Search

In the randomized, phase 3, MDS-005 study (NCT01029262), lenalidomide-induced red blood cell transfusion independence (RBC-TI) in 27% of transfusion-dependent patients with lower-risk non-del(5q) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) ineligible for or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. To determine the influence of erythropoietin (EPO) level on response, 155 patients treated with lenalidomide in MDS-005 were categorized into four groups by baseline EPO level. The EPO500 mU/mL group had higher RBC transfusion burden and the lowest proportion of patients with ring sideroblasts ≥15% versus lower EPO groups. Achievement of RBC-TI ≥8 weeks inversely correlated with EPO level, ranging from 42.5 to 15.5%. EPO level did not affect erythroid hematologic improvement response (36.2-44.4%). This analysis suggests patients with lower EPO levels experience the strongest benefit from lenalidomide. Although meaningful improvements were observed in some patients with EPO level500 mU/mL, new treatments are needed for this population.

Background In the phase III MDS-005 study of patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) myelodysplastic syndromes, lenalidomide was associated with a higher rate of ≥ 8 weeks red blood cell transfusion independence (RBC-TI) compared with placebo, but also with a higher risk of hematologic adverse events (AEs). Patients and Methods This analysis evaluated the ratio of clinical benefit-risk in patients treated with lenalidomide or placebo, and assessed the effect of lenalidomide dose reductions on response. Clinical benefit was a composite endpoint defined as RBC-TI, transfusion reduction ≥ 4 units packed red blood cells, hemoglobin increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL, or cytogenetic response. Results The rate of clinical benefit was higher with lenalidomide than with placebo (31.9% vs. 3.8%). The ratio of response (RBC-TI and clinical benefit) to risk (hematologic AEs) favored lenalidomide over placebo. Patients who underwent ≥ 1 lenalidomide dose reduction had a longer duration of treatment, received a higher cumulative dose, and were more likely to experience clinical benefit versus patients without dose reductions. Conclusion Despite the occurrence of hematologic AEs, the overall benefit-risk profile supported lenalidomide treatment. Appropriate management of hematologic AEs by dose reductions may help patients with myelodysplastic syndromes to remain on treatment and achieve clinical benefit.

Assessing safety in drug development naturally incorporates an accumulation of knowledge as we progress from one study to another in a clinical development program. Ideally, it is the early clinical trial data that give us the greatest opportunity to leverage relevant historical information into the design and analysis of later phase clinical trials. While Bayesian methods would appear to provide an ideal framework for assessing safety in this context, concerns regarding the formulation and prespecification of a prior have limited their use in practice. More specifically, when information from previous studies is used to form a prior, an implicit assumption of exchangeability is made. However, the possibility of nonexchangeability, which could lead to conflict between prior and the data, cannot be ruled out. Based on these challenges, in this article we outline a number of strategies based on using simple Bayesian methods to assess safety concerns related to a prespecified adverse event. Three approaches ...

Relative risks of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and related hospitalization is most accurate when accounting for treatment exposure. AZA-AML-001 showed azacitidine (AZA) prolonged overall survival versus conventional care regimens (CCR) in older patients (≥65 years) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) by 3.9 months. Preselection of CCR before study randomization allows evaluation of AZA safety in patient subgroups with similar clinical features. Within preselection groups, AZA exposure was greater than each CCR. Incidence rates (IRs; numbers of events normalized for drug exposure time) of hospitalizations and days in hospital for TEAEs per patient-year of exposure were to varying degrees lower with AZA versus each CCR. Overall survival was significantly prolonged with AZA versus best supportive care (BSC) in AZA-AML-001; this analysis showed 55% and 41% reductions in IRs of TEAE-related hospitalization and days in hospital, respectively, with AZA versus BSC. Older patients with AML unable to tolerate intensive therapy should be offered active low-intensity treatment.

Summary Background Efficacious and safe monotherapy options are needed for adult patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. As an adjunctive treatment for partial seizures, pregabalin compares favourably with lamotrigine and is an effective, approved treatment. We studied the efficacy and safety of pregabalin as monotherapy, using a design that complied with European regulatory requirements and International League Against Epilepsy guidelines. Methods This phase 3, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin and lamotrigine monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed partial seizures at 105 centres, mostly in Europe and Asia. Randomisation to treatment groups (1:1 ratio) was by a computer-generated pseudorandom code (random permuted blocks), with patients sequentially assigned numbers by telephone. Investigators, site staff, and patients were masked to the assigned treatment. After randomisation, patients were titrated to either 75 mg oral pregabalin or 50 mg oral lamotrigine twice daily during a 4-week dose-escalation phase, followed by a 52-week efficacy assessment phase during which the daily dose could be increased as needed to a maximum of 600 mg and 500 mg, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who remained seizure-free for 6 or more continuous months during the efficacy assessment phase; analysis included all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment groups and received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00280059. Findings 660 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (330 pregabalin, 330 lamotrigine), of whom 622 entered the efficacy assessment phase (314 pregabalin, 308 lamotrigine). Fewer patients in the pregabalin group than in the lamotrigine group became seizure-free for 6 or more continuous months (162 [52%] vs 209 [68%]; difference in proportion, −0·16, 95% CI −0·24 to −0·09). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups and consistent with that in previous studies; dizziness (55 [17%] vs 45 [14%] patients), somnolence (29 [9%] vs 14 [4%]), fatigue (27 [8%] vs 19 [6%]), and weight increase (21 [6%] vs 7 [2%]) were numerically more common in the pregabalin group than in the lamotrigine group. Interpretation Pregabalin has similar tolerability but seems to have inferior efficacy to lamotrigine for the treatment of newly diagnosed partial seizures in adults. Inferior efficacy of pregabalin might have been attributable to limitations in the study design, as treatment doses might have not been optimised adequately or early enough. Funding Pfizer Inc.

Glutamate antagonists decrease dyskinesia and augment the antiparkinsonian effects of levodopa in animal models of Parkinson’s disease (PD). In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial we investigated the acute effects of placebo and two doses of a NR2B subunit selective NMDA glutamate antagonist, CP-101,606, on the response to two-hour levodopa infusions in 12 PD subjects with motor fluctuations and dyskinesia. Both doses of CP-101,606 reduced the maximum severity of levodopa-induced dyskinesia approximately 30% but neither dose improved parkinsonism. CP-101,606 was associated with a dose-related dissociation and amnesia. These results support the hypothesis that glutamate antagonists may be useful antidyskinetic agents. However, future studies will have to determine if the benefits of dyskinesia suppression can be achieved without adverse cognitive effects.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a major public health problem, and there is a great medical need for a pharmacological treatment that could improve long-term outcome. The excitatory neurotransmitter, glutamate, has been implicated in processes leading to neurodegeneration. Traxoprodil (CP-101,606) is a novel and potent glutamate receptor antagonist that is highly selective for the NR2B subunit of the NMDA receptor; it has been shown to be neuroprotective in animal models of brain injury and ischemia. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was therefore conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of a 72-h infusion of traxoprodil compared to placebo in subjects with computed tomography scan evidence of severe TBI (GCS 4-8). A total of 404 males and non-pregnant females, aged 16-70, were treated within 8 h of injury. At baseline, subjects were stratified by motor score severity. The results showed that a greater proportion of the traxoprodil-treated subjects had a favorable outcome on the dichotomized Glasgow Outcome Scale (dGOS) at 6 months (delta 5.5%, OR 1.3, p = 0.21, 95% CI:[0.85, 2.06]) and at last visit (delta 7.5%, OR 1.47, p = 0.07, 95% CI:[0.97, 2.25]). The mortality rate with traxoprodil treatment was 7% less than with placebo treatment (OR 1.45, p = 0.08, 95% CI:[0.96, 2.18]). Differences between treatment groups were more pronounced in the severest subset (delta 11.8% for the dGOS at last visit and delta 16.6% for mortality). Traxoprodil was well tolerated. Although these results are intriguing, no definitive claim of efficacy can be made for traxoprodil for the treatment of severe TBI.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction and bioequivalence of a combination formulation of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor fosinopril and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). METHODS: In an open-label, balanced, randomized incomplete block, three-way crossover fashion, healthy men received single doses of three of four regimens in one of two independent studies. Regimens for study A (36 subjects): (1) fosinopril 10-mg tablet, (2) HCTZ 12.5-mg tablet, (3) a combination tablet of fosinopril 10 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg, or (4) coadministered tablets of fosinopril 10 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg. Study B (40 subjects) received: (1) fosinopril 20-mg tablet, (2) HCTZ 12.5-mg tablet, (3) a combination tablet of fosinopril 20 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg, or (4) coadministered tablets of fosinopril 20 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg. RESULTS: There was no evidence of any significant effect of HCTZ on the pharmacokinetics of fosinoprilat, based on maximum concentration value, AUC, or cumulative urinary recovery over 24 hours. Fosinoprilat had no clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of HCTZ only slightly decreasing its AUC by 14% in study A. Coadministration was well tolerated; no new adverse events were reported with the combination tablet. CONCLUSIONS: Fosinopril and HCTZ in a combination tablet display pharmacokinetic profiles similar to those achieved when either drug is administered alone or when coadministered in separate tablets. When used with HCTZ, the favorable pharmacokinetic feature of fosinopril, dual and compensatory pathways of renal and hepatic elimination, is preserved.

Background: Patients (pts) aged >65 years (yrs) with AML have a median overall survival (OS) of ~3 months (mos), with worsening OS as age increases: median OS for pts ages 66-75 yrs is ~6 mos, but is only ~2.5 mos for pts ages 76-89 yrs (Walter, Leukemia, 2015). Treatment (Tx) options are limited for these pts, who often have disease features associated with Tx resistance, such as prior hematologic disorders, and a greater risk of Tx-related mortality. With current Tx options, in this setting many physicians or pts do not pursue active AML Tx. The phase 3, randomized AZA-AML-001 study compared AZA and CCR in older pts with AML (Dombret, Blood, 2015). Aims: Assess outcomes with AZA vs CCR in elderly pts (age ≥75 yrs) with AML in the AZA-AML-001 study overall and in the subset of pts with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC), and descriptively compare them with outcomes for pts aged 65-74 yrs. Methods: Pts aged ≥65 yrs with newly diagnosed AML (>30% bone marrow blasts), ECOG performance status ≤2, intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics, and WBC counts ≤15x109/L were eligible. Pts were randomized to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/day [d] x7d/28d) or CCR: low-dose ara-C (20mg SC BID x10d/28d), intensive chemotherapy (7+3), or best supportive care only. These analyses evaluated outcomes in pts aged 65-74 yrs (" Results: In all, 223 pts were aged 85 yrs (AZA n=14; CCR n=13). Median age in the Conclusions: As expected, OS and response rates were lower in elderly pts in both Tx arms than in younger pts. Median OS was meaningfully prolonged with AZA (+4.6 mos) vs CCR in pts aged 65-74 yrs. Higher proportions of AZA-treated pts remained alive at each 3-month landmark than CCR-treated pts, mainly in the younger age group, although 1-year survival was also higher in pts aged ≥75 yrs. Given the higher IR of infections, prophylactic use of antimicrobials or growth factors might be considered for elderly pts treated with AZA. Pts with AML-MRC retained the relative OS benefits of AZA vs CCR. While OS for AML-MRC pts aged ≥75 yrs was longer with AZA (+2.1 mos) vs CCR, pts with AML-MRC aged ≥75 yrs in both treatment groups had decreased OS compared with the median OS for all pts aged ≥75 yrs, consistent with reports that AML-MRC is more difficult to treat than AML not otherwise specified (Weinberg, Blood, 2009). Disclosures Seymour: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Santini:Astex: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy. Songer:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Weaver:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Beach:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dombret:Agios: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Ambit (Daiichi Sankyo): Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Kite Pharma.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: In the phase 3 MDS-005 study, LEN treatment was associated with a significant increase in transfusion independence (TI) vs placebo (26.9% vs 2.5%; P < 0.001) (Santini et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;pii:JCO.2015.66.0118) and greater clinical benefit vs placebo (31.9% vs 3.8%) (Garcia-Manero et al. Haematologica. 2016;101:abstract P252) in red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent (TD) pts with lower-risk non-del(5q) MDS who were ineligible for or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). For pts with lower-risk del(5q) MDS, a starting dose of LEN 10 mg is recommended, followed by subsequent dose modifications in response to adverse events (AEs), in order to maximize duration of treatment and thereby improve pt outcomes. This study evaluated the relationship between LEN exposure, including dose reductions, and duration of treatment, and the clinical benefit to pts with lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 MDS-005 study. Methods: Eligible pts were age ≥ 18 years, had TD anemia due to International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)-defined Low- or Intermediate-1-risk MDS, lacked the del(5q) mutation, and were ineligible for or refractory to ESAs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive LEN 10 mg (n = 160) or placebo (n = 79) once daily (both in 28-day cycles). Pts randomized to LEN with creatinine clearance ≥ 40 to < 60 mL/min (n = 57) received LEN 5 mg. Cumulative dose, dose reductions, and discontinuations were recorded; association between these parameters and clinical benefit or RBC-TI was evaluated. Clinical benefit ≥ 8 weeks was defined as the composite endpoint of RBC-TI ≥ 8 weeks, or transfusion reduction of ≥ 4 units packed RBCs (pRBCs) ≥ 8 weeks, or hemoglobin (Hb) increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL ≥ 8 weeks (International Working Group 2006), or cytogenetic response (CyR). Rate of transfusion reduction was calculated using data collected during a 112-day assessment period to account for on-study differences in transfusion burden. LEN dose modifications due to AEs were defined in the study protocol. The analysis included all pts receiving LEN. Results: Of 160 LEN-treated pts included in the analysis, 77 (48.1%) underwent ≥ 1 LEN dose reduction. A total of 73 pts experienced ≥ 1 dose reduction due to AEs, amounting to 102 dose reductions overall. Of these AE-related dose reductions, 47 were due to neutropenia, 33 due to thrombocytopenia, and 2 due to other hematologic conditions. Median time to first dose reduction was 85 days (interquartile range [IQR] 50-114 days). A total of 145 LEN-treated pts discontinued therapy: 52 discontinued due to AEs; 32 discontinued before the end of cycle 3, of which 23 were due to AEs. Of the 77 pts who had ≥ 1 dose reduction, 6 (7.8%) pts had a dose reduction in the first cycle; 37 (48.1%) pts had dose reductions during cycles 1-3. During the first 3 cycles of LEN, pts with ≥ 1 dose reduction received a lower median dose than those with no dose reductions (385 mg [IQR 318-520 mg] vs 660 mg [IQR 415-840 mg]). However, when analyzed over the course of the entire study, pts undergoing ≥ 1 dose reduction received a higher median cumulative dose than those with no dose reductions (950 mg [IQR 595-1,435 mg] vs 715 mg [IQR 370-1,660 mg]). Duration of treatment was also longer for pts with ≥ 1 dose reduction vs those with no dose reductions (172 days [IQR 140-391 days] vs 92 days [IQR 46-168 days]). Pts with ≥ 1 dose reduction were more likely to achieve RBC-TI ≥ 8 weeks than pts with no dose reductions (39% vs 16%; odds ratio [OR] 3.44 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.63-7.26]). Pts with ≥ 1 dose reduction were also more likely to achieve clinical benefit ≥ 8 weeks vs pts with no dose reductions (47% vs 18%; OR 3.98 [95% CI 1.94-8.15]). Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of the MDS-005 study, pts undergoing ≥ 1 LEN dose reduction had a longer duration of treatment, and were more likely to achieve RBC-TI and the composite endpoint of clinical benefit (RBC-TI ≥ 8 weeks, transfusion reduction ≥ 4 units pRBCs ≥ 8 weeks, Hb increase ≥ 1.5 g/dL ≥ 8 weeks, or CyR) than pts with no dose reductions. Disclosures Santini: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Other: advisory board; Amgen: Other: advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Other: advisory board. Almeida:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau. Fenaux:Celgene, Novartis, Teva: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Astex, Teva: Research Funding. Gatterman:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Heinrich-Heine-Universitat Dusseldorf: Employment. Ozawa:Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. Ltd: Research Funding; JCR Pharmaceutical Inc: Consultancy; Celgene Japan: Consultancy; Takara Bio Inc: Research Funding. Goldberg:COTA Inc: Employment; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Neostem: Equity Ownership. Weaver:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sugrue:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Background: Karyotype is the strongest independent prognostic factor for survival in AML. The randomized phase 3 AZA-AML-001 study of older patients with AML showed AZA prolonged overall survival (OS) compared with CCR (10.4 vs 6.5 months, respectively; P=0.101) (Dombret et al, Blood, 2015). In a prospective subanalysis of the study, AZA was shown to meaningfully prolong OS by 3.2 months compared with CCR (P=0.0185) in the subgroup of patients with NCCN-defined poor-risk cytogenetics (Döhner et al, Blood, 2014: Abstract 621). Aim: This analysis evaluates treatment effects of AZA vs CCR on OS in subgroups of patients with specific cytogenetic abnormalities as well as in patient subgroups defined by cytogenetic risk per modified European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations (not considering molecular markers) (Döhner et al, Blood, 2010). Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with newly diagnosed AML (>30% bone marrow [BM] blasts), ECOG performance status score ≤2, intermediate- or poor-risk cytogenetics per NCCN 2009 criteria, and WBC count ≤15x109/L were randomized to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/day [d] x7d/28d) or CCR: intensive chemotherapy (cytarabine 100-200mg/m2IV x7d + anthracycline IV x3d induction), low-dose ara-C (20mg SC BID x10d/28d), or best supportive care only. Karyotypes obtained from BM were reviewed centrally by an independent cytogeneticist. OS was evaluated in subgroups of patients with frequent specific abnormalities, including -5/del(5q), -7, -7/del(7q), abnormal (17p) or complex karyotype (based on specific abnormalities, patients may have been evaluated in more than one category). OS was also assessed for patients in ELN-defined karyotype risk subgroups: Intermediate (Int)-I (normal karyotype), Int-II (all abnormalities not classified as Favorable or Adverse), and Adverse karyotype. OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using a weighted log-rank test. Results: Centrally reviewed cytogenetic data were available for 485/488 patients (99.4%). In all, 220 patients (45.4%; AZA n=114, CCR n=106) had Int-I karyotype, 111 patients (22.9%; AZA n=53, CCR n=58) had Int-II karyotype, and 154 patients (31.8%, AZA n=73, CCR n=81) had Adverse karyotype (Figure 1). OS was comparable between AZA and CCR in patients with Int-I karyotype (14.1 vs 10.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95%CI 0.60, 1.1; P=0.44) and patients with Int-II karyotype (8.9 vs 9.6 months; HR 1.19, 95%CI 0.79, 1.8; P=0.78). There was a significant 2.4-month median OS difference in favor of AZA in patients with Adverse karyotype (5.3 vs 2.9 months with CCR; HR 0.71, 95%CI 0.51, 0.99; P=0.046; Figure 2), with 1-year survival rates of 29.1% vs 14.7% for AZA and CCR, respectively. AZA was associated with longer median OS and higher 1-year survival compared with CCR for all subgroups of patients with the specific cytogenetic abnormalities under study: -5/del(5q), -7, -7/del(7q), abnormal (17p), and complex karyotype, with HRs ranging from 0.54 to 0.69(Table). Median OS in the CCR arm was less than 3 months for each of these subgroups. Similar to what has been reported in MDS (Ravandi et al, Cancer, 2009), AML patients with chromosome 7 abnormalities responded particularly well to AZA, with an improvement in median OS of 4.1 months over CCR. Patients with complex karyotypes also had meaningful improvements in OS, with ~15% more AZA-treated patients alive at 1 year than CCR patients. Conclusions: Prognosis is dismal for older AML patients with adverse karyotypes, and is especially poor for patients with complex karyotypes. Median OS and 1-year survival in patients with ELN-defined Adverse karyotype treated with AZA were almost double those of patients treated with CCR. AZA-treated patients with the specific cytogenetic abnormalities and/or complex karyotype in this analysis had a 31-46% reduction in risk of death vs CCR, and proportions of patients alive at 1 year were 11-22% greater with AZA. These data suggest AZA should be the preferred treatment for older patients with AML and adverse karyotypes. Disclosures Seymour: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Santini:Astex: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stone:Celator: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Al-Ali:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Morrill:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Songer:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Weaver:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Skikne:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Beach:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dombret:Agios: Honoraria; Ambit (Daiichi Sankyo): Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Menarini: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Kite Pharma.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Ariad: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding.

7014Background: In the phase III MDS-005 study of LEN in RBC-TD lower-risk (LR) non-del(5q) MDS pts ineligible for/refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), a statistically significan...