Search

We performed retrospective analysis of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients previously exposed to daratumumab treated with ixazomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (IRd) regimen in real clinical practice. Our aim was to evaluate efficacy of IRd in these patients and select a subset of patients that would benefit from this treatment the most. In total, we analyzed 43 daratumumab‐exposed RRMM patients treated in our center. Minimal response or better was achieved by 53.5% of patients from the cohort. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.56 months (95% CI: 2.56, 8.03) and median overall survival (OS) was 28.92 months (95% CI: 5.4, NR). Duration of response (DOR) was evaluable in 28 patients and reached a median of 21.3 months (95% CI: 6.85, NR). Next, we evaluated hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS. There was improved OS in patients that were not‐triple refractory or worse (HR = 0.39, 95%Cl (0.14; 1.10), p =.07) and in patients, that had less than three previous lines of treatment (LOT) (HR = 0.13, 95%Cl (0.03; 0.6) p =.003). Similar to OS, there was improved PFS in patients, that were not triple‐refractory or worse (HR = 0.52, 95%Cl (0.25; 1.10), p =.08). We concluded, that the best survival benefit for RRMM patients pretreated with daratumumab to IRd regimen was observed in patients that were not triple‐refractory and had less than three previous lines of treatment (LOT). The DOR in these patients was 21.3 months (95% CI: 6.85, NR). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cluster of differentiation 38 (CD38) is a key target on multiple myeloma (MM) cells. This multi‐centre, Phase 1, single‐agent study (NCT04000282) investigated SAR442085, a novel fragment crystallisable (Fc)‐modified anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibody (mAb), with enhanced affinity towards Fc‐gamma receptor on effector cells in patients with relapsed and/or refractory (RR) MM. Methods: This study comprised two parts: Part‐A (dose‐escalation involving anti‐CD38 mAb pre‐treated and naïve patients) and Part‐B (dose expansion). Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Results: Thirty‐seven heavily pre‐treated patients were treated in Part A. Part‐B (dose‐expansion) was not studied. Seven dose‐limiting toxicities were reported at DL3, DL5, DL6, and DL7. RP2D was determined to be 5–7·5 mg/kg. Most common treatment‐emergent adverse events were infusion‐related reactions in 70·3% (26/37) patients. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia was reported in 48·6% (18/37). Overall response rate was 70% in anti‐CD38 mAb naïve and 4% in anti‐CD38 pre‐treated patients, with a median progression‐free survival of 7·62 (95%CI: 2·858; not calculable) months and 2·79 (95%CI: 1·150; 4·172) months and, respectively. Conclusions: The efficacy of SAR442085 was promising in anti‐CD38 mAb naïve patients but did not extend to the larger cohort of anti‐CD38 mAb pre‐treated patients. This observation, along with transient high‐grade thrombocytopenia, could potentially limit its clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Triplet or quadruplet therapies incorporating proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies have led to prolonged survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; however, most patients have a relapse. Frontline lenalidomide therapy has increased the number of patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease at the time of the first relapse. METHODS In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (BPd), as compared with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), in lenalidomide-exposed patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Disease response and safety were also assessed. RESULTS A total of 302 patients underwent randomization; 155 were assigned to the BPd group, and 147 to the PVd group. At a median follow-up of 21.8 months (range, <0.1 to 39.2), the 12-month estimated progression-free survival with BPd was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63 to 78), as compared with 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with PVd (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73; P<0.001). Data on overall survival were immature. The percentage of patients with a response to treatment (partial response or better) was 77% (95% CI, 70 to 84) in the BPd group and 72% (95% CI, 64 to 79) in the PVd group; 40% (95% CI, 32 to 48) and 16% (95% CI, 11 to 23), respectively, had a complete response or better. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 94% of the patients in the BPd group and 76% of those in the PVd group. Ocular events occurred in 89% of the patients who received BPd (grade 3 or 4 in 43%) and 30% of those who received PVd (grade 3 or 4 in 2%); ocular events in the BPd group were managed with belantamab mafodotin dose modification. Ocular events led to treatment discontinuation in 9% of the patients in the BPd group and in no patients in the PVd group. CONCLUSIONS Among lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, BPd conferred a significantly greater benefit than PVd with respect to progression-free survival, as well as deeper, more durable responses. Ocular events were common but were controllable by belantamab mafodotin dose modification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) is a preferred first-line treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Whether the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to the VRd regimen would reduce the risk of disease progression or death among patients ineligible to undergo transplantation is unclear. METHODS In an international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation to receive either isatuximab plus VRd or VRd alone. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points included a complete response or better and minimal residual disease (MRD)- negative status in patients with a complete response. RESULTS A total of 446 patients underwent randomization. At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, the estimated progression-free survival at 60 months was 63.2% in the isatuximab-VRd group, as compared with 45.2% in the VRd group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 98.5% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.88; PcO.OOl). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was significantly higher in the isatuximab-VRd group than in the VRd group (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P=0.01), as was the percentage of patients with MRD-negative status and a complete response (55.5% vs. 40.9%, P=0.003). No new safety signals were observed with the isatuximab-VRd regimen. The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment and the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Isatuximab-VRd was more effective than VRd as initial therapy in patients 18 to 80 years of age with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible to undergo transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]