SUPERIOR EFFICACY ACROSS LINES OF THERAPY
Sustained efficacy at ~3.5-year and ~5-year milestone analyses
1L: SEQUOIA
SUPERIOR PFS vs BR WITH SUSTAINED EFFICACY AT THE ~5-YEAR MILESTONE ANALYSES1-4
58% relative risk reduction in disease progression or death with BRUKINSA vs BR at the superiority analysis
(Cohort 1; primary endpoint; HR=0.42; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.63; p<0.0001; median follow-up: 26.2 months)*†
71% relative risk reduction in disease progression or death with BRUKINSA vs BR at ~5 years‡
Cohort 1: patients without del(17p)

HIGH MAGNITUDE OF BENEFIT IN PATIENTS WITH DEL(17p) +/-TP53 and uIgHV at ~5 years3,4
Consistent PFS in BRUKINSA-only
arm at ~5 years*†
Cohort 2: patients with del(17p) +/-TP53
79% relative risk reduction in
disease progression or death with
BRUKINSA vs BR in patients with uIgHV at ~5 years*
Cohort 1: patients without del(17p)

IN PATIENTS WITHOUT DEL(17p):
PFS GENERALLY FAVORED BRUKINSA AT ~5 YEARS, REGARDLESS OF MUTATION OR RISK STATUS*†3



HIGH ORR IN PATIENTS WITHOUT DEL(17p) AND WITH DEL(17p) IN THE INITIAL ANALYSIS1,2
Cohort 1: without del(17p)
secondary endpoint*
with BRUKINSA (n=241) at ~2 years
(95% CI: 89.0, 96.0) vs 85%
with BR (n=238) (95% CI: 80.0, 90.0)
Cohort 2: with del(17p)
secondary endpoint†
with BRUKINSA (n=110)
(95% CI: 81.0, 94.0)
SUPERIOR PFS vs IBRUTINIB WITH SUSTAINED EFFICACY AT ~3.5-YEAR MILESTONE ANALYSIS1,5,6
35% relative risk reduction in disease progression or death with BRUKINSA vs ibrutinib in all-comers at the superiority analysis
(secondary endpoint; HR=0.65; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.86; p=0.0024; median follow-up: 31 months)*
32% relative risk reduction in disease progression or death with BRUKINSA vs ibrutinib at ~3.5 years†
all-comer population

49% relative risk reduction in disease progression or death vs ibrutinib†
patients with del(17p) +/-TP53

CONSISTENT PFS vs IBRUTINIB AT INITIAL ANALYSIS, REGARDLESS OF MUTATION OR RISK STATUS*†5



THE ONLY BTKi TO ACHIEVE SUPERIOR ORR vs IBRUTINIB1
Initial analysis (25 months for ORR)

BRUKINSA DEMONSTRATED MORE COMPLETE RESPONSES OVER TIME vs IBRUTINIB6



CONSISTENT ORR vs IBRUTINIB AT INITIAL ANALYSIS, REGARDLESS OF MUTATION OR RISK STATUS5



Dr Anthony Nguyen discusses efficacy data across mutations and risk status in CLL
References: 1. BRUKINSA. Package insert. BeOne Medicines USA, Inc.; 2025. 2. Tam CS, Brown JR, Kahl BS, et al. Zanubrutinib versus bendamustine and rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SEQUOIA): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(8):1031-1043. 3. Shadman M, Munir T, Robak T, et al. Zanubrutinib versus bendamustine and rituximab in patients with treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma: median 5-year follow-up of SEQUOIA. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(7):780-787. 4. Tam CS, Ghia P, Shadman M, et al. SEQUOIA 5-year follow-up in arm C: frontline zanubrutinib monotherapy in patients with del(17p) and treatment-naive CLL/SLL [oral presentation]. Presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 Annual Meeting; May 30-June 3, 2025. 5. Brown JR, Eichhorst B, Hillmen P, et al. Zanubrutinib or ibrutinib in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(4):319-332. 6. Brown JR, Eichhorst B, Lamanna N, et al. Sustained benefit of zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib in patients with R/R CLL/SLL: final comparative analysis of ALPINE. Blood. 2024;144(26):2706-2717. 7. Data on file. BeiGene USA, Inc.