Search

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) for whom the benefits of lenalidomide have been exhausted in early treatment lines need effective therapies. In cohort A of the phase 2 MM-014 trial, we examined the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone immediately after lenalidomide-based treatment failure in patients with RRMM and two prior lines of therapy. Pomalidomide 4 mg was given on days 1 to 21 of 28-day cycles. Dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged >75 years) was given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The intention-to-treat population comprised 56 patients; all received prior lenalidomide (87·5% lenalidomide refractory) and 39 (69·6%) received prior bortezomib. ORR was 32·1% (28·2% in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median PFS was 12·2 months (7·9 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median OS was 41·7 months (38·6 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (25·0%), pneumonia (14·3%) and fatigue (14·3%). These findings support earlier sequencing of pomalidomide-based therapy in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with RRMM, including those who have become refractory to lenalidomide. Trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01946477.

Introduction: Although daratumumab-containing regimens improve multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes, recurrence is inevitable. Methods and Objective: We performed a retrospective study using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database to benchmark the efficacy of carfilzomib- or pomalidomide-based therapies immediately following progression on daratumumab treatment. Results: We identified 178 such patients; median number of prior lines of therapy was 3, 97% triple-class exposed, and 60% triple-class refractory. In our cohort, 75 received a subsequent carfilzomib-based therapy, 79 received a pomalidomidebased therapy, and 24 received a treatment with both immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and proteasome inhibitor (PI) using carfilzomib and/or pomalidomide. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort were 4.5 and 14.2 months, respectively. Carfilzomib-based therapy yielded a median PFS and OS of 4.5 and 10.2 months, respectively, compared to 5.2 and 21.7 months for pomalidomide-based therapy. Patients who received both IMiD and PI with carfilzomib and/or pomalidomide had a median PFS and OS of 4.1 and 14.5 months, respectively. Conclusion: Our observations demonstrate the poor outcome of MM patients when standard regimens based on carfilzomib and/or pomalidomide are utilized directly after daratumumab-based therapy given in the relapsed setting. Novel therapies, including immune therapies, are urgently needed to improve the outcomes of these daratumumab-exposed patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) need proven subsequent therapies after early-line lenalidomide treatment failure. The phase 2 MM-014 trial (NCT01946477) investigated pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab after 1 to 2 prior treatment lines (62.5%, 1 prior line) in patients with RRMM and prior lenalidomide (75.0%, lenalidomide refractory). With a median follow-up of 28.4 months, overall response rate was 77.7% (52.7% achieved very good partial response or better) and median progression-free survival was 30.8 months. For patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease, these outcomes were 76.2%, 47.6%, and 23.7 months, respectively. No new safety signals were observed; 64.3% experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia. Health-related quality of life was preserved or trended toward improvement through 12 treatment cycles. Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab given immediately after early-line lenalidomide-based treatment continues to demonstrate safety and efficacy, supporting pomalidomide-dexamethasone as a foundation of combination therapy in RRMM and providing evidence that the immunomodulatory agent class delivers benefit after lenalidomide treatment failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The treatment of multiple myeloma has dramatically improved due to the availability of novel therapies that are highly effective and are quickly moving into first-line therapy. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) recently recommended that patients who receive daratumumab should only be eligible to receive either carfilzomib or pomalidomide but not both, for relapsed MM. In order to assess the efficacy of these two agents in the relapsed setting, we utilized our national myeloma database. A total of 121 patients were reviewed, 49 patients received CAR- before POM-based (CAR-POM), and 73 patients received POM- before CAR-based (POM-CAR) therapy. In the groups selected, the median PFS was 4.93 months (95% CI, 2.76–7.07) and 5.36 months (95% CI, 3.75–6.94) for CAR-POM and POM-CAR, respectively. The median OS for patients treated with CAR-POM was 11.01 months (95% CI, 4.50–19.13), and for patients treated with POM-CAR the median OS was 10.98 months (95% CI, 8.98–19.17). In this real-world observational study, we demonstrated that both CAR- and POM-based therapies, irrespective of the order in which they were used, were effective treatment options for patients with advanced relapsed MM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Heavily pretreated patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma are susceptible to treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Managing AEs are important to ensure patients continue therapy long enough to receive the best clinical benefit. Data from the MM-002, MM-003, and MM-010 trials were pooled to further characterize the safety profile of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and AE management. Methods This analysis included 1088 patients who received ≥ 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and progressed ≤ 60 days of last therapy. Patients received 28-day cycles of pomalidomide 4 mg/day on days 1-21 and low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg if aged > 75 years) weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Thromboprophylaxis was required. Results The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (56.2%), anemia (32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (25.8%), which occurred within the first few cycles of treatment. Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 33.7% patients, of whom 13.9% had pneumonia, and 40.3% had neutropenia. Pomalidomide dose reductions or interruptions were reported in 24.2% and 66.0% of patients, respectively. AEs were managed by dose modifications and/or supportive care. Conclusions Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone showed an acceptable safety profile, and AEs were well managed according to study protocols and established guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients have poor overall survival (OS). Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) significantly extends OS in RRMM vs. high-dose dexamethasone. Survival of patients with stable disease (SD) was compared to patients with progressive disease (PD) or ≥ partial response (≥PR) at cycles (C) 3, 5, and 7. Among 302 patients randomized to POM + LoDEX, at C3 19.2% achieved ≥ PR, 38.4% SD, and 14.6% PD. Patients with SD at C3 (17.4%) and C5 (13.6%) showed improved responses at C7. Median OS from randomization by response at C3 was 22.4 months for ≥ PR (n = 58, HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.40–1.08,p = 0.0976 vs. SD), 16.2 months for SD (n = 116), and 6.3 months for PD (n = 44, HR 3.43; 95% CI 2.23–5.27,p < 0.0001 vs. SD). Similar patterns were observed for C5 and C7. Results show that POM + LoDEX should be a standard treatment after lenalidomide and bortezomib, including in SD patients. [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]