Search

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]

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]

Within the last decade, several novel classes of anti-myeloma therapeutics have become available. The clinical successes achieved by thalidomide, lenalidomide, and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib, and in particular the ability of these agents to lead to major clinical responses in patients resistant to conventional or high-dose chemotherapy, have highlighted the importance of expanding further the spectrum of classes of agents utilized for the treatment of myeloma. Herein, we review the current status for the development of novel anti-myeloma agents, with emphasis on classes of therapeutics which have already translated into clinical trials or those in advanced stages of preclinical development. These include second-generation proteasome inhibitors (NPI-0052 and PR-171), heat shock protein 90 (hsp90) inhibitors, 2-methoxyestradiol, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors (e.g. SAHA and LBH589), fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGF-R3) inhibitors, insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and agents specifically targeting the tumor microenvironment, such as defibrotide. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

Maintaining results of successful induction therapy is an important goal in multiple myeloma. Here, members of the International Myeloma Working Group review the relevant data. Thalidomide maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation improved the quality of response and increased progression-free survival (PFS) significantly in all 6 studies and overall survival (OS) in 3 of them. In elderly patients, 2 trials showed a significant prolongation of PFS, but no improvement in OS. A meta-analysis revealed a significant risk reduction for PFS/event- free survival and death. The role of thalidomide maintenance after melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide is not well established. Two trials with lenalidomide maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation and one study after conventional melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide induction therapy showed a significant risk reduction for PFS and an increase in OS in one of the transplant trials. Maintenance therapy with single-agent bortezomib or in combination with thalidomide or prednisone has been studied. One trial revealed a significantly increased OS with a bortezomib-based induction and bortezomib maintenance therapy compared with conventional induction and thalidomide maintenance treatment. Maintenance treatment can be associated with significant side effects, and none of the drugs evaluated is approved for maintenance therapy. Treatment decisions for individual patients must balance potential benefits and risks carefully, as a widely agreed-on standard is not established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]