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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Background: Bortezomib, a boronic acid dipeptide, is a novel proteasome inhibitor that has been shown in preclinical and phase 1 studies to have antimyeloma activity. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized, phase 2 trial, we enrolled 202 patients with relapsed myeloma that was refractory to the therapy they had received most recently. Patients received 1.3 mg of bortezomib per square meter of body-surface area twice weekly for 2 weeks, followed by 1 week without treatment, for up to eight cycles (24 weeks). In patients with a suboptimal response, oral dexamethasone (20 mg daily, on the day of and the day after bortezomib administration) was added to the regimen. The response was evaluated according to the criteria of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and confirmed by an independent review committee. Results: Of 193 patients who could be evaluated, 92 percent had been treated with three or more of the major classes of agents for myeloma, and in 91 percent, the myeloma was refractory to the therapy received most recently. The rate of response to bortezomib was 35 percent, and those with a response included 7 patients in whom myeloma protein became undetectable and 12 in whom myeloma protein was detectable only by immunofixation. The median overall survival was 16 months, with a median duration of response of 12 months. Grade 3 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (in 28 percent of patients), fatigue (in 12 percent), peripheral neuropathy (in 12 percent), and neutropenia (in 11 percent). Grade 4 events occurred in 14 percent of patients. Conclusions: Bortezomib, a member of a new class of anticancer drugs, is active in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma that is refractory to conventional chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2609-17. [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]

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: Cabotegravir (CAB) is a novel strand-transfer integrase inhibitor being developed for HIV treatment and prevention. CAB is formulated both as an immediate-release oral tablet for daily administration and as a long-acting injectable suspension (long-acting CAB [CAB LA]) for intramuscular (IM) administration, which delivers prolonged plasma exposure to the drug after IM injection. HIV Prevention Trials Network study 077 (HPTN 077) evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of CAB LA in HIV-uninfected males and females at 8 sites in Brazil, Malawi, South Africa, and the United States. Methods and findings: HPTN 077 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2a trial. Healthy individuals age 18–65 years at low HIV risk were randomized (3:1) to receive CAB or placebo (PBO). In the initial oral phase, participants received 1 daily oral tablet (CAB or PBO) for 4 weeks. Those without safety concerns in the oral phase continued and received injections in the injection phase (Cohort 1: 3 injections of CAB LA 800 mg or 0.9% saline as PBO IM every 12 weeks for 3 injection cycles; Cohort 2: CAB LA 600 mg or PBO IM for 5 injection cycles; the first 2 injections in Cohort 2 were separated by 4 weeks, the rest by 8 weeks). The primary analysis included weeks 5 to 41 of study participation, encompassing the injection phase. The cohorts were enrolled sequentially. Primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included pharmacokinetics and events occurring during the oral and injection phases. Between February 9, 2015, and May 27, 2016, the study screened 443 individuals and enrolled 110 participants in Cohort 1 and 89 eligible participants in Cohort 2. Participant population characteristics were as follows: 66% female at birth; median age 31 years; 27% non-Hispanic white, 41% non-Hispanic black, 24% Hispanic/Latino, 3% Asian, and 6% mixed/other; and 6 transgender men and 1 transgender woman. Twenty-two (11%) participants discontinued the oral study product; 6 of these were for clinical or laboratory adverse events (AEs). Of those who received at least 1 CAB LA injection, 80% of Cohort 1 and 92% of Cohort 2 participants completed all injections; injection course completion rates were not different from those in the PBO arm. Injection site reactions (ISRs) were common (92% of Cohort 1 and 88% of Cohort 2 participants who received CAB LA reported any ISR). ISRs were mostly Grade 1 (mild) to Grade 2 (moderate), and 1 ISR event (Cohort 1) led to product discontinuation. Grade 2 or higher ISRs were the only AEs reported more commonly among CAB LA recipients than PBO recipients. Two Grade 3 (severe) ISRs occurred in CAB recipients, 1 in each cohort, but did not lead to product discontinuation in either case. Seven incident sexually transmitted infections were diagnosed in 6 participants. One HIV infection occurred in a participant 48 weeks after last injection of CAB LA: CAB was not detectable in plasma both at the time of first reactive HIV test and at the study visit 12 weeks prior to the first reactive test. Participants in Cohort 2 (unlike Cohort 1) consistently met prespecified pharmacokinetic targets of at least 95% of participants maintaining CAB trough concentrations above PA-IC90, and 80% maintaining trough concentrations above 4× PA-IC90. Study limitations include a modest sample size, a short course of injections, and a low-risk study population. Conclusions: In this study, CAB LA was well tolerated at the doses and dosing intervals used. ISRs were common, but infrequently led to product discontinuation. CAB LA 600 mg every 8 weeks met pharmacokinetic targets for both male and female study participants. The safety and pharmacokinetic results observed support the further development of CAB LA, and efficacy studies of CAB LA for HIV treatment and prevention are in progress. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov Trial number: . [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]

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]

Background: Maraviroc (MVC) is a candidate for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis.Methods: Phase 2 48-week safety/tolerability study was conducted, comparing 4 regimens: MVC alone, MVC plus emtricitabine (FTC), MVC plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and TDF plus FTC. Eligible participants were HIV-uninfected men and transgender women reporting condomless anal intercourse with ≥1 HIV-infected or unknown-serostatus man within 90 days. At each visit, assessments, laboratory testing, and counseling were done. Analyses were intention to treat.Results: Among 406 participants, 84% completed follow-up, 7% stopped early, and 9% were lost to follow-up; 9% discontinued their regimen early. The number discontinuing and the time to discontinuation did not differ among study regimens (P = .60). Rates of grade 3-4 adverse events did not differ among regimens (P = .37). In a randomly selected subset, 77% demonstrated detectable drug concentrations at week 48. Five participants acquired HIV infection (4 MVC alone, 1 MVC + TDF; overall annualized incidence, 1.4% [95% confidence interval, .5%-3.3%], without differences by regimen; P = .32); 2 had undetectable drug concentrations at every visit, 2 had low concentrations at the seroconversion visit, and 1 had variable concentrations.Conclusions: MVC-containing regimens were safe and well tolerated compared with TDF + FTC; this study was not powered for efficacy. Among those acquiring HIV infection, drug concentrations were absent, low, or variable. MVC-containing regimens may warrant further study for pre-exposure prophylaxis.Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01505114. [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]

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]

Antiretroviral (ARV) drug use was analyzed in HIV-uninfected women in an observational cohort study conducted in 10 urban and periurban communities in the United States with high rates of poverty and HIV infection. Plasma samples collected in 2009–2010 were tested for the presence of 16 ARV drugs. ARV drugs were detected in samples from 39 (2%) of 1,806 participants: 27/181 (15%) in Baltimore, MD and 12/179 (7%) in Bronx, NY. The ARV drugs detected included different combinations of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors (1–4 drugs/sample). These data were analyzed in the context of self-reported data on ARV drug use. None of the 39 women who had ARV drugs detected reported ARV drug use at any study visit. Further research is needed to evaluate ARV drug use by HIV-uninfected individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anaemia is a common clinical finding in HIV infected women and has been associated with advanced disease. The use of antiretroviral drugs such as Zidovudine (ZDV) either for prevention of mother to child transmission (MTCT) of HIV or used in combination with other antiretrovirals have been implicated in the development or increased severity of anaemia. We report the prevalence, type, severity and incidence of anaemia in a cohort of HIV infected women who initiated antiretroviral prophylaxis or treatment during pregnancy. Methods and Materials: This is a retrospective cohort data analysis of 408 HIV infected pregnant women who participated in a breastfeeding intervention study (HPTN 046 Study, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00074412) in South Africa. Women initiated zidovudine prophylaxis for PMTCT or triple antiretroviral treatment in pregnancy according to the standard of care. Laboratory and clinical data in pregnancy, <72 hours and 2 weeks postdelivery were extracted from the main database and analysed. Results: The mean Hb concentration was 10.6 g/dL at baseline and 262/408 (64.2%) women were diagnosed with anaemia (Hb<11 g/dL) in pregnancy, 48/146 (32.9%) subsequently developed anaemia intrapartum or postpartum and 89/310 (28.7%) of all cases of anaemia remained unresolved by 2 weeks postdelivery. In a univariate analysis, CD4 count and gravidity were significant risk factors for anaemia in pregnancy, RR 1.41; 1.23–1.61 (p<0.001) and 1.10; 1.01–1.18 (p = 0.02) respectively. After adjusting for antiretroviral regimen, age and gravidity in a multivariable analysis, only the CD4 count remains a significant risk factor for anaemia in pregnancy and postdelivery. Conclusion: In conclusion, anaemia was most common among women in the advanced stage of HIV infection (CD4<200 cells/mm3). There was no evidence of an association between ZDV or triple ARVs and anaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alcoholic hepatitis is the most florid presentation of alcohol-related liver disease. In its severe form, defined by a Maddrey's discriminant function (DF) ⩾32, the 28-day mortality rate is approximately 35%. A number of potential treatments have been subjected to clinical trials, of which two, corticosteroids and pentoxifylline, may have therapeutic benefit. The role of corticosteroids is controversial as trial results have been inconsistent, whereas the role of pentoxifylline requires confirmation as only one previous placebo-controlled trial has been published. Methods/design: STOPAH is a multicentre, double-blind, factorial (2 × 2) trial in which patients are randomised to one of four groups: 1. Group A: placebo / placebo 2. Group B: placebo / prednisolone 3. Group C: pentoxifylline / placebo 4. Group D: pentoxifylline / prednisolone The trial aims to randomise 1,200 patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis, in order to provide sufficient power to determine whether either of the two interventions is effective. The primary endpoint of the study is mortality at 28 days, with secondary endpoints being mortality at 90 days and 1 year. Discussion: STOPAH aims to be a definitive study to resolve controversy around the existing treatments for alcoholic hepatitis. Eligibility criteria are based on clinical parameters rather than liver biopsy, which are aligned with standard clinical practice in most hospitals. The use of a factorial design will allow two treatments to be evaluated in parallel, with efficient use of patient numbers to achieve high statistical power. Trial registration: EudraCT reference number: 2009-013897-42 ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN88782125 [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]

Rapid development of the small molecule proteasome inhibitor bortezomib has yielded important clinical benefit for patients with multiple myeloma. Early phase clinical trials suggest the agent has similar efficacy in Waldenstroms Macroglobulinemia. Optimization of bortezomib-based therapy, though, requires an understanding of the various challenges associated with use of the drug. This review highlights the rationale for bortezomib therapy in patients with multiple myeloma and Waldenstroms Macroglobulinemia, mechanisms of bortezomib resistance, important therapy-related side effects, and new directions for the use of proteasome inhibitors in these disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary This International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the disease definition of multiple myeloma to include validated biomarkers in addition to existing requirements of attributable CRAB features (hypercalcaemia, renal failure, anaemia, and bone lesions). These changes are based on the identification of biomarkers associated with near inevitable development of CRAB features in patients who would otherwise be regarded as having smouldering multiple myeloma. A delay in application of the label of multiple myeloma and postponement of therapy could be detrimental to these patients. In addition to this change, we clarify and update the underlying laboratory and radiographic variables that fulfil the criteria for the presence of myeloma-defining CRAB features, and the histological and monoclonal protein requirements for the disease diagnosis. Finally, we provide specific metrics that new biomarkers should meet for inclusion in the disease definition. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends the implementation of these criteria in routine practice and in future clinical trials, and recommends that future studies analyse any differences in outcome that might occur as a result of the new disease definition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]