Search

Introduction Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a low burden plasma cell disorder, characterized by deposition of misfolded lambda or kappa light chains. Kidney dysfunction is present in almost two-thirds of patients at the time of initial presentation, followed by diastolic heart failure in about 50% of cases, which is responsible for 75% of deaths in these patients. Autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) remains the gold standard for the management of AL amyloidosis but is often impractical to perform by virtue of patients' age, medical comorbidities including cardiac involvement. Methods We conducted a literature search using three databases (PubMed, Embase,Web of Science). Our search strategy included MeSH terms and key words such as AL amyloidosis, daratumumab and darzalex from date of inception to March 2018. After excluding duplicates, reviews and non-relevant articles, we selected eight studies, including two case reports, two phase II prospective trials and four retrospective trials. Results Data on 129 patients was included, there ages ranged from 43-83 years. Median number of prior therapies were 3 (range: 2-6), 106 (82%) received proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib) based therapy, and 69 (53.5%) received immunomodulatory (lenalidomide) based therapy. Another 41 (32%) received high dose melphalan (HDM) followed by auto-SCT. The time from the diagnosis of AL to the start of daratumumab therapy varied from 0.7-150 months. Eighty-nine (69%) patients had cardiac and 64 (49.6%) patients had renal involvement. A total of 114 (88%) patients received a daratumumab dose of 16 mg/kg weekly for 8 weeks followed by every 2 weeks for the next 8 weeks. A total of 104 patients were evaluable for hematological response, assessed by improvement in free light chain (FLC) levels. Daratumamab achieved an impressive overall response rate (ORR) of 72% (n=75). Complete remission (CR) in 15 (14%) of patients, very good partial response (VGPR) in 44 (42%) and a partial response (PR) in 16 (15%) of patients was noted. Thirty-four patients with cardiac involvement and 26 patients with renal amyloidosis were assessed for organ response across four studies. Thirteen (38%) patients with cardiac amyloidosis demonstrated an improvement in N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Ten (38%) patients with renal involvement responded according to consensus criteria [Palladini et al 2014] for organ response. Another two had improvement in serum creatinine levels. Among the 129 patients treated with daratumumab for AL amyloidosis, 36 (32%) reported infusion related reactions (IRR). Most were mild (grade 1-2). Daratumumab infusion was well tolerated in patients with cardiac (n=54) and renal involvement (n=48). Only one patient needed adjustment in his diuretic dose, another one developed decompensated heart failure and one died due to progression of cardiac disease. Seven patients had worsening of their NT-proBNP levels. Similarly, no dose adjustments were required for patients with renal amyloidosis and one patient tolerated daratumumab infusion at a GFR Conclusion Daratumumab monotherapy is associated with deep and prompt hematological responses in patients with heavily pretreated AL amyloidosis, at the standard dosing regimens used for multiple myeloma, with a favorable safety profile. Furthermore, daratumumab performed well in patients with cardiac amyloidosis even though there is an increased risk of volume overload and infusion related morbidity. Given the high incidence of peripheral neuropathy with bortezomib, cardiotoxicity with carfilzomib based regimens in amyloidosis patients, daratumumab appears to be a suitable alternative. It has already been approved for relapsed amyloidosis (AL) patients in the European Union. Currently, it is being investigated as monotherapy for AL amyloidosis in phase 2 trials (NCT02841033 and NCT02816476) and in combination with bortezomib, cytoxin and dexamethasone (VCd) in a phase III trial (NCT03201965). Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction Immunotherapy using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been gaining significance in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). These include naked antibodies, checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), novel bispecific mAbs targeting two epitopes and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) having a mAb conjugated to a cytotoxic drug. This review aims to summarize phase I and I/II clinical trials using mABs for the treatment of MM. Methods A comprehensive literature search using data from PubMed, Embase, AdisInsight and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed for identification of early phase (I and I/II) trials of mAbs in MM treatment (January 2008 to December 2017). Studies involving mAbs including targeting antibodies, ADCs, CPIs and bispecific mAbs were included, without considering the geo-location, age, sex or specific eligibility criteria. Drugs already approved by FDA were excluded. Results Total of 2537 phase I and phase I/II studies were identified. After screening by two reviewers and categorization by their mechanism of action, 74 clinical trials (CTs) that involved mAbs as monotherapy or in combination with other chemotherapeutic drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). 41 CTs are active, completed or discontinued (Table 1) and 33 CTs are recruiting, approved for recruitment or planned. Most explored mechanism of action in these trials was mAb therapy directed against CD38, IL-6, huCD40, PD-L1 and PD-1. Isatuximab (Anti-CD38) has shown objective response rate (ORR) of >50% in combination with lenalidomide (R) or pomalidomide (P) plus dexamethasone (d) in ongoing phase I trials NCT01749969 (n=57) and NCT02283775 (n=89) respectively. According to Vij et al. (2016) and Mikhael et al. (2018), 54% ORR (n=31) and 62% ORR (n=28) was shown by combination of isatuximab with Rd and Pd in 57 and 45 evaluable RRMM patients, respectively. In Vij et al. (2016) study, stringent complete response (sCR) in 2 (3%) patients, very good partial response (VGPR) in 13 (23%) and partial response (PR) in 16 (28%) patients was observed. In Mikhael et al. (2018) study, sCR in 1 (2%) patient, CR in 1 (2%), VGPR in 10 (21%) and PR in 16 (34%) patients was observed. In comparison, Martin et al. (2014) mentioned ORR of only 24% with isatuximab monotherapy in 34 RRMM patients. Grade (G) ≥3 pneumonia (n=4) was the most common high-grade adverse events (AEs) being reported (Table 2). Siltuximab (Anti-IL-6) has shown clinical efficacy in combination with bortezomib (V) + d and RVd in phase I and I/II CTs. Shah et al. (2016) and Suzuki et al. (2015) found ORR to be 90.9% and 67% in 11 (NDMM) and 9 (RRMM) patients when siltuximab was given combined with RVd and Vd, respectively. Clinical benefit response (CBR) i.e. ≥ minimal response (MR) was 100% with siltuximab + RVd in NDMM patients. In comparison, siltuximab monotherapy in 13 RRMM patients yielded an ORR of 15% (2 CR) as reported by Kurzrock et al. (2012). G≥3 neutropenia (n=9), G≥3 thrombocytopenia (n=6) and G≥3 lymphopenia (n=8) were most common reported high-grade AEs. Checkpoint inhibitors including pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and pidilizumab (anti-PD-L1) are being investigated in RRMM treatment. According to Otero et al. (2017) and Ribrag et al. (2017), 50% ORR was obtained with pembrolizumab combined with Rd compared to 0% with monotherapy, respectively. However, combination therapy was associated with G≥3 neutropenia (n=17), thrombocytopenia (n=9) and anemia (n=6) while no high-grade AEs were observed with monotherapy. Antibody-Drug conjugates including lorvotuzumab mertansine and indatuximab ravtansine have been investigated in CTs for MM treatment. Lorvotuzumab mertansine has shown clinical efficacy in combination with Rd in a phase I trial (NCT00991562). Berdeja et al. (2012) reported an ORR of 59% (1 sCR, 1 CR, 8 VGPR, 9 PR) in 32 RRMM patients. In a phase I/II trial (NCT01638936) of indatuximab ravtansine combined with either Rd or Pd, Kelly et al. (2016) showed ORR of 77% with Rd (n=43) including at least 1 CR and 4 VGPR and 79% with Pd (n=14) including 4 VGPR in total 57 RRMM patients. Conclusion Combination regimens including monoclonal antibodies, CPIs and ADCs have shown clinically significant response in RRMM and NDMM patients. The mAbs caused hematological and nonhematological AEs like cytopenias and infections which needs to be monitored closely. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor and lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulatory drug are the backbone of established treatment regimens for newly diagnosed MM. Patients with dual-refractory (refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide) disease have a poor prognosis with overall survival estimated to be less than one year. Pomalidomide (Pom) has distinct anticancer, antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory properties and has demonstrated synergistic antiproliferative activity in combination regimens. The aim of our study is to compare different Pom based regimens to identify the most effective regimen for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase and AdisInsight databases on 03/29/2018 which identified a total of 1374 studies. We included phase II/III clinical trials on pomalidomide based regimens that have clearly documented efficacy outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA) Version 3. We used the Cochrane Q statistics (p0.05 or I2 >50%). Studies were classified into subgroups according to the therapeutic regimen: dual and triplet combinations. A separate stratified analysis of triplet regimens based on type of regimen was also performed. Results A total of 35 studies (n = 4623 patients) were included. The most commonly studied regimen was Pom + LoDex (Low dose dexamethasone) with a total of 16 studies on this regimen. All patients included in our study had ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy. Mean number of prior lines of therapy was 6. Most patients were lenalidomide refractory, with 10 patient cohorts of 100% refractoriness and 8 cohorts of ≥ 90% refractoriness. Pooled analysis showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 47.1% across all Pom regimens including both doublet and triplet regimens. An I2 value of 87.3 was found, indicating high heterogeneity across all Pom regimens. With Pom-LoDex, pooled ORR was found to be 35.7% and mean OS 14.37 months. With triplet regimens, pooled ORR was found to be 61.9%. In a separate stratified analysis of triplet regimens based on type of regimen, pooled ORRs with few selected regimens were as follows; Bort-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 83.5%, mean PFS 15.7 months [mos]), CFZ-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 77.1%, mean PFS 15.3 mos), Pom-LoDex-bendamustine (pooled ORR 74.2%), Pom-Dex-daratumumab (pooled ORR 64.5%), Pom-LoDex-cyclophosphamide (pooled ORR 59.4%, mean PFS 9.5 mos), Pom-LoDex-doxorubicin (pooled ORR 32%). Most frequently reported adverse event with Pom based regimens was myelosuppression. Mean incidences of grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events were neutropenia (47.6%), anemia (26.5%), and thrombocytopenia (20.8%). Mean incidences of grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were infections (29.1%), pneumonia (13.8%) and fatigue (10%). Most of the studies used pomalidomide 4mg daily dosing. Lacy et al. suggested no advantage of 4mg pomalidomide over 2 mg daily dosing. Conclusion From results of pooled analysis, we can infer that triplet combinations of Pom yield almost double response rates (pooled ORR 61.9%) when compared to dual combination of Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 35.7%). Among three drug combinations, Bort-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 83.5%) and CFZ-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 77.1%) seem to produce better outcomes. Our study provides useful insight into relative efficacy of various Pom regimens for treatment of RRMM patients. Several trials involving various MoAbs like nivolumab, daratumumab, elotuzumab, isatuximab and pembrolizumab in combination with Pom-LoDex are currently ongoing. Pomalidomide has an acceptable safety profile. Most common treatment emergent adverse events were myelotoxicity and infections that can be effectively managed with supportive care and dose modifications. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Elotuzumab (elo) is a humanized monoclonal antibody, which has been approved by the FDA for use in combination with lenalidomide (lena) and dexamethasone (dexa) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Elotuzumab is effective as a single agent, as well as in combination for multiple myeloma treatments, supporting the use of elo in pts with RRMM and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) pts. Method: After review of literature using database searches was done on 6/27/18 (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov), 9 prospective and 1 retrospective study with 1128 enrolled pts met the inclusion criteria to date in RRMM and 2 clinical trials including 123 pts in NDMM (Table 1). CMA software v.3 was used for meta-analysis. A random-effect model was applied. Result: Regimens used in RRMM: Based on pooled analysis (95% CI), an overall response rate (ORR) of 66% (54-76.2) was calculated in 685 evaluable pts treated with elo based regimens in RRMM (Figure 1). Most common grade (G) ≥ 3 hematological adverse events (HAE) and non-hematological adverse events (NHAE) based on regimen were calculated using pooled analysis in RRMM pts (Table 2). Anemia was noted in 12.1% ( 7.7-18.6) in 559 pts, while neutropenia in 14.5% (7.5-26.4) out of 591 pts and thrombocytopenia (tcp) in 11.9% (7.9-17.4) in 198 evaluable pts. Diarrhea 5.5% (3.6-8.3), pyrexia 2.4% (1.5-4), peripheral neuropathy (PN) 8.4% (3.8-17.8) were measured in 626, 668 and 143 pts respectively. Elotuzumab as monotherapy: 1 study (n=34) evaluated the efficacy of elo as single agent in RRMM. The median age, time from diagnosis and number of prior therapies were 64.5 years (y) (46-87), 4.4 y (0.9-12.8) and 4.5 y (2-10) respectively. It produced an ORR of 1.4% (0.1-19.1 95% CI) in 34 evaluable pts. Adverse events recorded were pyrexia and fatigue in 17.6% and 8.8% pts respectively. Elotuzumab in two drug regimen: In RRMM, 2 clinical trials (n=49) evaluated the efficacy (95% CI) of elo, ORR of 25% (4.1-72.3) was calculated. The best PFS (progression free survival) produced was in combination of elo 20 mg with bortezumib (bort) 1.3mg/m2 of 9.46 months as compared to 1.8 months when elo10mg/kg + dexamethasone (dexa) 28mg was used. In our analysis for safety, common G≥ 3 HAE calculated were, thrombocytopenia 8.7% (3.3-21.1) n=49, neutropenia 10.7 % (3.5-28.4) n=28 pts and anemia 7.1% (1.8-24.5) n=28 pts. NHAE included diarrhea 1.7% (0.1-22.3), PN 10.7% (3.5-28.4), pyrexia 1.7% (0.1-22.3) in 28 evaluable pts each. Elotuzumab in three drug regimen: In RRMM, 10 clinical trials including 602 pts evaluated the efficacy of elo as a part of triple drug regimen, producing an ORR of 72.2% (54-76.2). The best results were produced with the combination of elo 10-20mg/kg + lenalidomide (lena) 25mg + dexa 40mg producing a PFS of 32.2 mo and 28.62 mo in its phase I and II cohorts respectively. Based on pooled analysis (95% CI) common HAE calculated were neutropenia 17.5% (7.6-35.4) in n=563, thrombocytopenia 12.7% (8.2-19.4) in n=149 and anemia 13% (8-20.5) in n=531 pts. Common G ≥ 3 NHAE estimated were diarrhea 5.7% (3.7-8.6), PN 6.6% (2-19.2), pyrexia 2.5% (1.5-4.1) in 598, 115 and 640 pts respectively. Elotuzumab based regimen in NDMM: A currently ongoing clinical trial NCT02272803 has produced promising results in NDMM pts. As a part of three drug regimen with dose of elo 10mg/kg-20mg/kg, lena 25mg, dexa 20mg in 40 pts produced an ORR of 87.5% (73.2-95.8) versus control group of lena 25mg plus dexa 40mg in 42 pts with an ORR of 73.8% (58-86.1). The PFS rate recorded at 1 year was 93% (79-98%) and 91% (73-97%) respectively. The HAE G ≥ 3 included, neutropenia 18% and leukopenia 15%. In another study with 41 pts, elo was used in combination with lena, bort and dexa producing an ORR of 100% and greater than grade 3 adverse events including Tcp 15%, PN 2%. Conclusion: Results produced in our study suggest that elotuzumab is highly effective when used in pts with RRMM and NDMM. Combination regimens for elo produces an ORR ranging from 79-83% with elo + lena+ dexa, proving that the best results were produced by three drug regimens. Large prospective studies are required to evaluate efficacy and safety of elotuzumab in combination therapies. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.