dr. Callie Coombs:
Yeah, I mean, I think in addition to what I mentioned about 17p and TP53, one type of mutation we haven’t talked about is assessing for the mutation status of IGHV. So that’s actually something else that I’ve seen frequently missed as far as the routine testing of a CLL patient. But I do think it’s very important to send. Is it as important as when we were in the chemoimmunotherapy era where it would be hugely predictive for who had a long remission and who wouldn’t? Maybe not as important, but I do think if someone’s unmutated that still can really help inform certain aspects of their journey. One is the time that between diagnosis and when he or she’ll need their first treatment.
But two, also the expected length of remission should this patient embark upon a time-limited regimen such as venetoclax and obinutuzumab (Gazyva). But the separate question is, again, coming down to the practical aspect of how IGVH is tested. So another misunderstanding that I’ve seen is FISH tests look for the IGH locus. And so I’ve seen on recurrent occasions if that’s deleted, they say, “Oh, that’s a mutation.” Well that’s definitely not the same thing, and so it’s just to realize the IGHV test is a very specific test.
Some large facilities do it as an in-house test, I myself have been sending mine out to the Mayo Clinic, there’s other vendors where you can do it, but what they do is they specifically sequence IGHV and then compare the patient sequence to a consensus germline sequence to determine the percent of mutation, and it’s actually a good thing to be mutated with this gene, these are the patients that often have a longer time until they need their first treatment, if they need treatment at all, and then they generally have better responses to therapy. Though with BTK inhibitors, that difference is often becoming quite slim given that they work in both groups of patients.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. Thank you so much, Dr. Coombs. So now we’re going to shift to talking about clinical trials and novel targets focused on molecularly defined patient subgroups. So, Dr. Brown, can you talk about any emerging CLL trials targeting specific molecular subgroups, and also how can CLL experts stay updated on these advancements in clinical trials?
Dr. Jennifer Brown:
So, as you heard from Dr. Coombs, there’s increasing interest in looking at high-risk patients in particular, and I think looking specifically at patients with p53 aberration in dedicated clinical trials, it’s become increasingly clear that the behavior of the disease when it’s higher risk based on p53 mutation, NOTCH mutation, IGHV status is quite different, particularly with time limited therapy compared to lower risk disease.
And so having dedicated trials that evaluate outcomes specifically in certain of these subgroups is increasingly important. We do have more trials than we used to focusing specifically on p53 aberration. My personal belief is that we would be well served to have trials separately in the IGHV groups that Dr. Coombs mentioned, although that has not gained as much traction.
And then what we are seeing is now that there are resistance mutations, it actually has turned out that some of the drugs that we use in that setting, venetoclax and pirtobrutinib, seem to have pretty similar activity in patients with and without the mutations. But as drugs are being studied in this context, there’s been an increasing tendency to study them in specific subgroups.
So patients who have the mutation and had clinical progression on a covalent inhibitor, patients who don’t have the mutation and had clinical progression, patients who may have come off their covalent inhibitor for adverse events who may not actually be resistant, what is their response to the next line of therapy? And so all of that is just helping us understand in a more nuanced way what the best benefit for patients will be as we look at these different subgroups of patients.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you, Dr. Brown. Appreciate that. Dr. Coombs, do you have anything to add?
Dr. Callie Coombs:
Yeah, so I echo all of Dr. Brown’s comments, and I think I’m the person that is bringing all the practical aspects of CLL care because it’s, she’s so thorough. I just always like to contribute a few little pearls. So, pirtobrutinib has been an exciting drug, to see it become available for our double refractory patients. So the current FDA indication is for patients failed by not only a covalent BTKi but also venetoclax. But it’s the first BTK inhibitor that we can effectively use in the setting of a prior BTK inhibitor.
And that’s because of this unique aspect where instead of forming a covalent bond at the C481 residue, it binds reversibly, and we can still see activity. But the practical aspect is that that’s not an effective strategy when you have a patient progressing on, say, ibrutinib, you can’t switch them to acalabrutinib (Calquence) or zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) because of their shared mechanism of resistance. They’re all covalent inhibitors. They all share the same mechanism of resistance.
And so that’s one thing I’d like to bring up. However, there’s a very different and very common clinical situation that I encounter really a lot in my clinic, which is intolerance. And so that’s where it would be a very effective strategy to switch a patient from one covalent drug to another. And so literally in the past couple weeks of clinic, I’ve had patients with chronic long-standing toxicities to ibrutinib that perhaps went underrecognized where I say, “Hey, you’ve had…noticed your blood pressure has gone up a lot. Let’s switch you over to acalabrutinib,” or other patients, “Oh, you’ve had issues with atrial fibrillation…let’s try switching you to zanubrutinib.” Because the rates are a lot lower and a lot of patients can have improvement or just complete resolution of the prior side effect.
And so I hope that that emphasizes this is something that we think about every day, and switching is appropriate in the setting of intolerance. It’s not appropriate when you’re staying in the covalent class to switch in the setting of progression. But pirtobrutinib being a non-covalent inhibitor is certainly very effective after a covalent. And I think once we see readout of some of the ongoing Phase III trials, we may be able to use it in that setting under an approved FDA label, though that is to be seen in the future.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Awesome. Thank you. Thank you to both of you. And that leads us very nicely into our next topic. And so we’ve been talking about improving CLL treatment efficacy, we’ve talked about mutations, we’ve talked about really providing better outcomes for our patients by using therapies that are very specifically designed for the molecular characteristics of their disease. But along with all those therapies, of course, come potential side effects. And so, Dr. Coombs, I’m going to start with you and then we’ll go to Dr. Brown. Are there any strategies that you can share with our healthcare provider audience around innovative approaches or protocols that have been implemented to mitigate and manage the CLL side effects from the treatment?
Dr. Callie Coombs:
Well, I think it comes down to your internal resources, but I would say taking care of CLL patients is clearly a team effort. And so it’s not just me, but also a team of additional practitioners that I work with. So I’d like to emphasize how important pharmacists are because I’ve definitely seen some side effects that come about because a patient is now on a medication that interacts with whatever their CLL therapy is, which drives up the levels of the drug and then brings out certain toxicities so they can help us identify these.
If, perhaps I missed it or didn’t ask the patient about a supplement, et cetera. Next is nurse practitioners and oncology nurses. And so number one is it’s a team-based approach, and I think it’s certainly very important to have protocols internally. But also to just realize what the common toxicities are and how can we mitigate these.
One of the most common reasons that I’ve seen for patients stopping a drug prematurely actually is venetoclax. It very commonly causes neutropenia. And I’ve seen the drug given up on very early without any growth factor support, and so I think if you become educated and experienced with using drugs, you can realize there’s very clear strategies in improving patients with neutropenia, by supporting them with growth factor and getting them through whatever their defined plan course of venetoclax may be.
And then BTK inhibitors have a whole smattering of side effects as well where perhaps working with cardio oncologists can help in addition to other strategies depending on exactly what side effect the patient may encounter. So in summary, definitely a team-based effort and growing experience with the common side effects helps I think all comers with strategies to help prevent or mitigate such side effects.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Thank you so much, Dr. Coombs. Dr. Brown, do you have some additional best practices you’d like to share with regard to the management of treatment side effects?
Dr. Jennifer Brown:
Well, I agree completely with Dr. Coombs. I would just add that I think it helps a lot when you warn the patients ahead of time about things that may happen but that often go away or that you can manage. So, for example, headaches often happen early on when you initiate acalabrutinib but they go away typically very quickly. And so if patients know that, then they’re much less worried, and then you can talk to them about the strategies, because caffeine or acetaminophen (Tylenol) will often help with that. If you warn them that they may have some joint aches or pains, that can also help, since those are often transient.
With venetoclax, warning them about some nausea or diarrhea, and then we often manage that by subsequently moving the drug to the evening after they’re done with their ramp up, or initiating an antiemetic, things like this. And then oftentimes many patients who have that in the beginning, it doesn’t persist throughout the whole time that they’re on the drug. Sometimes the diarrhea may, but many times it doesn’t. So getting the patients through that early phase with the close management. Which again, it helps, have your team help with that, the nurse practitioners, et cetera, and then hopefully things settle out and everyone’s happy.
Dr. Nicole Rochester:
Wonderful. I just want to emphasize two things. One that each of you said. One is this idea of a team-based approach, which is important in the treatment of all diseases, but of course very important in the treatment of the cancer. And also this idea of educating our patients so that they know ahead of time what to expect and really involving them as part of the team. So I really appreciate those, both of those points.
Well, it’s time to wrap up our roundtable. I have really enjoyed this conversation and I’d like to get closing thoughts from each of you. So I’ll start with you, Dr. Coombs. What is the most important takeaway message you’d like to leave with healthcare professionals who may be listening as they watch this program and understand better about CLL mutations, clinical trials, and managing side effects?
Dr. Callie Coombs:
So what is the most important thing, there’s so many, I would just say CLL is a chronic disease that affects our primarily elderly patients, and so it’s a marathon, not a sprint. However, with all of the advances that we’ve had in excellent drug therapies, despite these resistance mutations, patients can attain many, many, many years of high quality of life. But it’s incumbent upon us as their providers to help ensure that quality of life through effective management of side effects that may be encountered over the course of their time on therapy for the patients that do need therapy.
