Search

Objective We evaluated ibrutinib, a once-daily inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, combined with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received 1-3 prior therapies. Methods This was a phase 2, single-arm, open-label, multicentre study (NCT02902965). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Seventy-six patients were enrolled; 74 received >= 1 dose of study treatment. After median follow-up of 19.6 months, median PFS was 8.5 months (95% CI: 6.2-10.8); median overall survival was not reached. Overall response rate was 57% (95% CI: 45-68), and median duration of response was 9.5 months (95% CI: 6.9-10.6). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 73% of patients and fatal AEs occurred in 15% of patients. Incidence of major haemorrhage was 5%; one patient died from cerebral haemorrhage. After an observed increased incidence of serious (42%) and fatal (11%) infections, enrolment was suspended to implement risk-minimisation measures. The safety profile was otherwise consistent with known safety profiles of the individual drugs. Conclusion Ibrutinib combined with bortezomib and dexamethasone elicited clinical responses. However, efficacy assessments conducted at potential restart of enrolment indicated that the targeted PFS could not be reached with additional patient enrolment, and the study was terminated.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562. © 2021, The Author(s).

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1–3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562. © 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (

Background: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1–21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3–6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736. Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60–72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4–20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3–19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5–9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47–0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Interpretation: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. Funding: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development. © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

The regimen of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) shows activity in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. KdD at the twice-weekly 56 mg/m(2) carfilzomib dose (KdD56) was used in the randomized phase 3 CANDOR study (NCT03158688), whereas KdD at the once-weekly 70 mg/m(2) carfilzomib dose (KdD70) was used in the phase 1 b EQUULEUS study (NCT01998971). We analyzed efficacy data from comparable CANDOR and EQUULEUS patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted models. These weights were calculated from propensity scores derived to balance prespecified baseline covariates. The side-by-side and adjusted comparisons showed similar efficacy for overall response rates and progression-free survival in the two groups, with a series of sensitivity analyses showing consistent findings. Safety data were generally consistent with the known safety profiles of each individual drug. Once-weekly KdD70 is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 in terms of efficacy and safety while being a more convenient dosing option.

Background Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved in combination with pomalidomide-dexamethasone and carfilzomib-dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. This phase 3, openlabel study compared the efficacy of isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone versus carfilzomib-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple rnyeloma. Methods This was a prospective, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 study done at 69 study centres in 16 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple rnyelorna aged at least 18 years who had received one to three previous lines of therapy and had measurable serum or urine M-protein were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (3:2) to isatuximab plus carfilzomib-dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or carfilzomib-dexamethasone (control group). Patients in the isatuximab group received isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks. Both groups received time approved schedule of intravenous carfilzomib and oral or intravenous dexamethasone. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population according to assigned treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose according to treatment received. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03275285. Findings Between Nov 15,2017, and March 21,2019,302 patients with a median of two previous lines of therapy were enrolled. 179 were randomly assigned to the isatuximab group and 123 to the control group. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the isatuximab group compared with 19.15 months (95% CI 15.77-not reached) in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0.53 (99% CI 0.32-0-89; one-sided p=0-0007). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of grade 3 or worse occurred in 136 (77%) of 177 patients in the isatuximab group versus 82 (67%) of 122 in the control group, serious TEAEs occurred in 105 (59%) versus 70 (57%) patients, and TEA Es led to discontinuation in 15 (8%) versus 17 (14%) patients. Fatal TEA Es during study treatment occurred in six (3%) versus four (3%) patients. Interpretation The addition of isatuximab to carfilzomib-dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival and depth of response in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, representing a new standard of care for this patient population. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The regimen of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) shows activity in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. KdD at the twice-weekly 56 mg/m2 carfilzomib dose (KdD56) was used in the randomized phase 3 CANDOR study (NCT03158688), whereas KdD at the once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib dose (KdD70) was used in the phase 1 b EQUULEUS study (NCT01998971). We analyzed efficacy data from comparable CANDOR and EQUULEUS patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)–adjusted models. These weights were calculated from propensity scores derived to balance prespecified baseline covariates. The side-by-side and adjusted comparisons showed similar efficacy for overall response rates and progression-free survival in the two groups, with a series of sensitivity analyses showing consistent findings. Safety data were generally consistent with the known safety profiles of each individual drug. Once-weekly KdD70 is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 in terms of efficacy and safety while being a more convenient dosing option. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

The regimen of carfilzomib, daratumumab, and dexamethasone (KdD) shows activity in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. KdD at the twice-weekly 56 mg/m2 carfilzomib dose (KdD56) was used in the randomized phase 3 CANDOR study (NCT03158688), whereas KdD at the once-weekly 70 mg/m2 carfilzomib dose (KdD70) was used in the phase 1 b EQUULEUS study (NCT01998971). We analyzed efficacy data from comparable CANDOR and EQUULEUS patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted models. These weights were calculated from propensity scores derived to balance prespecified baseline covariates. The side-by-side and adjusted comparisons showed similar efficacy for overall response rates and progression-free survival in the two groups, with a series of sensitivity analyses showing consistent findings. Safety data were generally consistent with the known safety profiles of each individual drug. Once-weekly KdD70 is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 in terms of efficacy and safety while being a more convenient dosing option.

Background: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. Findings: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated—195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group—and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2–19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4–19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73–not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11–10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53–0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32–0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. Interpretation: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

Background: The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib–melphalan–prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation. Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18–65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1–3 according to the International Staging System (ISS), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0–2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1–4) and prednisone (60 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1–4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HSCT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1–21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment. Findings: Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60·3 months (IQR 52·2–67·6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56·7 months [95% CI 49·3–64·5] vs 41·9 months [37·5–46·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 0·62–0·85; p=0·0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42·1 months (IQR 32·3–49·2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58·9 months [54·0–not estimable] vs 45·5 months [39·5–58·4]; HR 0·77, 0·63–0·95; p=0·014). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]). Interpretation: This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. Funding: Janssen and Celgene. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

The phase 3 CLARION study compared carfilzomib-melphalan-prednisone (KMP) with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Patients were randomized 1:1 to KMP or VMP for nine 42-day cycles (C). Patients received carfilzomib on days (D) 1, 2, 8, 9, 22, 23, 29, 30 (20 mg/m2: C1D1, C1D2; 36mg/m2 there after) or bortezomibon D1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32 (1.3 mg/m2; D4, 11, 25, 32 omitted for C5-9). Melphalan (9 mg/m2) and prednisone (60 mg/m2) were administered on D1-4. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Nine hundred fifty-five patients were randomized (intention-to-treat population: KMP, n 5 478; VMP, n 5 477). Median PFS was 22.3 months with KMP vs 22.1 months with VMP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.906; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.746-1.101; P 5. 159). Median overall survival was similar and not reached in either group (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.82-1.43). Overall response rate was 84.3% for KMP and 78.8% for VMP. Complete response rate was 25.9% for KMP and 23.1% for VMP. Minimal residual disease-negative rates were 15.7% (KMP) and 15.5% (VMP). Adverse events (AEs) of interest (any grade) occurring with a ≥5% higher patient incidence in the KMP arm were acute renal failure (13.9% [KMP] vs 6.2% [VMP]) and cardiac failure (10.8% vs 4.3%). Grade ≥3 AE rates were 74.7% (KMP) and 76.2% (VMP). Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy was lower for KMP vs VMP (2.5% vs 35.1%). Treatment with KMP in CLARION did not yield a statistically significant difference in PFS vs VMP. © 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.

Background: Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds a specific epitope on the human CD38 receptor and has antitumour activity via multiple mechanisms of action. In a previous phase 1b study, around 65% of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma achieved an overall response with a combination of isatuximab with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to determine the progression-free survival benefit of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study at 102 hospitals in 24 countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Eligible participants were adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged ≥75 years), or pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified according to the number of previous lines of treatment (2–3 vs >3) and age (

Background: Maintenance therapy following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can delay disease progression and prolong survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ixazomib is ideally suited for maintenance therapy given its convenient once-weekly oral dosing and low toxicity profile. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ixazomib as maintenance therapy following ASCT. Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study took place in 167 clinical or hospital sites in 30 countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. Eligible participants were adults with a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria who had achieved at least a partial response after undergoing standard-of-care induction therapy followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) conditioning and single ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to oral ixazomib or matching placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles for 2 years following induction, high-dose therapy, and transplantation. The initial 3 mg dose was increased to 4 mg from cycle 5 if tolerated during cycles 1–4. Randomisation was stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction disease stage, and response post-transplantation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of ixazomib or placebo, according to treatment actually received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181413, and follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between July 31, 2014, and March 14, 2016, 656 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ixazomib maintenance therapy (n=395) or placebo (n=261). With a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 27·3–35·7), we observed a 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS 26·5 months [95% CI 23·7–33·8] vs 21·3 months [18·0–24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58–0·89; p=0·0023). No increase in second malignancies was noted with ixazomib therapy (12 [3%] patients) compared with placebo (eight [3%] patients) at the time of this analysis. 108 (27%) of 394 patients in the ixazomib group and 51 (20%) of 259 patients in the placebo group experienced serious adverse events. During the treatment period, one patient died in the ixazomib group and none died in the placebo group. Interpretation: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS and represents an additional option for post-transplant maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Funding: Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd

BACKGROUND: The combination of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Daratumumab has shown efficacy in combination with standard-of-care regimens in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation to receive nine cycles of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone either alone (control group) or with daratumumab (daratumumab group) until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 16.5 months in a prespecified interim analysis, the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 76.8) in the daratumumab group and 50.2% (95% CI, 43.2 to 56.7) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P

This randomized, phase III, open-label, multicenter study compared carfilzomib monotherapy against low-dose corticosteroids and optional cyclophosphamide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients were randomized (1:1) to receive carfilzomib (10-min intravenous infusion; 20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 27 mg/m 2 thereafter) or a control regimen of low-dose corticosteroids (84 mg of dexamethasone or equivalent corticosteroid) with optional cyclophosphamide (1400 mg) for 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Three-hundred and fifteen patients were randomized to carfilzomib (n=157) or control (n=158). Both groups had a median of five prior regimens. In the control group, 95% of patients received cyclophosphamide. Median OS was 10.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4-14.4) vs 10.0 months (95% CI 7.7-12.0) with carfilzomib vs control (hazard ratio=0.975; 95% CI 0.760-1.249; P=0.4172). Progression-free survival was similar between groups; overall response rate was higher with carfilzomib (19.1 vs 11.4%). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were anemia (25.5 vs 30.7%), thrombocytopenia (24.2 vs 22.2%) and neutropenia (7.6 vs 12.4%) with carfilzomib vs control. Median OS for single-agent carfilzomib was similar to that for an active doublet control regimen in heavily pretreated RRMM patients. © 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature.

The randomized phase 3 study ENDEAVOR demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) for carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted a preplanned subgroup analysis of ENDEAVOR to evaluate Kd vs Vd by cytogenetic risk. Of 785 patients with known cytogenetics, 210 (27%) had high-risk cytogenetics (Kd, n=97 (25%); Vd, n=113 (28%)) and 575 (73%) had standard-risk cytogenetics (Kd, n=284 (75%); Vd, n=291 (72%)). Median PFS in the high-risk group was 8.8 months for Kd vs 6.0 months for Vd (hazard ratio (HR), 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.92; P=0.0075). Median PFS in the standard-risk group was not estimable for Kd vs 10.2 months for Vd (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.33-0.58; P

22nd Congress of the European-Hematology-Association -- JUN 22-25, 2017 -- Madrid, SPAIN Maisnar, Vladimir/0000-0003-1738-4920 WOS: 000404127002163 … European Hematol Assoc

Background: Malassezia Species are often commensal of the human skin and scalp that opportunistically in exist of particular predisposing factors, their proliferation increases; as, in dandruff and seborrheic dermatitis which both togather affect more than 50% of humans, the excess proliferation of yeast in scalp, leads to scalp-flaking and causes physical and mental disorder in peaple, spacially in youth that their health and hiar hygiene and beauty is more important for them. Thus, this survey has been done for rapid, easy and inexpensive method to diagnosis of abnormal proliferation and invasive condition of Malassezia yeast and can be more benefical for proper treatment.Methods: Sampling with scalpel scraping from scalp of volunteer persons that had not bathed at least two day ago were done and preparation of direct microscopic slides and staining with methylene blue were accomplished. Then, survey of morpholgic characte-ristics, yeast quantification and mycelium detection were done by direct microscopic examination.Results: From 140 scalp samples of adult persons of both gender (male and female) with different age groups, observation of malassezia yeast in 93.5% (131) were positive and 6.5% (9) were negative in direct microscopic examination. Results of yeast quanti-fication in positive cases were: mild or normal flora 25.2%, intermediate 24.5%, severe 50.3%. Detection of mycelium in positive cases were 22.9% (30) (P=0.007 df=2).Conclusion: Application of an accessible, easy and inexpensive method and a determi-nated pattern (yeast quantification with direct microscopic examination) to distinguish normal flora from abnormal condition (excess proliferation and mycelium production) in cases of Malassezia yeasts can be more useful to rapid diagnosis of abnormal pro-liferation and invasive condition in order to initiate a proper antifungal treatment.

Background: The etiologic role of Malassezia furfur in onychomycosis, because of its controversial keratinolytic ability, has not been proven. The most reported cases are distal subungual onychomycosis (DSO). In our knowledge no cases of proximal onychomycosis (PO) has been reported. For the first time we report proximal onychomycosis. This case report describes the isolation of Malassezia furfur from fingernails. Case presentation: An Iranian 56- year- old women had been referred to mycology lab with hyperkeratosis in proximal regions of right hand nails and clinical diagnosis of onychomycosis without paronychia in May 2012. She used several medicines for her cardiac disease, mental illness, severe stress and blood glucose fluctuation diseases. Scraping and sampling from nail lesions were done, budding yeast cells with broadband connections were observed in 15% KOH wet mounts. Also, other differentiation tests, consist of staining with methylen blue, cultures and biochemical tests were done. In order to rejecting the probable etiologic role of any dermatophytic or non-dermatophytic fungi in this case, samples were collected from other parts of the body by scotch tape and scraping with scalpel blade too, but the results of direct microscopy and culture were negative. Finally, Malassezia furfur was identified as the causative agent of onychomycosis.Conclusion: Despite failure to prove Malassezia furfur keratinolytic ability, it can be the etiologic agent of proximal onychomycosis that shows the aggressive properties of this species. Its clinical importance is the easier transmission to hospitalized patients and other people.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p