Search

Most patients cannot be included in randomized clinical trials. We report real-world outcomes of all Danish patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with daratumumab-based regimens until 1 January 2019. Methods: Information of 635 patients treated with daratumumab was collected retrospectively and included lines of therapy (LOT), hematologic responses according to the International Myeloma Working Group recommendations, time to next treatment (TNT) and the cause of discontinuation of treatment. Baseline characteristics were acquired from the validated Danish Multiple Myeloma Registry (DMMR). Results: Daratumumab was administrated as monotherapy (Da-mono) in 27.7%, in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (Da-IMiD) in 57.3%, in combination with proteasome inhibitors (Da-PI) in 11.2% and in other combinations (Da-other) in 3.8% of patients. The median number of lines of therapy given before daratumumab was 5 for Da-mono, 3 for Da-IMiD, 4 for Da-PI, and 2 for Da-other. In Da-mono, overall response rate (ORR) was 44.9% and median time to next treatment (mTNT) was 4.9 months. In Da-IMiD, ORR was 80.5%, and mTNT was 16.1 months. In Da-PI, OOR was 60.6% and mTNT was 5.3 months. In patients treated with Da-other, OOR was 54,2% and mTNT was 5.6 months. The use of daratumumab in early LOT was associated with longer TNT (p<0.0001). Patients with amplification 1q had outcome comparable to standard risk patients, while patients with t(4;14), t(14;16) or del17p had worse outcome (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis indicated that timing of treatment (timing of daratumumab in the sequence of all LOT that the patients received throughout the course of their disease) was the most important factor for outcome (p<0.0001). Conclusion: The real-world outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab are worse than the results of clinical trials. Outcomes achieved with daratumumab were best when daratumumab was used in combination with IMIDs and in early LOT. Patients with high-risk CA had worse outcomes, but patients with amp1q had similar outcomes to standard-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: HIV-infected controllers control viral replication and maintain normal CD4+ T cell counts. Long Term Non-Progressors (LTNP) also maintain normal CD4+ T cell counts, but have on-going viral replication. We hypothesized that different immunological mechanisms are responsible for preserved CD4+ T cell counts in controllers and LTNP. Methods: 25 HIV-infected controllers and 14 LTNP were included in this cross-sectional study. For comparison, 25 progressors and 34 healthy controls were included. Production and destruction of T cells were addressed by determination of T cell receptor excision circles (TREC), recent thymic emigrants, naïve cells, immune activation, senescence and apoptosis. Furthermore, telomere length was determined, and the amount of lymphoid tissue in tonsil biopsies was quantified. Results: Controllers presented with partly preserved thymic output, preserved expression of the IL-7 receptor and IL-7 receptor density, and lower levels of destruction of cells than progressors resembling HIV-negative healthy controls. In contrast, LTNP appeared much like progressors, and different from controllers in immune activation, senescence, and apoptosis. Interestingly, CD8+ RTE, TREC and telomere length were partly preserved. Finally, both controllers and LTNP displayed decreased amounts of lymphoid tissue compared to healthy controls. Conclusions: Controllers presented with an immunological profile different from LTNP. While controllers resembled healthy controls, LTNP were similar to progressors, suggesting different immunological mechanisms to be responsible for preserved CD4+ T cell counts in LTNP and controllers. However, both controllers and LTNP presented with reduced amounts of lymphoid tissue despite preserved CD4+ T cell counts, indicating HIV to cause damage even in non-progressors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]