Search

Limited data exist on the effects of induction treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and renal impairment (RI), who may also be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. This analysis investigated the impact of lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVd) induction on renal function in patients from the Connect® MM Registry based on transplant status. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤2 months before enrollment. Patients in this analysis received front-line RVd for ≥3 cycles and were grouped by transplant status and baseline renal function. As of August 4, 2021, 344 transplanted and 289 non-transplanted patients had received RVd for ≥3 cycles at induction. Improved renal function was observed at 3, 6, and 12 months in patients with all severities of RI at baseline. In patients with >60 and ≤60 creatinine clearance mL/min at baseline, median progression-free survival was 49.4 months and 47.6 months in transplanted patients and 35.7 months and 29.1 months in non-transplanted patients, respectively. These results provide real-world evidence that patients with NDMM and RI who receive front-line RVd for ≥3 cycles may have improved renal function regardless of transplant status, with renal function no longer affecting the long-term outcome. Clinical trial information: NCT01081028., Competing Interests: Competing interests Sikander Ailawadhi reports serving on a scientific steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting fees from BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectar, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda; and research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectar, GSK, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and Sanofi. Hans C. Lee reports serving on a scientific steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting fees from Allogene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda; and grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Regeneron, and Takeda. James Omel, Kathleen Toomey, James W. Hardin, Brian G.M. Durie, Mohit Narang, Howard R. Terebelo, and Rafat Abonour report serving on a scientific steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb. Cristina J. Gasparetto reports serving on a scientific steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb; support for travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Karyopharm, and Sanofi; advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pfizer; and for Bristol Myers Squibb, Karyopharm, and Sanofi. Sundar Jagannath reports serving on a scientific steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend Biotech, Regeneron Sanofi, and Takeda; support for travel from American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology (ASH), and International Myeloma Society (IMS); participation on data safety monitoring boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi; and leadership or fiduciary role for ASH, IMS, and Society of Hematologic Oncology. Robert M. Rifkin reports serving on a scientific steering committee for Bristol Myers Squibb; employment, stock, and other ownership interests with McKesson; participation on data safety monitoring board for CARsgen; and advisory role with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb; Coherus BioSciences, Genmab, Fresenius Kabi, and Janssen. Ying-Ming Jou reports employment and stock and other ownership interests with Bristol Myers Squibb. Prashant Joshi, Jorge Mouro, and Edward Yu are former employees of Bristol Myers Squibb., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Lenalidomide (R), bortezomib (V), and dexamethasone (d) is a standard-of-care regimen in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM); however, characteristics and outcomes for nontransplanted patients receiving frontline RVd are not well understood., Patients: The Connect Ⓡ MM Registry is a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of NDMM patients., Methods: This analysis investigated characteristics and outcomes of patients who received RVd alone or followed by Rd or R (RVd ± Rd/R) who did not undergo frontline autologous stem cell transplantation., Results: As of August 2021, 314 of 1979 nontransplanted patients received RVd ± Rd/R as initial therapy. Of these, 135 were aged ≤ 65 years and 179 were > 65 years. 108 patients had time to relapse (TTR) of ≤ 12 months and 182 had TTR > 12 months. Baseline characteristics were comparable regardless of TTR and age group except renal function, which was more commonly impaired in older patients. Among patients aged ≤ 65 and > 65 years, median duration of first-line treatment was 6.3 and 9.0 months, median time to next line for those who received second-line therapy was 15.5 and 15.2 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 19.3 and 23.0 months, and median overall survival was 60.0 and 59.1 months, respectively. High-risk disease (per IMWG criteria) and high serum calcium were associated with higher hazard of progression or death; the adjusted PFS hazard ratio with respect to age (≤ 65 vs. > 65 years) based on multivariable analysis was 1.18 (0.89-1.57; P = .25)., Conclusion: These results indicate RVd is active across age groups and provide a better understanding of outcomes with RVd in NDMM., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: This retrospective longitudinal study compared the effectiveness of dexamethasone+lenalidomide (Rd)-based triplet regimens containing proteasome inhibitors (PIs) ixazomib (IRd), carfilzomib (KRd), and bortezomib (VRd) or monoclonal antibodies (MABs) elotuzumab (ERd) and daratumumab (DRd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)-including those with high cytogenetic risk-primarily treated at community oncology clinics in the United States., Methods: Electronic health records of adult RRMM patients in a deidentified real-world database (01/01/2014-09/30/2020) who initiated IRd, KRd, VRd, ERd, or DRd in the second or later line of therapy (LOT) were analyzed. The index date was the date of initiation of each LOT and baseline was the 6-month pre-index period. Duration of therapy (DOT), time to next therapy (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared across regimens with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Of the 1,185 patients contributing 1,332 LOTs, 985 had standard cytogenetic risk (median age, 71 years) and 180 had high risk (median age, 69 years). Compared with other regimens, DRd was associated with longer DOT overall (adjusted hazard ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.42, 2.38] vs. KRd, 1.65 [1.20, 2.28] vs. ERd, 1.58 [1.23, 2.04] vs. IRd, and 1.54 [1.18, 2.00] vs. VRd), and longer TTNT and PFS. KRd was associated with shorter OS compared with DRd (1.45 [1.01, 2.08]) and VRd (1.32 [1.01, 1.73]). High-risk patients had similar outcomes with all triplet regimens., Conclusion: Although DRd improved clinical outcomes overall, Rd-based triplet regimens containing a PI or MAB are similarly effective in high-risk RRMM., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MC, MD, AH, JC, and MSD are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting firm that received research funding from Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., to conduct this study. DC and DMS are employees of Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. LS and SA have received consulting funds from Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

This phase II study evaluated time-limited (24 cycles) treatment with ibrutinib and ixazomib in newly diagnosed (NDWM; n = 9) and relapsed/refractory (RRWM; n = 12) Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM). The overall response rate (ORR) was 76.2% (n = 16) in 21 evaluable patients with no patient achieving a complete response (CR). The median duration of treatment was 15.6 months, and after a median follow-up time of 25.7 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 22.9 months. While the primary end-point was not met (CR rate at any time) and 28.5% discontinued treatment due to toxicity, ibrutinib plus ixazomib led to a clinically meaningful ORR and PFS. Combined Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) and proteasome inhibition merits further evaluation in WM., (© 2024 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In preclinical models, combining a GLUT4 inhibitor with an oxidative phosphorylation inhibitor shows synergistic therapeutic potential against multiple myeloma (MM). Thus, this study evaluated the safety and tolerability of repurposing metformin, a complex I inhibitor, and nelfinavir, a GLUT4 inhibitor, in combination with bortezomib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM that had progressed on all standard of care therapies., Materials and Methods: This trial utilized a 3 + 3 dose escalation design with 3 dose levels planned for up to a maximum of 6 (21-day) cycles. Metformin and nelfinavir were administered for 14 of 21 days, and subQ bortezomib was administered to a portion of patients on days 1, 8, and 15. The primary objective was to determine the maximal tolerated dose, and the secondary objective was to evaluate the safety and overall response rate (ORR) of this combination., Results: Nine patients were accrued with a median age of 65 (range: 42-81) and received a median of 7 prior lines of therapy (Range: 5-12). The first 3 patients received only metformin (500 mg BID) and nelfinavir (1250 mg BID) at the first dose level, with 1 patient experiencing an unconfirmed minimal response (MR) in the first cycle, 1 experiencing progressive disease after 1 cycle of treatment and 1 patient going off treatment prior to assessing response but with signs of progressive disease. Given the limited therapeutic activity, the upfront addition of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m 2 ) was utilized for the subsequent 6 patients accrued. Three of these 6 patients went off study due to progressive disease, 1 patient achieved an unconfirmed partial response after 1 cycle of treatment but reported progressive disease in the subsequent cycle, 1 patient went off study to enter hospice, and the remaining patient experienced stable disease (SD) after receiving 6 cycles of clinical trial treatment. The study was closed before accrual to the next dose level was started., Conclusion: This is the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this repurposed drug combination in this very difficult-to-treat population of relapsed and refractory MM. This was an overall negative study with no ORR observed. Fortunately, 1 patient experienced an SD response, allowing this combination to stabilize their disease until another novel therapy on a clinical trial was available., Competing Interests: Disclosure These authors declare no competing financial interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Survival is poor among patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, previously led to deep, durable responses in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: In this international, open-label, phase 3 trial involving adults with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received two to four regimens previously (including immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and daratumumab) and who had disease refractory to the last regimen, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ide-cel (dose range, 150×10 6 to 450×10 6 CAR-positive T cells) or one of five standard regimens. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were overall response (partial response or better) and overall survival. Safety was assessed., Results: A total of 386 patients underwent randomization: 254 to ide-cel and 132 to a standard regimen. A total of 66% of the patients had triple-class-refractory disease, and 95% had daratumumab-refractory disease. At a median follow-up of 18.6 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.3 months in the ide-cel group, as compared with 4.4 months in the standard-regimen group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). A response occurred in 71% of the patients in the ide-cel group and in 42% of those in the standard-regimen group (P<0.001); a complete response occurred in 39% and 5%, respectively. Data on overall survival were immature. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 93% of the patients in the ide-cel group and in 75% of those in the standard-regimen group. Among the 225 patients who received ide-cel, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 88%, with 5% having an event of grade 3 or higher, and investigator-identified neurotoxic effects occurred in 15%, with 3% having an event of grade 3 or higher., Conclusions: Ide-cel therapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival and improved response as compared with standard regimens in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received two to four regimens previously. The toxicity of ide-cel was consistent with previous reports. (Funded by 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company; KarMMa-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03651128.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Therapeutic strategies that target novel pathways are urgently needed for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Ibrutinib is an oral covalent inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase, which is overexpressed in MM cells. This phase 1 dose-escalation study examined various doses of ibrutinib in combination with standard doses of lenalidomide (25 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg) using a standard 3 + 3 design in RRMM patients. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ibrutinib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Patients (n = 15) had received a median of 4 prior regimens, 53% were triple-class exposed, 33% were penta-exposed, and 54% were lenalidomide-refractory. The MTD of ibrutinib was 840 mg (n = 6) and only 1 dose-limiting toxicity; a grade 3 rash possibly related to ibrutinib was noted. The most common ≥ grade 3 adverse events were rash in 2 (13%), lymphopenia in 2 (13%), leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia all occurring in 3 (20%) patients each. One patient achieved a partial response for an overall response rate of 7%. The clinical benefit rate was 80%. The median time to progression was 3.8 months. Ibrutinib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone appears to be a safe and well-tolerated regimen with reasonable efficacy in heavily pretreated RRMM patients., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Indatuximab ravtansine (BT062) is an antibody-drug conjugate that binds to CD138 and synergistically enhances the antitumor activity of lenalidomide in preclinical models of multiple myeloma. This phase 1/2a study was done to determine the safety, activity, and pharmacokinetics of indatuximab ravtansine in combination with immunomodulatory drugs in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Methods: This open-label, phase 1/2a study took place at nine hospital sites in the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, and ECOG performance status or Zubrod score of 2 or below. Patients who received indatuximab ravtansine with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide) had failure of at least one previous therapy. Patients treated with indatuximab ravtansine with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide) had failure of at least two previous therapies (including lenalidomide and bortezomib) and had progressive disease on or within 60 days of completion of their last treatment. In phase 1, patients received indatuximab ravtansine intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle in escalating dose levels of 80 mg/m 2 , 100 mg/m 2 , and 120 mg/m 2 , with lenalidomide (25 mg; days 1 to 21 every 28 days orally) and dexamethasone (20-40 mg; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days). In phase 2, the recommended phase 2 dose of indatuximab ravtansine was given to an expanded cohort of patients in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The protocol was amended to allow additional patients to be treated with indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide (4 mg; days 1 to 21 every 28 days orally) and dexamethasone, in a more heavily pretreated patient population than in the indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide group. The phase 1 primary endpoint was to determine the dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (recommended phase 2 dose) of indatuximab ravtansine, and the phase 2 primary endpoint was to describe the objective response rate (ORR; partial response or better) and clinical benefit response (ORR plus minor response). All patients were analysed for safety and all patients with post-treatment response assessments were analysed for activity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01638936, and is complete., Findings: 64 (86%) of 74 screened patients were enrolled between July 3, 2012, and June 30, 2015. 47 (73%) patients received indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide (median follow-up 24·2 months [IQR 19·9-45·4]) and 17 (27%) received indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide (24·1 months [17·7-36·7]). The maximum tolerated dose of indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide was 100 mg/m 2 , and defined as the recommended phase 2 dose for indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide. An objective response for indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide was observed in 33 (71·7%) of 46 patients and in 12 (70·6%) of 17 patients in the indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide group. The clinical benefit response for indatuximab ravtansine plus lenalidomide was 85% (39 of 46 patients) and for indatuximab ravtansine plus pomalidomide it was 88% (15 of 17 patients). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in both groups were neutropenia (14 [22%] of 64 patients), anaemia (10 [16%]), and thrombocytopenia (seven [11%]). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that led to discontinuation occurred in 35 (55%) of the 64 patients. Five (8%) patients with a TEAE had a fatal outcome; none was reported as related to indatuximab ravtansine., Interpretation: Indatuximab ravtansine in combination with immunomodulatory drugs shows preliminary antitumor activity, is tolerated, and could be further evaluated in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: Biotest AG., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KRK received honoraria from Incyte, Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, Celgene, Epizyme, Pharmacyclics, Karyopharm and Gilead, consulting fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Denovo Biopharma, Verastem, and Amgen, and received research funding from Takeda. SA received consulting fees or honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Janssen, Beigene, GSK, Oncopeptides, and Novartis. DSS had a membership on an entity's advisory committee with Celgene, BMS, GSK, Takeda, Karyopharma, Cellularity, Janssen, Amgen, and Merck. SJ received honorarium and participated in advisory boards for Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend Biotech, Takeda, Celgene, BMS, and Janssen. NCM was a consultant for Celgene, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, OncoPep, Janssen and Biotest, and is a part owner of OncoPep. SM received speaker fees from Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Karyopharm, BMS, and GSK, and received support for attending meetings or travel from Merck, and participated in advisory boards for Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Janssen, GSK, and Takeda. AC-K participated in an advisory board for OncoPep. SL received honoraria from Celgene, Takeda, Novartis, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, and GSK, and receive consultancy fees from Celgene, Takeda, Novartis, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, and GSK. MR, FB-R., AA-B, FR, EH-K, TH and AW-D are or were employees of Biotest. KCA received advisory board fees from BMS, Celgene, Gilead, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, holds a leadership or fiduciary role in Starton, Raqia, and NextRNA, and is the scientific founder of C4 Therapeutics and OncoPep. SC, AM, GS, and TZ have no interests to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although new multiple myeloma (MM) therapies are effective in alleviating some disease-associated symptoms (e.g. bone pain, fatigue, functional decline), they can result in additional toxicities, further impacting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here, we compared HRQoL and safety of lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone [RVd (n = 445)], bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone [VMP (n = 77)] and Vd or VMP (n = 588) in patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) from the Connect ® MM Registry, a large, USA, multicentre, prospective observational cohort study. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Multiple Myeloma subscale, EuroQol-5D overall score and Bone Pain Inventory HRQoL scores were significantly improved with RVd versus Vd/VMP. Serious adverse event rates were similar in all groups. Treatment with RVd maintained HRQoL in this real-world, largely community-based population of patients with NDMM., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The introduction of immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation has improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients with high-risk multiple myeloma have a poor long-term prognosis. We aimed to address optimal treatment for these patients., Methods: SWOG-1211 is a randomised phase 2 trial comparing eight cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-14 every 21 days), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 21 days), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 every 21 days; RVd) induction followed by dose-attenuated RVd maintenance (bortezomib 1 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 8, and 15; lenalidomide 15 mg orally on days 1-21; dexamethasone 12 mg orally on days 1, 18, and 15 every 28 days) until disease progression with or without elotuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 for cycles 1-2, on days 1 and 11 for cycles 3-8, and on days 1 and 15 during maintenance). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either RVd or RVd-elotuzumab. High-risk multiple myeloma was defined by one of the following: gene expression profiling high risk (GEP hi ), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p) or amp1q21, primary plasma cell leukaemia and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (two times the upper limit of normal or more). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and all analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis among eligible patients who were evaluable for response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01668719., Findings: 100 (RVd n=52, RVd-elotuzumab n=48) patients were enrolled between Oct 27, 2013, and May 15, 2016, across 26 cooperative group institutions in the USA. Median age was 64 years (IQR 57-70, range 36-85). 74 (75%) of 99 had International Staging System stage II or stage III disease, 47 (47%) of 99 had amp1q21, 37 (37%) of 100 had del17p, 11 (11%) of 100 had t(14;16), eight (9%) of 90 were GEP hi , seven (7%) of 100 had primary plasma cell leukaemia, five (5%) of 100 had t(14;20), four (4%) of 100 had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase, and 17 (17%) had two or more features. With a median follow-up of 53 months (IQR 46-59), no difference in median progression-free survival was observed (RVd 33·64 months [95% CI 19·55-not reached], RVd-elotuzumab 31·47 months [18·56-53·98]; hazard ratio 0·968 [80% CI 0·697-1·344]; one-sided p=0·45]. 37 (71%) of 52 patients in the RVd group and 37 (77%) of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. No significant differences in the safety profile were observed, although some notable results included grade 3-5 infections (four [8%] of 52 in the RVd group, eight [17%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group), sensory neuropathy (four [8%] of 52 in the RVd group, six [13%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group), and motor neuropathy (one [2%] of 52 in the RVd group, four [8%] of 48 in the RVd-elotuzumab group). There were no treatment-related deaths in the RVd group and one death in the RVd-elotuzumab group for which study treatment was listed as possibly contributing by the investigator., Interpretation: In the first randomised study of high-risk multiple myeloma reported to date, the addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction and maintenance did not improve patient outcomes. However, progression-free survival in both study groups exceeded the original statistical assumptions and supports the role for continuous proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drug combination maintenance therapy for this patient population., Funding: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved tremendously and optimal utilization of available therapies will ensure maximal patient benefits., Patients and Methods: We report the Southwest Oncology Group randomized phase II trial (S1304) comparing twice weekly low-dose (27 mg/m 2 ; arm 1) to high-dose carfilzomib (56 mg/m 2 ; arm 2), both with dexamethasone, administered for 12 cycles (11 months) for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma with up to six prior lines of therapy (NCT01903811). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and patients on arm 1 could cross-over to arm 2 after progression on treatment., Results: Among 143 enrolled patients, of whom 121 were eligible and analyzable, the overall response rate was 42.8%, with no significant difference between the arms ( P = 0.113). Also, neither the median PFS [5 months and 8 months, respectively; HR, 1.061; 80% Wald confidence interval (CI), 0.821-1.370; P = 0.384] nor the median overall survival were significantly different (26 and 22 months, respectively; HR, 1.149, 80% Wald CI, 0.841-.571; P = 0.284). Sixteen patients crossed over to arm 2 with a median PFS benefit of 3 months. Certain adverse events (AE) were more frequent in arm 2, including fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral neuropathy, but there was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary AEs., Conclusions: This randomized trial did not support a benefit of fixed duration, twice weekly 56 mg/m 2 dosing of carfilzomib over the 27 mg/m 2 dose for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. However, treatment to progression in earlier patient populations with high-dose carfilzomib using different schedules should still be considered as part of the standard of care., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Lack of head-to-head trials highlights a need for comparative real-world evidence of proteasome inhibitors plus Rd. Methods : In this retrospective, US population-representative EHR study of RRMM patients initiating IRd, KRd, or VRd in line of therapy (LOT) ≥2 between 1/2014 and 9/30/2018, 664 patients were treated in LOT ≥2 with: IRd, n = 168; KRd, n = 208; VRd, n = 357. Median age was 71/65/71 years; 67%/70%/75% had a frailty modified  score of intermediate/frail; 20%/28%/13% had high cytogenetic risk in I-/K-/V-Rd groups. Risk of PI-triplet discontinuation was lower for I- vs. K-Rd (HR: 0.71) and I- vs. V-Rd (HR: 0.85); unadjusted, median TTNTs (months): 12.7/8.6/14.2 (LOT ≥2) and 16.8/9.5/14.6 (LOT 2-3) (I-/K-/V-Rd). Adjusted TTNT was comparable between I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2 with a TTNT benefit among intermediate/frail patients for I- (HR: 0.70; P=0.04) and V- (HR: 0.73; P<0.05) vs. K-Rd. I/K/V-Rd triplets were comparable in TTNT overall, but IRd and VRd were associated with longer TTNT in intermediate/frail patients than KRd. The results suggest a trial-efficacy/real-world-effectiveness gap, especially for KRd, underlining the limited generalizability of trial results where >50% of patients are excluded. Individualized treatment based on patient characteristics, such as frailty status, is especially pertinent in an elderly RRMM population.

This study analyzed 91 multiple myeloma patients who received two monoclonal antibodies, Daratumumab and Elotuzumab, over a year and report the adverse event profile, infusion practices and utilization of these drugs in the real world. All current reported data on monoclonal antibodies is from clinical trials, without any real-world experience. Patients from Mayo Clinic Florida or Arizona diagnosed with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who were treated with Daratumumab or Elotuzumab alone or in combination between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016 were included in the analysis. Daratumumab-treated patients (n = 78) were more heavily pre-treated than that in published clinical trials, whereas the elotuzumab patient (n = 13) profile was similar to that published before. Infusion time was on average 2 hours less than the prescribing guidelines and premedication use varied noticeably after the initial monoclonal antibody infusion, with an overall decrease over time. We noted higher than reported haematologic adverse events, especially neutropenia and fewer non-haematologic adverse events. 91.7% infusion-related reactions were observed during the first monoclonal antibody infusion, with a subsequent decrease. All infusion-related reactions were grade 2 or less, and none of the patients discontinued treatment due to infusion-related reactions. Baseline allergy profile or laboratory tests were not associated with the likelihood of developing monoclonal antibody-related infusion-related reactions. The real-world safety profile of monoclonal antibodies showed varying adverse event patterns than those reported in previous clinical trials. The infusion-related reaction patterns were similar to previous reports. Despite changes in premedication regimens safety was maintained in succeeding infusions. Such treatment utilization data is vital to broaden our knowledge of approved therapeutic agents and maximize their benefits for patients.

Purpose: Multiple new regimens are available for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this context, it is increasingly important to understand the differential costs of regimens used to treat RRMM., Methods: A treatment journey for RRMM during a 12-month period of therapy was developed to reflect real-world clinical practice based on current treatment guidelines and input from hematologists/oncologists. The journey incorporated prescreening visits, laboratory tests, regimen-specific premedication, treatment-related costs, medical costs, and indirect costs. A cost model was constructed from the standard RRMM treatment pathway to compare overall, direct, and indirect costs across therapies over a 12-month period from initiation of second-line therapy and to determine cost offsets (incremental costs) associated with use of ixazomib-based therapy versus comparator regimens. According to the clinical input, the standard pathway was modified for patients with high unmet need to determine specific cost offsets in these subgroups., Findings: Total costs ranged from $93,683 for bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone to $315,296 for daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone. Drug cost comprised the highest proportion (83%-98%) of total costs of second-line therapy across regimens, which were generally highest for regimens based on recently approved agents. Indirect costs were higher for regimens that required more frequent or longer durations of drug administration, and lower for all-oral regimens. Costs were reduced among frail patients because of the use of adjusted dosing, whereas indirect costs were increased for regimens that required a greater number of clinic visits among patients with barriers to physician access., Implications: Cost model analyses highlight the differential direct and indirect costs associated with multiple regimens for the treatment of RRMM, including many recent new regimens. The results indicate the lower treatment burden and indirect costs associated with administering all-oral regimens compared with regimens that require frequent and/or lengthy subcutaneous or intravenous infusions. Understanding comparative costs associated with the treatment journeys of different patients with RRMM may help inform payer and patient therapeutic choices., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The treatment approaches for Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) are largely based upon information from single-arm phase II trials, without comparative data. We compared the efficacy of two commonly used regimens in routine practice (bendamustine-rituximab (BR) and dexamethasone, rituximab plus cyclophosphamide (DRC)) and evaluated their activity with respect to the patients' MYD88 L265P mutation status. Of 160 consecutive patients, 60 received BR (43 with relapsed/refractory WM) and 100 received DRC (50 had relapsed/refractory WM). In the treatment-naïve setting, overall response rate (ORR) was 93% with BR versus 96% with DRC (p = 0.55). Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) with BR and DRC was 88 and 61%, respectively (p = 0.07). In salvage setting, ORR was 95% with BR versus 87% with DRC, p = 0.45; median PFS with BR was 58 versus 32 months with DRC (2-year PFS was 66 versus 53%; p = 0.08). Median disease-specific survival was not reached with BR versus 166 months with DRC (p = 0.51). The time-to-event endpoints and depth of response were independent of the MYD88 mutation status. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events of both regimens were comparable. A trend for longer PFS was observed with BR although the regimens have comparable toxicities. The activity of BR and DRC appears to be unaffected by patients' MYD88 mutation status.

Despite therapeutic advances, multiple myeloma remains incurable, with limited options for patients with refractory disease. We conducted a large, multi-cohort clinical trial testing various doses and treatment schedules of pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pom/dex) in patients with refractory multiple myeloma. Overall, 345 patients were enrolled to six cohorts based on number and type of prior lines of therapy, pomalidomide dose and schedule. Median prior lines of therapy were three with near universal prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors and/or immunomodulatory drugs. A confirmed response rate of 35% was noted for all cohorts (range 23-65%) with higher responses in cohorts with fewer prior lines of therapy. Median time to confirmed response was ⩽2 months and the longest progression-free survival and overall survival seen in any cohort were 13.1 and 47.9 months, respectively. Observed adverse reactions were as expected, with myelosuppression and fatigue being the most common hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events (AEs), respectively. Longer durations of treatment and response, higher response rates and fewer AEs were noted with the 2 mg pomalidomide dose. This is the longest follow-up data for Pom/dex in refractory multiple myeloma and will help shape the real-world utilization of this regimen.

Background: We assessed the economic value of carfilzomib 56 mg/m 2 and dexamethasone (Kd56) vs. bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM) using ENDEAVOR trial results., Methods: Cost-effectiveness of Kd56 vs. Vd was assessed using a partitioned survival model by estimating progression-free survival, overall survival, and direct costs over a lifetime horizon. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) survival data were extrapolated after matching registry and ENDEAVOR patients. Utilities were sourced from the literature and mapped from patient-reported quality of life in ENDEAVOR to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from life-years (LYs)., Results: The model predicted an average gain of 1.66 LYs and 1.50 QALYs with Kd56 vs. Vd, and lifetime additional costs of $182,699, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $121,828/QALY gained. The ICER was $114,793/QALY in patients with 1 prior treatment; $99,263/QALY in those not transplanted, and <$150,000/QALY up to an 85% discount in bortezomib price., Conclusions: Kd56 is cost-effective for patients with R/RMM at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Trial data in the model may limit generalizability; however, SEER registry data mitigates this challenge. Kd56 provides additional value in key subgroups, and remains cost-effective after steep comparator discounts.

The management of Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM) relies predominantly on small trials, one of which has demonstrated activity of dexamethasone, rituximab and cyclophosphamide (DRC) in the frontline setting. We report on the efficacy of DRC, focusing on relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients. Ibrutinib, a recently approved agent in WM demonstrated limited activity in patients with MYD88 WT genotype. Herein, we additionally report on the activity of DRC based on the MYD88 L265P mutation status. Of 100 WM patients evaluated between January 2007 and December 2014 who received DRC, 50 had R/R WM. The overall response rate (ORR) was 87%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-next-therapy (TTNT) were 32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15-51) and 50 (95% CI: 35-60) months, respectively. In the previously untreated cohort (n = 50), the ORR was 96%, and the median PFS and TTNT were 34 months (95% CI: 23-not reached [NR]) and NR (95% CI: 37-NR), respectively. Twenty-five (86%) of 29 genotyped patients harbored MYD88 L265P . The response rates and outcomes were independent of MYD88 mutation status. Grade ≥3 adverse effects included neutropenia (20%), thrombocytopenia (7%) and infections (3%). Similar to the frontline setting, DRC is an effective and well-tolerated salvage regimen for WM. In contrast to ibrutinib, DRC offers a less expensive, fixed-duration option, with preliminary data suggesting efficacy independent of the patients' MYD88 status., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM-d), daratumumab monotherapy (DARA), and carfilzomib monotherapy (CAR) have been approved for use in the treatment of patients with heavily pretreated relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the US, based on findings from the MM-002, SIRIUS, and PX-171-003-A1 studies, respectively. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of POM-d, DARA, and CAR in this patient population from a US payer's perspective., Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the cost and health outcomes over a 3-year time horizon in 3 health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. The main efficacy data source was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison using data from the aforementioned studies. Direct medical costs were considered, including: treatment acquisition and administration (initial line and subsequent line), pre- and post-medication, prophylaxis treatment, adverse event management, and health care resource utilization. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. A scenario analysis that assumed equal efficacy across all 3 treatments was conducted. Costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated and discounted at 3% per annum., Findings: Over 3 years, the use of POM-d was associated with similar life-years and quality-adjusted life-years gained compared with DARA and CAR (incremental: life-years, +0.02 and +0.07, respectively; quality-adjusted life-years, +0.01 and +0.05), and with a cost less than that of DARA (-$8,919) and similar to that of CAR (-$195). Sensitivity analyses illustrated that the results were sensitive to progression-free survival, treatment duration, and drug costs. An equal efficacy scenario resulted in cost-savings relative to those of both DARA and CAR (-$11,779 and -$12,595)., Implications: POM-d may be a cost-effective treatment option relative to DARA or CAR in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM in the US., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This phase 1/2 trial evaluated the maximum tolerated doses, safety, and efficacy of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVD) combination in patients with relapsed lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM). In phase 1, dose level 1 consisted of pomalidomide (4 mg by mouth on days 1 to 21), IV or subcutaneous bortezomib (1.0 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22), and dexamethasone (40 mg by mouth on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) given every 28 days. Bortezomib was increased to 1.3 mg/m 2 for dose level 2 and adopted in the phase 2 expansion cohort. We describe the results of 50 patients. Objective response rate was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73-94) among all evaluable patients (stringent complete response, 12%; complete response, 10%; very good partial response, 28%; and partial response, 36%) and 100% among high-risk patients. Within a median follow-up of 42 months, 20% remain progression free, 66% are alive, and 4% remain on treatment. Median progression-free survival was 13.7 months (95% CI, 9.6-17.7). The most common toxicities were neutropenia (96%), leukopenia (84%), thrombocytopenia (82%), anemia (74%), and fatigue (72%); however, the majority of these were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade ≥3 toxicities included neutropenia (70%), leukopenia (36%), and lymphopenia (20%). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 patients. In conclusion, PVD is a highly effective combination in lenalidomide-refractory MM patients. Weekly administration of bortezomib enhanced tolerability and convenience. Toxicities are manageable, mostly consisting of mild cytopenias with no significant neuropathy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01212952., (© 2017 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Importance: Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an IgM-associated lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, has witnessed several practice-altering advances in recent years. With availability of a wider array of therapies, the management strategies have become increasingly complex. Our multidisciplinary team appraised studies published or presented up to December 2015 to provide consensus recommendations for a risk-adapted approach to WM, using a grading system., Observations: Waldenström macroglobulinemia remains a rare, incurable cancer, with a heterogeneous disease course. The major classes of effective agents in WM include monoclonal antibodies, alkylating agents, purine analogs, proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. However, the highest-quality evidence from rigorously conducted randomized clinical trials remains scant., Conclusions and Relevance: Recognizing the paucity of data, we advocate participation in clinical trials, if available, at every stage of WM. Specific indications exist for initiation of therapy. Outside clinical trials, based on the synthesis of available evidence, we recommend bendamustine-rituximab as primary therapy for bulky disease, profound hematologic compromise, or constitutional symptoms attributable to WM. Dexamethasone-rituximab-cyclophosphamide is an alternative, particularly for nonbulky WM. Routine rituximab maintenance should be avoided. Plasma exchange should be promptly initiated before cytoreduction for hyperviscosity-related symptoms. Stem cell harvest for future use may be considered in first remission for patients 70 years or younger who are potential candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation. At relapse, retreatment with the original therapy is reasonable in patients with prior durable responses (time to next therapy ≥3 years) and good tolerability to previous regimen. Ibrutinib is efficacious in patients with relapsed or refractory disease harboring MYD88 L265P mutation. In the absence of neuropathy, a bortezomib-rituximab-based option is reasonable for relapsed or refractory disease. In select patients with chemosensitive disease, autologous stem cell transplantation should be considered at first or second relapse. Everolimus and purine analogs are suitable options for refractory or multiply relapsed WM. Our recommendations are periodically updated as new, clinically relevant information emerges.

Proteasome inhibitors have become an integral part of myeloma therapy. Considerable efforts have gone into optimizing this therapeutic approach to obtain maximal proteasome inhibition with least toxicity. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to enter the clinic and has been studied as a single agent as well as in various combinations. The current trial was designed to examine the efficacy and toxicity of combining 2 different doses of ixazomib (4 mg and 5.5 mg given weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) with 40 mg weekly of dexamethasone, in relapsed myeloma. Seventy patients were enrolled, 35 patients randomly assigned to each ixazomib dose. Overall, 30 (43%; 95% confidence interval, 31-55) of the patients achieved a confirmed partial response or better, with 31% achieving a response with 4 mg and 54% with 5.5 mg of ixazomib. The median event-free survival (EFS) for the entire study population was 8.4 months; 1-year overall survival was 96%. The EFS was 5.7 months for patients with prior bortezomib exposure and 11.0 months for bortezomib-naïve patients. A grade 3 or 4 adverse event considered at least possibly related to treatment was seen in 11 (32%) patients at 4 mg and in 21 (60%) at 5.5 mg. Dose reductions were more frequent with 5.5 mg dose. Overall, the ixazomib with dexamethasone has good efficacy in relapsed myeloma, is well-tolerated and with higher response rate at 5.5 mg, albeit with more toxicity. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01415882., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)

We compared the three arms of the MM-015 randomized phase III clinical trial [melphalan and prednisone (MP), MP plus lenalidomide (MPR), and MPR plus lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R)] to determine whether the addition of lenalidomide maintenance therapy for primary treatment of multiple myeloma is cost-effective. We used progression-free survival and adverse event data from the MM-015 study for the analysis. Two novel measures of cost-effectiveness termed the Average Cumulative Cost per Patient (ACCP) and the Average Cumulative Cost per Progression-Free Survivor (ACCPFS) were developed for the purpose of this analysis. The ACCP of MP was USD 18,218, compared to USD 167,862 for MPR and USD 309,173 for MPR-R. The ACCPFS was highest with MPR at USD 1,555,443, while MP was USD 313,592 and MPR-R was USD 690,111. MPR-R is superior to MPR in terms of preventing the first progression after initial therapy. However, the addition of lenalidomide to MP in the induction and also in the maintenance setting leads to significant costs., (© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Over-expression of anti-apoptotic BCL2 has been reported in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), but targeting BCL2 alone did not yield appreciable clinical results. However, it was demonstrated that BCL2 inhibitors enhanced the clinical efficacy of chemo and immunotherapeutics. Lenalidomide, an immunomodulator, is clinically effective in CLL and can enhance the anti-CLL effects of CD20 targeting monoclonal antibody, rituximab. Here, we investigated the mechanism of immune-directed killing of lenalidomide in CLL and evaluated if concurrent targeting of CD20 and BCL2 can enhance this effect. In vitro treatment with lenalidomide enhanced the antibody-mediated cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) directed by rituximab in autologous leukaemic cells. Furthermore, peripheral blood mononuclear cells obtained from patients after treatment with lenalidomide and rituximab showed increased ADCC in vitro versus control (pre-treatment sample). This effect was further enhanced with pre-treatment of tumour cells with AT-101 (a BH3 mimetic that functions as BCL2 antagonist). Our data suggest that AT-101 in combination with lenalidomide can potentially be an effective therapeutic regimen for CLL., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Novel agents have provided a new foundation for multiple myeloma therapies. When combined with other anti-myeloma agents, these compounds significantly enhance clinical efficacy. High-dose steroids are frequently used in anti-myeloma combination regimens; however, the doses employed are often poorly tolerated, especially in patients with concurrent comorbid conditions. We hypothesized that a steroid-independent combination regimen could be developed without significant compromise of efficacy. The availability of such a regimen will be important for patients whose concurrent ailments make them poor candidates for steroid containing anti-myeloma regimens. A phase II single institute, non-randomized clinical trial was conducted to investigate a novel steroid-free three-drug combination of bortezomib (V), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (D), and thalidomide (T), the VDT regimen. Forty-three newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients requiring treatment were enrolled on this study. The overall response rate and complete response (CR) + near complete response (nCR) rate was 78% and 35%, respectively. Median time to progression was 29·5 months. Fatigue, rash, neuropathy, constipation and infections were the most common side effects. We concluded that VDT is a tolerable and an effective regimen capable of inducing high response rates and can be employed in patients considered to be poor candidates for steroid-based treatment regimens., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)