Search

Measurement of overall survival (OS) remains the gold standard for interpreting the impact of new therapies for multiple myeloma in phase 3 trials. However, as outcomes have improved, it is increasingly challenging to use OS as the primary endpoint if timely approval of novel agents is to be ensured to enable maximum benefit for patients. Surrogate endpoints of OS, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and response to treatment, have contributed to approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency as endpoints demonstrating clinical benefit, and the FDA has recently supported the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma. This review aims to address situations in which the use of PFS as a surrogate endpoint warrants careful interpretation especially for specific subgroups of patients and considers ways to ensure that studies can be designed to account for possible discordance between PFS and OS. The utility of subgroup analyses, including the potential for those not pre-specified, to identify target populations for new agents is also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To analyze the impact of prior therapies on outcomes with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in 402 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the phase 3 BOSTON trial. Methods: Post hoc analysis of progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety for lenalidomide‐refractory, proteasome inhibitor (PI)‐naïve, bortezomib‐naïve, and one prior line of therapy (1LOT) patient subgroups. Results: At a median follow‐up of over 28 months, clinically meaningful improvements in PFS were noted across all groups with SVd. The median SVd PFS was longer in all subgroups (lenalidomide‐refractory: 10.2 vs. 7.1 months, PI‐naïve: 29.5 vs. 9.7; bortezomib‐naïve: 29.5 vs. 9.7; 1LOT: 21.0 vs. 10.7; p <.05). The lenalidomide‐refractory subgroup had longer OS with SVd (26.7 vs. 18.6 months; HR 0.53; p =.015). In all subgroups, overall response and ≥very good partial response rates were higher with SVd. The manageable safety profile of SVd was similar to the overall patient population. Conclusions: With over 2 years of follow‐up, these clinically meaningful outcomes further support the use of SVd in patients who are lenalidomide‐refractory, PI‐naïve, bortezomib‐naïve, or who received 1LOT (including a monoclonal antibody) and underscore the observed synergy between selinexor and bortezomib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This retrospective analysis aimed to establish the overall cardiac safety profile of bortezomib using patient-level data from one phase 2 and seven phase 3 studies in previously untreated and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Seven clinically relevant primary [congestive heart failure (CHF), arrhythmias, ischaemic heart disease (IHD), cardiac death] and secondary (hypertension, dyspnoea, oedema) cardiac endpoints were defined based on MedDRA v16.0 preferred terms. 2509 bortezomib-treated patients and 1445 patients in non-bortezomib-based control arms were included. The incidence of grade ≥3 CHF was 1·3-4·0% in studies in relapsed/refractory MM and 1·2-4·7% in previously untreated MM (2·0-7·6% all grades), with no significant differences between bortezomib- and non-bortezomib-based arms in comparative studies. Incidences of arrhythmias (1·3-5·9% grade ≥2; 0·6-4·1% grade ≥3), IHD (1·2-2·9% all grades; 0·4-2·7% grade ≥3) and cardiac death (0-1·4%) were low, with no differences between bortezomib-based and non-bortezomib-based arms. Higher rates of oedema (mostly grade 1/2) were seen in bortezomib-based versus non-bortezomib-based arms in one study and a pooled transplant study analysis. Logistic regression analyses of comparative studies showed no impact on cardiac risk with bortezomib-based versus non-bortezomib-based treatment. Bortezomib-based treatment was associated with low incidences of cardiac events.

Summary: Due in part to racial disparities and underrepresentation in clinical studies, optimal therapies for Black patients with multiple myeloma remain undefined. This final analysis of GRIFFIN by race showed that the addition of daratumumab (D) to lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) provides clinical benefit among both Black and White transplant‐eligible newly diagnosed patients compared with RVd alone. However, Black patients were more likely to discontinue ≥1 drug due to treatment‐emergent adverse events. In summary, these findings suggest a benefit of D‐RVd front‐line therapy among Black and White patients and underscore the importance of equitable treatment access for all patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: It is recognized that patients with multiple myeloma (MM) experience a high burden of disease and treatment-related symptoms that impact upon their quality of life (QoL). In these patients, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are important in providing information on how treatment affects their QoL. In the past 10 years in the MM setting, the main focus has been to achieve the most durable remission with the best QoL as primary goals of therapy. Optimizing the QoL of patients with MM is an important treatment goal and the use of PROs in clinical trials has the potential to improve treatment outcomes. The present report, on behalf of the European Hematology Association (EHA), provides evidence-based guidelines for the use and reporting of PROs in patients with MM that have been developed according to the EHA's core Guidelines Development Methodology. Currently, there is considerable variation in the measurement of QoL in MM trials, thus underlining the importance of systematic measurements. These Guidelines will aid clinicians, regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry in the measurement of QoL in patients with MM in clinical trials. In the era of personalized medicine there is an increasing need for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to become a standard of patient care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are important in assessing significant and meaningful changes as a result of an intervention based on a patient's own perspective. It is well established that active multiple myeloma (MM) can be characterized by a high burden of disease and treatment-related symptoms, with considerable worsening of quality of life (QoL). In general, and over the past decade, the focus has shifted to obtaining the most durable remissions with the best QoL as primary goals for MM treatment. Patients place considerable value on their QoL and communicating about QoL data prior to treatment decisions allows them to make informed treatment choices. Consequently, optimization of QoL of patients with MM is an important therapeutic goal and the incorporation of PROs into clinical trials has the potential of improving treatment outcomes. In this regard, guidance for the use and reporting of PROMs in MM in clinical trials is warranted. Under the auspices of the European Hematology Association, evidence-based guidelines for the use and reporting of PROs in patients with MM have been developed according to the EHA's core Guidelines Development Methodology. This document provides general considerations for the choice of PROMs in MM clinical trials as well as a series of recommendations covering a selection of PROMs in MM clinical trials; the mode of administration; timing of assessments; strategies to minimize missing data; sample size calculation; reporting of results; and interpretation of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) is a first-in-class peptide–drug conjugate that takes advantage of increased aminopeptidase activity inside tumor cells to rapidly release alkylating agents therein. Melflufen in combination with dexamethasone has been evaluated in multiple clinical trials in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). This profile covers the unique mechanism of action of melflufen, the preclinical results supporting its activity in cellular models of resistance to chemotherapy, its activity in animal models of MM, and the clinical pharmacokinetics of melflufen. Findings from clinical trials evaluating melflufen, including the pivotal phase II HORIZON study and the phase III OCEAN study, are discussed. Although MM treatment has improved, patients with disease refractory to multiple standard-of-care drug classes face a dismal prognosis. Melflufen demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in select populations, with an initial approval in the United States in patients with ≥ four previous lines of therapy and triple-class-refractory MM. Results from the phase III OCEAN study – currently under discussion with regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe – are more complex and have been put into context herein. Lastly, melflufen provides a proof-of-concept for the utility of the peptide–drug conjugate platform in relapsed/refractory MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The primary analysis of the ICARIA-MM study showed significant improvement in progression-free survival with addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report a prespecified updated overall survival analysis at 24 months after the primary analysis.Methods: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 102 hospitals in 24 countries across Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Patients were excluded if they had anti-CD38 refractory disease or previously received pomalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive response technology with permuted blocked randomisation (block size of four) and stratified by number of previous treatment lines (2-3 vs >3) and aged (<75 vs ≥75 years), to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (control group). In the isatuximab group, intravenous isatuximab 10 mg/kg was administered on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first 4-week cycle, and then on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide 4 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle, and weekly oral or intravenous dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg if aged ≥75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Here' we report a prespecified second interim analysis of overall survival (time from randomisation to any-cause death), a key secondary endpoint, in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who provided informed consent and allocated a randomisation number) at 24 months after the primary analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose or part dose of study treatment. The prespecified stopping boundary for the overall survival analysis was when the derived p value was equal to or less than 0·0181. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02990338, and is active, but not recruiting.Findings: Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, 387 patients were screened and 307 randomly assigned to either the isatuximab (n=154) or control group (n=153). Median follow-up at data cutoff (Oct 1, 2020) was 35·3 months (IQR 33·5-37·4). Median overall survival was 24·6 months (95% CI 20·3-31·3) in the isatuximab group and 17·7 months (14·4-26·2) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·57-1·01]; one-sided log-rank p=0·028, not crossing prespecified stopping boundary). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events in the isatuximab group versus the control group were neutropenia (76 [50%] of 152 patients vs 52 [35%] of 149 patients), pneumonia (35 [23%] vs 31 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [13%] vs 18 [12%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 111 (73%) patients in the isatuximab group and 90 (60%) patients in the control group. Two (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the isatuximab group (one due to sepsis and one due to cerebellar infarction) and two (1%) occurred in the control group (one due to pneumonia and one due to urinary tract infection).Interpretation: Addition of isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone resulted in a 6·9-month difference in median overall survival compared with pomalidomide-dexamethasone and is a new standard of care for lenalidomide-refractory and proteasome inhibitor-refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Final overall survival analysis follow-up is ongoing.Funding: Sanofi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This phase 1 study sought to characterize the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic behavior of VLX1570, a small molecule inhibitor of the deubiquitinases (DUBs) that remove sterically bulky ubiquitin chains from proteins during processing in the19S regulatory subunit of the proteasome, in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Fourteen patients were treated with escalating doses of VLX1570 ranging from 0.05 to 1.2 mg/kg as a brief intravenous (IV) infusion on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of a 28-day cycle. Due to its poor aqueous solubility, VLX1570 was formulated in polyethylene glycol, polyoxyethylated castor oil, and polysorbate 80 and administered as a brief intravenous (IV) infusion via a central venous catheter. Anti-myeloma effects were noted at doses at or above 0.6 mg/kg, however, two patients treated at the 1.2 mg/kg dose level experienced severe, abrupt, and progressive respiratory insufficiency, which was associated with diffuse pulmonary infiltrates on imaging studies, similar to those rarely noted with bortezomib and other inhibitors of the 20S proteasome, culminating in death. Although the contribution of VLX1570's formulation to the pulmonary toxicity could not be ruled out, the severity and precipitous nature of the toxicity and the steep relationship between dose and toxicity, the study was discontinued. Despite the severe pulmonary toxicity noted with VLX1570, efforts directed at identifying DUB inhibitors with greater therapeutic indices appear warranted based on the unique mechanism of action, robustness of preclinical antitumor activity, and activity of the DUB inhibitors in MM resistant to PIs targeting the 20S proteasome subunit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing transplantation. Methods: Data were pooled from four NDMM phase I/II studies; patients received induction therapy with once‐ or twice‐weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan‐prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide‐dexamethasone (ICd), followed by single‐agent ixazomib maintenance, given at the last tolerated dose during induction, until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. Results: A total of 121 patients achieved stable disease or better after induction (weekly IRd, n = 25; twice‐weekly IRd, n = 18; weekly or twice‐weekly IMP, n = 35; weekly ICd, n = 43) and received ≥ 1 dose of ixazomib maintenance. Grade ≥ 3 drug‐related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients during maintenance; each event was reported in ≤2% of patients. Rates of complete response were 22% after induction and 35% after maintenance. A total of 28 patients (23%) improved their response during maintenance. Conclusions: Ixazomib maintenance following ixazomib‐based induction is associated with deepening of responses and a positive safety profile with no cumulative toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing transplantation, suggesting that ixazomib is feasible for long‐term administration. Phase III investigation of ixazomib maintenance is ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Weekly ixazomib with lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (Rd) is feasible and has shown activity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. This phase 1/2 study (NCT01383928) evaluated the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of twice‐weekly ixazomib plus Rd in NDMM; 64 patients were enrolled across both phases. Patients received twice‐weekly oral ixazomib 3·0 or 3·7 mg plus lenalidomide 25 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg (10 mg in cycles 9–16) for up to sixteen 21‐day cycles, followed by maintenance with twice‐weekly ixazomib alone. No dose‐limiting toxicities were reported in cycle 1; the RP2D was 3·0 mg based on overall tolerability across multiple cycles. In 62 evaluable patients, the confirmed overall response rate was 94% (68% ≥very good partial response; 24% complete response). Median progression‐free survival was 24·9 months. Responses (median duration 36·9 months for patients receiving the RP2D) deepened during treatment. Grade 3 drug‐related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 64% of patients, including: rash, 13%; peripheral neuropathy, 8%; hyperglycaemia, 8%. There were no grade 4 drug‐related AEs. Thirteen patients discontinued due to AEs. Twice‐weekly ixazomib‐Rd offers substantial activity with promising long‐term outcomes in NDMM patients but may be associated with greater toxicity compared with weekly ixazomib‐Rd in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to understand the influence of disease and patient characteristics on exposure to daratumumab, an immunoglobulin Gκ (IgGκ) monoclonal antibody, and clinical outcomes in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM).Patients and Methods: Baseline myeloma type, albumin levels, renal/hepatic function, age, sex, race, weight, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, refractory status, and number of prior therapies were evaluated using data from two clinical studies-GEN501 (N = 104) and SIRIUS (N = 124).Results: Daratumumab clearance was approximately 110% higher in IgG myeloma patients than non-IgG myeloma patients, leading to significantly lower exposure in IgG myeloma patients based on maximum trough serum concentrations (p < 0.0001). However, the overall response rate was similar for IgG and non-IgG myeloma patients (odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.54-2.17, p = 0.82). For a given exposure, the drug effect was significantly higher (approximately two times) in IgG versus non-IgG patients (p = 0.03). The influence of other patient and disease characteristics on daratumumab exposure was minimal and no significant effect on efficacy was observed (p ≥ 0.1). The incidences of infections and overall grade 3 or higher adverse events in subpopulations were generally consistent with that of the overall population.Conclusion: Due to competition with the MM-produced IgG M-protein for neonatal Fc receptor protection from clearance, IgG-based monoclonal antibodies in general may have significantly higher clearance and lower concentrations in IgG MM patients compared with non-IgG MM patients. Careful evaluation of the impact of exposure and patient and disease characteristics on safety and efficacy is warranted for all IgG-based monoclonal antibodies used in MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Renal impairment (RI) is a major comorbidity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Here we present the pooled safety and efficacy analysis of three clinical trials (MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010) of pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) in patients with moderate RI (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 30 to <60 mL/min) and without RI (≥ 60 mL/min). Trial protocols were approved by the institutional review board of each site involved. Patients with RI were older than patients without RI, although other baseline characteristics were similar. The dosing and safety profile of POM + LoDEX was similar across RI subgroups. Median overall response rate, progression-free survival, time to progression, and duration of response were not significantly different between RI subgroups. However, patients with vs. without RI had significantly shorter median overall survival (10.5 vs. 14.0 months, respectively;p = .004). This analysis demonstrates that POM + LoDEX is a safe and effective treatment for patients with moderate RI. The trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00833833 (MM-002), NCT01311687 (MM-003), and NCT01712789 (MM-010) and at EudraCT as 2010-019820-30 (MM-003) and 2012-001888-78 (MM-010). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present the case of a woman with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) who received combination lenalidomide and bortezomib therapy for 90 cycles followed by continuous lenalidomide monotherapy and has completed over 100 cycles of treatment to date. The patient was diagnosed with advanced-stage, symptomatic MM in 2001. Following a partial response (PR) to dexamethasone in combination with pamidronate and thalidomide, the patient underwent protocol-directed non-myeloablative allogeneic bone marrow transplantation from her matched sibling donor the following year. In 2004, the patient relapsed and was enrolled in a phase I, dose-escalation trial of lenalidomide plus bortezomib for relapsed and refractory MM. After eight cycles of study treatment, the patient achieved a minimal response. The patient received a total of 90 cycles of treatment with lenalidomide 5 mg given for 14 d every 21 d, and 1 mg/m2 of bortezomib initially given on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first 20 cycles, and then weekly thereafter on days 1 and 8. Bortezomib was discontinued after 90 cycles, and the patient continued to receive lenalidomide monotherapy. As of cycle 100, the patient achieved a PR. Currently, she is clinically stable with response sustained for over 7 yrs. Therapy has been well tolerated with no significant long-term toxicity; no dose reductions of lenalidomide and bortezomib were required. The excellent tolerability of this steroid-free approach and the durable response seen underscore the potential benefits of participating in early-phase clinical trials evaluating novel therapies and new drug combinations. This case further supports that combination treatment with lenalidomide and bortezomib is an effective therapy in the management of patients with relapsed and refractory MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This subgroup analysis of the phase III APEX (Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions) trial examined whether prior exposure to specific therapies affected the relative efficacy of bortezomib versus dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Time to progression and overall survival were superior with bortezomib in all subgroups, with no evidence of interaction between any prior therapies and assignment to study therapy. Patients with prior thalidomide exposure had worse outcomes overall, but neither prior thalidomide nor prior autologous stem cell transplantation affected the relative efficacy of bortezomib versus dexamethasone. These results confirm the superiority of bortezomib over dexamethasone, regardless of prior exposure to specific therapies (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00048230). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The frequency, characteristics and reversibility of bortezomib-associated peripheral neuropathy were evaluated in the phase III APEX (Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions) trial in patients with relapsed myeloma, and the impact of a dose-modification guideline on peripheral neuropathy severity and reversibility was assessed. Patients received bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 (days 1, 4, 8, 11, eight 21-d cycles, then days 1, 8, 15, 22, three 35-d cycles); bortezomib was held, dose-reduced or discontinued depending on peripheral neuropathy severity, according to a protocol-specified dose-modification guideline. Overall, 124/331 patients (37%) had treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy, including 30 (9%) with grade ≥3; incidence and severity were not affected by age, number/type of prior therapies, baseline glycosylated haemoglobin level, or diabetes history. Grade ≥3 incidence appeared lower versus phase II trials (13%) that did not specifically provide dose-modification guidelines. Of patients with grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy, 58/91 (64%) experienced improvement or resolution to baseline at a median of 110 d, including 49/72 (68%) who had dose modification versus 9/19 (47%) who did not. Efficacy did not appear adversely affected by dose modification for grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy. Bortezomib-associated peripheral neuropathy is manageable and reversible in most patients with relapsed myeloma. Dose modification using a specific guideline improves peripheral neuropathy management without adversely affecting outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a standard therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib, a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd), has shown promising efficacy in phase 2 trials and might improve outcomes compared with VRd. We aimed to assess whether the KRd regimen is superior to the VRd regimen in the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in patients who were not being considered for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT).Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (the ENDURANCE trial; E1A11), we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for, or did not intend to have, immediate ASCT. Participants were recruited from 272 community oncology practices or academic medical centres in the USA. Key inclusion criteria were the absence of high-risk multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of permuted blocks to receive induction therapy with either the VRd regimen or the KRd regimen for 36 weeks. Patients who completed induction therapy were then randomly assigned (1:1) a second time to either indefinite maintenance or 2 years of maintenance with lenalidomide. Randomisation was stratified by intent for ASCT at disease progression for the first randomisation and by the induction therapy received for the second randomisation. Allocation was not masked to investigators or patients. For 12 cycles of 3 weeks, patients in the VRd group received 1·3 mg/m2 of bortezomib subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1-8, and day 1 and day 8 of cycles nine to twelve, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1-14, and 20 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. For nine cycles of 4 weeks, patients in the KRd group received 36 mg/m2 of intravenous carfilzomib on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, 25 mg of oral lenalidomide on days 1-21, and 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival in the induction phase, and overall survival in the maintenance phase. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01863550. Study recruitment is complete, and follow-up of the maintenance phase is ongoing.Findings: Between Dec 6, 2013, and Feb 6, 2019, 1087 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the VRd regimen (n=542) or the KRd regimen (n=545). At a median follow-up of 9 months (IQR 5-23), at a second planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 34·6 months (95% CI 28·8-37·8) in the KRd group and 34·4 months (30·1-not estimable) in the VRd group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·83-1·31; p=0·74). Median overall survival has not been reached in either group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related non-haematological adverse events included fatigue (34 [6%] of 527 patients in the VRd group vs 29 [6%] of 526 in the KRd group), hyperglycaemia (23 [4%] vs 34 [6%]), diarrhoea (23 [5%] vs 16 [3%]), peripheral neuropathy (44 [8%] vs four [<1%]), dyspnoea (nine [2%] vs 38 [7%]), and thromboembolic events (11 [2%] vs 26 [5%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two patients (<1%) in the VRd group (one cardiotoxicity and one secondary cancer) and 11 (2%) in the KRd group (four cardiotoxicity, two acute kidney failure, one liver toxicity, two respiratory failure, one thromboembolic event, and one sudden death).Interpretation: The KRd regimen did not improve progression-free survival compared with the VRd regimen in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and had more toxicity. The VRd triplet regimen remains the standard of care for induction therapy for patients with standard-risk and intermediate-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and is a suitable treatment backbone for the development of combinations of four drugs.Funding: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Amgen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. The immunomodulatory agent pomalidomide plus dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in patients with multiple myeloma that is refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.Methods: Patients with multiple myeloma that was refractory or relapsed and refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (elotuzumab group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.Results: A total of 117 patients were randomly assigned to the elotuzumab group (60 patients) or the control group (57 patients). After a minimum follow-up period of 9.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the elotuzumab group and 4.7 months in the control group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the elotuzumab group as compared with the control group was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.86; P=0.008). The overall response rate was 53% in the elotuzumab group as compared with 26% in the control group (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.49 to 7.11). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (13% in the elotuzumab group vs. 27% in the control group), anemia (10% vs. 20%), and hyperglycemia (8% vs. 7%). A total of 65% of the patients in each group had infections. Infusion reactions occurred in 3 patients (5%) in the elotuzumab group.Conclusions: Among patients with multiple myeloma in whom treatment with lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor had failed, the risk of progression or death was significantly lower among those who received elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received pomalidomide plus dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and AbbVie Biotherapeutics; ELOQUENT-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02654132 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors are an important new class of therapeutics for treating multiple myeloma. Ricolinostat (ACY-1215) is the first oral selective HDAC6 inhibitor with reduced class I HDAC activity to be studied clinically. Motivated by findings from preclinical studies showing potent synergistic activity with ricolinostat and lenalidomide, our goal was to assess the safety and preliminary activity of the combination of ricolinostat with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.Methods: In this multicentre phase 1b trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with previously treated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma from five cancer centres in the USA. Inclusion criteria included a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70, measureable disease, adequate bone marrow reserve, adequate hepatic function, and a creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL per min. Exclusion criteria included previous exposure to HDAC inhibitors; previous allogeneic stem-cell transplantation; previous autologous stem-cell transplantation within 12 weeks of baseline; active systemic infection; malignancy within the last 5 years; known or suspected HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C infection; a QTc Fridericia of more than 480 ms; and substantial cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, psychiatric, or other medical disorders. We gave escalating doses (from 40-240 mg once daily to 160 mg twice daily) of oral ricolinostat according to a standard 3 + 3 design according to three different regimens on days 1-21 with a conventional 28 day schedule of oral lenalidomide (from 15 mg [in one cohort] to 25 mg [in all other cohorts] once daily) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg weekly). Primary outcomes were dose-limiting toxicities, the maximum tolerated dose of ricolinostat in this combination, and the dose and schedule of ricolinostat recommended for further phase 2 investigation. Secondary outcomes were the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ricolinostat in this combination and the preliminary anti-tumour activity of this treatment. The trial is closed to accrual and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01583283.Findings: Between July 12, 2012, and Aug 20, 2015, we enrolled 38 patients. We observed two dose-limiting toxicities with ricolinostat 160 mg twice daily: one (2%) grade 3 syncope and one (2%) grade 3 myalgia event in different cohorts. A maximum tolerated dose was not reached. We chose ricolinostat 160 mg once daily on days 1-21 of a 28 day cycle as the recommended dose for future phase 2 studies in combination with lenalidomide 25 mg and dexamethasone 40 mg. The most common adverse events were fatigue (grade 1-2 in 14 [37%] patients; grade 3 in seven [18%]) and diarrhoea (grade 1-2 in 15 [39%] patients; grade 3 in two [5%]). Our pharmacodynamic studies showed that at clinically relevant doses, ricolinostat selectively inhibits HDAC6 while retaining a low and tolerable level of class I HDAC inhibition. The pharmacokinetics of ricolinostat and lenalidomide were not affected by co-administration. In a preliminary assessment of antitumour activity, 21 (55% [95% CI 38-71]) of 38 patients had an overall response.Interpretation: The findings from this study provide preliminary evidence that ricolinostat is a safe and well tolerated selective HDAC6 inhibitor, which might partner well with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to enhance their efficacy in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.Funding: Acetylon Pharmaceuticals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]