Search

Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, also known as veno-occlusive disease (SOS/VOD), is a potentially life-threatening complication that can develop after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). While SOS/VOD may resolve within a few weeks in the majority of patients with mild-to-moderate disease, the most severe forms result in multiorgan dysfunction and are associated with a high mortality rate (>80%). Therefore, careful surveillance may allow early detection of SOS/VOD, particularly as the licensed available drug is proven to be effective and reduce mortality. The aim of this work is to propose an international consensus guideline for the treatment and prevention of SOS/VOD in adult patients, on behalf of an international expert group, This work was made possible thanks to the support of the Association for Training, Education, Research, in Hematology, Immunology and Transplantation (ATHERIT), which received an unrestricted educational grant from JAZZ pharmaceuticals

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML) can progress to secondary acute myeloid leukaemia (sAML). We compared the outcome of 4214 sAML patients who received allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) from an unrelated (62%) or human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-identical sibling donor (38%) according the underlying disease: MDS (n = 3541), CMML (n = 251) or MPN (n = 422). After a median follow up of 46·5 months, the estimated 3-year progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire group was 36% (34-37%) and 41% (40-43%), respectively. The cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 37% (35-39%) and 27% (26-29%), respectively. In a multivariable analysis for OS, besides age (P

The introduction of new agents and management strategies over the past decade has resulted in a major step change in treatment outcomes with deepening responses and increased survival for patients with multiple myeloma. In daily clinical practice, healthcare professionals are now faced with challenges including, optimal treatment sequencing and changing treatment goals. In light of this, a group of experts met to discuss diagnostic and treatment guidelines, examine current clinical practice, and consider how new clinical trial data may be integrated into the management of multiple myeloma in the future. © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits. © 2018 The Authors

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.

Carfilzomib, a proteasome inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy and in combination with dexamethasone or lenalidomidedexamethasone (Rd) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. The approval of carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) was based on results from the randomized, phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391), which showed KRd significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs Rd (median 26.3 vs 17.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.690; P = 0.0001). This subgroup analysis of ASPIRE evaluated KRd vs Rd by number of previous lines of therapy and previous exposure to bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide. Treatment with KRd led to a 12-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd after first relapse (HR 0.713) and a 9-month improvement after >= 2 previous lines of therapy (HR 0.720). Treatment with KRd led to an approximate 8-month improvement vs Rd in median PFS in bortezomib-exposed patients (HR 0.699), a 15-month improvement in thalidomide-exposed patients (HR 0.587) and a 5-month improvement in lenalidomideexposed patients (HR 0.796). Objective response and complete response or better rates were higher with KRd vs Rd, irrespective of previous treatment. KRd had a favorable benefit-risk profile and should be considered an appropriate treatment option for patients with 1 or >= 2 previous lines of therapy and those previously exposed to bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide.

Carfilzomib, a proteasome inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy and in combination with dexamethasone or lenalidomide- dexamethasone (Rd) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. The approval of carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) was based on results from the randomized, phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391), which showed KRd significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs Rd (median 26.3 vs 17.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.690; P = 0.0001). This subgroup analysis of ASPIRE evaluated KRd vs Rd by number of previous lines of therapy and previous exposure to bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide. Treatment with KRd led to a 12-month improvement in median PFS vs Rd after first relapse (HR 0.713) and a 9-month improvement after 2 previous lines of therapy (HR 0.720). Treatment with KRd led to an approximate 8-month improvement vs Rd in median PFS in bortezomib-exposed patients (HR 0.699), a 15-month improvement in thalidomide-exposed patients (HR 0.587) and a 5-month improvement in lenalidomideexposed patients (HR 0.796). Objective response and complete response or better rates were higher with KRd vs Rd, irrespective of previous treatment. KRd had a favorable benefit-risk profile and should be considered an appropriate treatment option for patients with 1 or 2 previous lines of therapy and those previously exposed to bortezomib, thalidomide or lenalidomide. © The Author(s) 2017.

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