Multiple Myeloma

The investigational drug motixafortide shows promise for improving the stem cell transplantation process in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to research led by investigators at Washington University in St. Louis.

Motixafortide, a   novel cyclic-peptide CXCR4 inhibitor with extended in vivo activity , appears to increase the number of stem cells that can be harvested from transplant candidates, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful transplant, the authors reported.

An application for a new drug approval is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration.

In the prospective, international, phase 3 GENESIS clinical trial , motixafortide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) – the standard therapy for mobilizing stem cells – significantly increased the number stem cells harvested, when compared with standard therapy plus placebo. After one collection procedure, the combination approach allowed for harvesting of an optimal number of cells in 88% versus 9% of patients who received G-CSF plus placebo. After two collections, optimal collection occurred in 92% versus 26% of patients in the groups, respectively, first author Zachary D. Crees, MD, and colleagues found.

Motixafortide plus G-CSF was also associated with a tenfold increase in the number of primitive stem cells that could be collected. These stem cells are particularly effective for reconstituting red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets, which all are important for patients’ recovery, they noted.

Stem cells mobilized by motixafortide were also associated with increased expression of genes and genetic pathways involved in self-renewal and regeneration, which are also of benefit for increasing the effectiveness of stem cell transplantation.

The findings were published in Nature Medicine.

“Stem cell transplantation is central to the treatment of multiple myeloma, but some patients don’t see as much benefit because standard therapies can’t harvest enough stem cells for the transplant to be effective, senior author John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, stated in a news release . “This study suggests motixafortide works extremely well in combination with [G-CSF] in mobilizing stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma.

“The study also found that the combination worked rapidly and was generally well tolerated by patients,” added Dr. DiPersio, the Virginia E. & Sam J. Goldman Professor of Medicine at Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

Dr. DiPersio is the lead author of another study investigating therapies beyond stem cell transplants. He and his colleagues recently reported the first comprehensive genomic and protein-based analysis of bone marrow samples from patients with multiple myeloma in an effort to identify targets for immunotherapies.

That study, published online in Cancer Research, identified 53 genes that could be targets, including 38 that are responsible for creating abnormal proteins on the surface of multiple myeloma cells; 11 of the 38 had not been previously identified as potential targets.

Dr. DiPersio and Dr. Crees, an assistant professor of medicine and the assistant clinical director of the Washington University Center for Gene and Cellular Immunotherapy, are also evaluating motixafortide’s potential for mobilizing stem cells to support “the genetic correction of the inherited disease sickle cell anemia.”

“This work is of particular importance because patients with sickle cell disease can’t be treated with G-CSF … due to dangerous side effects,” the news release stated. “The hope is that development of a novel, effective, and well-tolerated stem cell mobilizing regimen for a viral-based gene therapy approach using CRISPR-based gene editing will lead to improved outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease.”

The study published in Nature Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health and BioLineRx, which makes motixafortide. The study published in Cancer Research was supported by the Paula C. And Rodger O. Riney Blood Cancer Research Fund and the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Crees reported research funding from BioLineRx. Dr. DiPersio reported relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, WUGEN, Incyte, RiverVest Venture Partners, Cellworks Group, Amphivena Therapeutics, NeoImmune Tech, Macrogenics, and BioLineRx.

Correction, 4/26/23: The headline on an earlier version of this article mischaracterized the study findings.

The investigational drug motixafortide shows promise for improving the stem cell transplantation process in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to research led by investigators at Washington University in St. Louis.

Motixafortide, a   novel cyclic-peptide CXCR4 inhibitor with extended in vivo activity , appears to increase the number of stem cells that can be harvested from transplant candidates, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful transplant, the authors reported.

An application for a new drug approval is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration.

In the prospective, international, phase 3 GENESIS clinical trial , motixafortide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) – the standard therapy for mobilizing stem cells – significantly increased the number stem cells harvested, when compared with standard therapy plus placebo. After one collection procedure, the combination approach allowed for harvesting of an optimal number of cells in 88% versus 9% of patients who received G-CSF plus placebo. After two collections, optimal collection occurred in 92% versus 26% of patients in the groups, respectively, first author Zachary D. Crees, MD, and colleagues found.

Motixafortide plus G-CSF was also associated with a tenfold increase in the number of primitive stem cells that could be collected. These stem cells are particularly effective for reconstituting red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets, which all are important for patients’ recovery, they noted.

Stem cells mobilized by motixafortide were also associated with increased expression of genes and genetic pathways involved in self-renewal and regeneration, which are also of benefit for increasing the effectiveness of stem cell transplantation.

The findings were published in Nature Medicine.

“Stem cell transplantation is central to the treatment of multiple myeloma, but some patients don’t see as much benefit because standard therapies can’t harvest enough stem cells for the transplant to be effective, senior author John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, stated in a news release . “This study suggests motixafortide works extremely well in combination with [G-CSF] in mobilizing stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma.

“The study also found that the combination worked rapidly and was generally well tolerated by patients,” added Dr. DiPersio, the Virginia E. & Sam J. Goldman Professor of Medicine at Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

Dr. DiPersio is the lead author of another study investigating therapies beyond stem cell transplants. He and his colleagues recently reported the first comprehensive genomic and protein-based analysis of bone marrow samples from patients with multiple myeloma in an effort to identify targets for immunotherapies.

That study, published online in Cancer Research, identified 53 genes that could be targets, including 38 that are responsible for creating abnormal proteins on the surface of multiple myeloma cells; 11 of the 38 had not been previously identified as potential targets.

Dr. DiPersio and Dr. Crees, an assistant professor of medicine and the assistant clinical director of the Washington University Center for Gene and Cellular Immunotherapy, are also evaluating motixafortide’s potential for mobilizing stem cells to support “the genetic correction of the inherited disease sickle cell anemia.”

“This work is of particular importance because patients with sickle cell disease can’t be treated with G-CSF … due to dangerous side effects,” the news release stated. “The hope is that development of a novel, effective, and well-tolerated stem cell mobilizing regimen for a viral-based gene therapy approach using CRISPR-based gene editing will lead to improved outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease.”

The study published in Nature Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health and BioLineRx, which makes motixafortide. The study published in Cancer Research was supported by the Paula C. And Rodger O. Riney Blood Cancer Research Fund and the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Crees reported research funding from BioLineRx. Dr. DiPersio reported relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, WUGEN, Incyte, RiverVest Venture Partners, Cellworks Group, Amphivena Therapeutics, NeoImmune Tech, Macrogenics, and BioLineRx.

Correction, 4/26/23: The headline on an earlier version of this article mischaracterized the study findings.

The investigational drug motixafortide shows promise for improving the stem cell transplantation process in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to research led by investigators at Washington University in St. Louis.

Motixafortide, a   novel cyclic-peptide CXCR4 inhibitor with extended in vivo activity , appears to increase the number of stem cells that can be harvested from transplant candidates, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful transplant, the authors reported.

An application for a new drug approval is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration.

In the prospective, international, phase 3 GENESIS clinical trial , motixafortide plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) – the standard therapy for mobilizing stem cells – significantly increased the number stem cells harvested, when compared with standard therapy plus placebo. After one collection procedure, the combination approach allowed for harvesting of an optimal number of cells in 88% versus 9% of patients who received G-CSF plus placebo. After two collections, optimal collection occurred in 92% versus 26% of patients in the groups, respectively, first author Zachary D. Crees, MD, and colleagues found.

Motixafortide plus G-CSF was also associated with a tenfold increase in the number of primitive stem cells that could be collected. These stem cells are particularly effective for reconstituting red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets, which all are important for patients’ recovery, they noted.

Stem cells mobilized by motixafortide were also associated with increased expression of genes and genetic pathways involved in self-renewal and regeneration, which are also of benefit for increasing the effectiveness of stem cell transplantation.

The findings were published in Nature Medicine.

“Stem cell transplantation is central to the treatment of multiple myeloma, but some patients don’t see as much benefit because standard therapies can’t harvest enough stem cells for the transplant to be effective, senior author John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, stated in a news release . “This study suggests motixafortide works extremely well in combination with [G-CSF] in mobilizing stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma.

“The study also found that the combination worked rapidly and was generally well tolerated by patients,” added Dr. DiPersio, the Virginia E. & Sam J. Goldman Professor of Medicine at Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University.

Dr. DiPersio is the lead author of another study investigating therapies beyond stem cell transplants. He and his colleagues recently reported the first comprehensive genomic and protein-based analysis of bone marrow samples from patients with multiple myeloma in an effort to identify targets for immunotherapies.

That study, published online in Cancer Research, identified 53 genes that could be targets, including 38 that are responsible for creating abnormal proteins on the surface of multiple myeloma cells; 11 of the 38 had not been previously identified as potential targets.

Dr. DiPersio and Dr. Crees, an assistant professor of medicine and the assistant clinical director of the Washington University Center for Gene and Cellular Immunotherapy, are also evaluating motixafortide’s potential for mobilizing stem cells to support “the genetic correction of the inherited disease sickle cell anemia.”

“This work is of particular importance because patients with sickle cell disease can’t be treated with G-CSF … due to dangerous side effects,” the news release stated. “The hope is that development of a novel, effective, and well-tolerated stem cell mobilizing regimen for a viral-based gene therapy approach using CRISPR-based gene editing will lead to improved outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease.”

The study published in Nature Medicine was supported by the National Institutes of Health and BioLineRx, which makes motixafortide. The study published in Cancer Research was supported by the Paula C. And Rodger O. Riney Blood Cancer Research Fund and the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Crees reported research funding from BioLineRx. Dr. DiPersio reported relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, WUGEN, Incyte, RiverVest Venture Partners, Cellworks Group, Amphivena Therapeutics, NeoImmune Tech, Macrogenics, and BioLineRx.

Correction, 4/26/23: The headline on an earlier version of this article mischaracterized the study findings.

Tarek Mouhieddine, MD, grew up as a child of war-torn Lebanon. Now building his career as a New York–based hematologist oncologist, Dr. Mouhieddine works in the trenches of a very different kind of battle. His mission: Find a way to reverse multiple myeloma in its mysterious early “smoldering” stages and give patients a new lease on life before the cancer takes hold.

“If we start treatment earlier, in the smoldering phase, maybe there is a chance of actually curing the disease and completely getting rid of it,” said Dr. Mouhieddine, 31, a research fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York. “We haven’t proven that yet, and it’s going to take years before we’re able to prove it. I’m hoping to be one of those spearheading the initiative.”

Dr. Tarek Mouhieddine

As he develops clinical trials, the young physician scientist has another focus: A deeply personal connection to the very disease he’s trying to cure. Last year Dr. Mouhieddine diagnosed his aunt back in Lebanon with multiple myeloma. “I have always been close to her, and I’m like her son,” he said, and her situation is especially scary because she lives in a country where treatment options are limited.

Dr. Mouhieddine was born and raised in Beirut, the son of a sports journalist father and a mother who worked in a bank. Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, shortly before his birth, but political instability returned when he was a child.

“Everything was a disaster,” he recalled. “There was a period of time when there were bombs throughout the city because certain politicians were being targeted. I remember when groups of people would have gunfights in the street.”

Dr. Mouhieddine attended the American University of Beirut, then after college and medical school there, he headed to the United States.

“I wanted to make a difference in medicine. And I knew that if I stayed back home, I wouldn’t be able to,” he said. Fortunately, “everybody has made me feel that I really belong here, and I’ve never felt like I’m an outsider.”

Early on, as he went through fellowships and residency, he developed an interest in multiple myeloma.

Ajai Chari, MD, a colleague of Dr. Mouhieddine’s at Icahn School of Medicine, said in an interview, “I remember meeting him at a conference before he had even started an internal medicine residency, let alone a hematology oncology fellowship. He was already certain he wanted to work in multiple myeloma, due to his work at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.”

Myeloma was especially intriguing to Dr. Mouhieddine because of the rapid rate of progress in treating the disease. “Over the past 10 years, the myeloma field has advanced at such an extremely fast pace, more than any other cancer,” he said. “Maybe 15 years ago, you would tell someone with newly diagnosed myeloma that they had a chance for an average of another 2 years. Now, we tell patients they have 10 years to live on average, which means you could live 15 or 20 years. That alone was astounding to me and piqued my interest in myeloma.”

At the same time, smoldering myeloma – which can be discovered during routine blood work – remains little understood. As the National Cancer Institute explains, “smoldering myeloma is a precancerous condition that alters certain proteins in blood and/or increases plasma cells in bone marrow, but it does not cause symptoms of disease. About half of those diagnosed with the condition, however, will develop multiple myeloma within 5 years.”

“If we understand what drives smoldering myeloma, we may be able to prevent it from progressing to its active form,” said hematologist oncologist Samir Parekh, MD, who works with Dr. Mouhieddine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Or at the minimum, we could better predict who will progress so we can tailor therapy for high-risk patients and minimize toxicity by not overtreating patients who may not need therapy.”

Dr. Mouhieddine’s current work is focusing on developing clinical trials to test whether immunotherapy can snuff out myeloma when it’s at the smoldering stage, “before anything bad happens.

“If a myeloma patient comes in with renal failure, and we treat the myeloma at that stage, it doesn’t mean that the patient’s kidneys are gonna go back to normal. A lot of the damage can be permanent,” he said. “Even when you treat multiple myeloma, and it goes into remission, it ends up coming back. And you just have to go from one therapy to the other.”

In contrast, a successful treatment for smoldering myeloma would prevent progression to the full disease. In other words, it would be a cure – which is now elusive.

Specifically, Dr. Mouhieddine hopes to test whether bispecific antibodies, a type of immunotherapy that enlists the body’s T cells to kill myeloma cells, will be effective in the smoldering phase. Bispecific antibodies are now being explored as treatments for full multiple myeloma when the immune system is weaker, he said, and they may be even more effective earlier, when the body is better equipped to fight off the disease.

Dr. Mouhieddine hopes better treatments for multiple myeloma itself will help save his 64-year-old aunt Hassana, back in Beirut. He diagnosed her in 2022 after she told him that she felt tired all the time and underwent various tests. The woman he calls his “second mom” is doing well, despite struggles to buy medication due to the lack of access to bank funds in Lebanon.

Dr. Tarek Mouhieddine

Tarek Mouhieddine, MD, grew up as a child of war-torn Lebanon. Now building his career as a New York–based hematologist oncologist, Dr. Mouhieddine works in the trenches of a very different kind of battle. His mission: Find a way to reverse multiple myeloma in its mysterious early “smoldering” stages and give patients a new lease on life before the cancer takes hold.

“If we start treatment earlier, in the smoldering phase, maybe there is a chance of actually curing the disease and completely getting rid of it,” said Dr. Mouhieddine, 31, a research fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York. “We haven’t proven that yet, and it’s going to take years before we’re able to prove it. I’m hoping to be one of those spearheading the initiative.”

Dr. Tarek Mouhieddine

As he develops clinical trials, the young physician scientist has another focus: A deeply personal connection to the very disease he’s trying to cure. Last year Dr. Mouhieddine diagnosed his aunt back in Lebanon with multiple myeloma. “I have always been close to her, and I’m like her son,” he said, and her situation is especially scary because she lives in a country where treatment options are limited.

Dr. Mouhieddine was born and raised in Beirut, the son of a sports journalist father and a mother who worked in a bank. Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, shortly before his birth, but political instability returned when he was a child.

“Everything was a disaster,” he recalled. “There was a period of time when there were bombs throughout the city because certain politicians were being targeted. I remember when groups of people would have gunfights in the street.”

Dr. Mouhieddine attended the American University of Beirut, then after college and medical school there, he headed to the United States.

“I wanted to make a difference in medicine. And I knew that if I stayed back home, I wouldn’t be able to,” he said. Fortunately, “everybody has made me feel that I really belong here, and I’ve never felt like I’m an outsider.”

Early on, as he went through fellowships and residency, he developed an interest in multiple myeloma.

Ajai Chari, MD, a colleague of Dr. Mouhieddine’s at Icahn School of Medicine, said in an interview, “I remember meeting him at a conference before he had even started an internal medicine residency, let alone a hematology oncology fellowship. He was already certain he wanted to work in multiple myeloma, due to his work at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.”

Myeloma was especially intriguing to Dr. Mouhieddine because of the rapid rate of progress in treating the disease. “Over the past 10 years, the myeloma field has advanced at such an extremely fast pace, more than any other cancer,” he said. “Maybe 15 years ago, you would tell someone with newly diagnosed myeloma that they had a chance for an average of another 2 years. Now, we tell patients they have 10 years to live on average, which means you could live 15 or 20 years. That alone was astounding to me and piqued my interest in myeloma.”

At the same time, smoldering myeloma – which can be discovered during routine blood work – remains little understood. As the National Cancer Institute explains, “smoldering myeloma is a precancerous condition that alters certain proteins in blood and/or increases plasma cells in bone marrow, but it does not cause symptoms of disease. About half of those diagnosed with the condition, however, will develop multiple myeloma within 5 years.”

“If we understand what drives smoldering myeloma, we may be able to prevent it from progressing to its active form,” said hematologist oncologist Samir Parekh, MD, who works with Dr. Mouhieddine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Or at the minimum, we could better predict who will progress so we can tailor therapy for high-risk patients and minimize toxicity by not overtreating patients who may not need therapy.”

Dr. Mouhieddine’s current work is focusing on developing clinical trials to test whether immunotherapy can snuff out myeloma when it’s at the smoldering stage, “before anything bad happens.

“If a myeloma patient comes in with renal failure, and we treat the myeloma at that stage, it doesn’t mean that the patient’s kidneys are gonna go back to normal. A lot of the damage can be permanent,” he said. “Even when you treat multiple myeloma, and it goes into remission, it ends up coming back. And you just have to go from one therapy to the other.”

In contrast, a successful treatment for smoldering myeloma would prevent progression to the full disease. In other words, it would be a cure – which is now elusive.

Specifically, Dr. Mouhieddine hopes to test whether bispecific antibodies, a type of immunotherapy that enlists the body’s T cells to kill myeloma cells, will be effective in the smoldering phase. Bispecific antibodies are now being explored as treatments for full multiple myeloma when the immune system is weaker, he said, and they may be even more effective earlier, when the body is better equipped to fight off the disease.

Dr. Mouhieddine hopes better treatments for multiple myeloma itself will help save his 64-year-old aunt Hassana, back in Beirut. He diagnosed her in 2022 after she told him that she felt tired all the time and underwent various tests. The woman he calls his “second mom” is doing well, despite struggles to buy medication due to the lack of access to bank funds in Lebanon.

Dr. Tarek Mouhieddine

Tarek Mouhieddine, MD, grew up as a child of war-torn Lebanon. Now building his career as a New York–based hematologist oncologist, Dr. Mouhieddine works in the trenches of a very different kind of battle. His mission: Find a way to reverse multiple myeloma in its mysterious early “smoldering” stages and give patients a new lease on life before the cancer takes hold.

“If we start treatment earlier, in the smoldering phase, maybe there is a chance of actually curing the disease and completely getting rid of it,” said Dr. Mouhieddine, 31, a research fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York. “We haven’t proven that yet, and it’s going to take years before we’re able to prove it. I’m hoping to be one of those spearheading the initiative.”

Dr. Tarek Mouhieddine

As he develops clinical trials, the young physician scientist has another focus: A deeply personal connection to the very disease he’s trying to cure. Last year Dr. Mouhieddine diagnosed his aunt back in Lebanon with multiple myeloma. “I have always been close to her, and I’m like her son,” he said, and her situation is especially scary because she lives in a country where treatment options are limited.

Dr. Mouhieddine was born and raised in Beirut, the son of a sports journalist father and a mother who worked in a bank. Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, shortly before his birth, but political instability returned when he was a child.

“Everything was a disaster,” he recalled. “There was a period of time when there were bombs throughout the city because certain politicians were being targeted. I remember when groups of people would have gunfights in the street.”

Dr. Mouhieddine attended the American University of Beirut, then after college and medical school there, he headed to the United States.

“I wanted to make a difference in medicine. And I knew that if I stayed back home, I wouldn’t be able to,” he said. Fortunately, “everybody has made me feel that I really belong here, and I’ve never felt like I’m an outsider.”

Early on, as he went through fellowships and residency, he developed an interest in multiple myeloma.

Ajai Chari, MD, a colleague of Dr. Mouhieddine’s at Icahn School of Medicine, said in an interview, “I remember meeting him at a conference before he had even started an internal medicine residency, let alone a hematology oncology fellowship. He was already certain he wanted to work in multiple myeloma, due to his work at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.”

Myeloma was especially intriguing to Dr. Mouhieddine because of the rapid rate of progress in treating the disease. “Over the past 10 years, the myeloma field has advanced at such an extremely fast pace, more than any other cancer,” he said. “Maybe 15 years ago, you would tell someone with newly diagnosed myeloma that they had a chance for an average of another 2 years. Now, we tell patients they have 10 years to live on average, which means you could live 15 or 20 years. That alone was astounding to me and piqued my interest in myeloma.”

At the same time, smoldering myeloma – which can be discovered during routine blood work – remains little understood. As the National Cancer Institute explains, “smoldering myeloma is a precancerous condition that alters certain proteins in blood and/or increases plasma cells in bone marrow, but it does not cause symptoms of disease. About half of those diagnosed with the condition, however, will develop multiple myeloma within 5 years.”

“If we understand what drives smoldering myeloma, we may be able to prevent it from progressing to its active form,” said hematologist oncologist Samir Parekh, MD, who works with Dr. Mouhieddine at Icahn School of Medicine. “Or at the minimum, we could better predict who will progress so we can tailor therapy for high-risk patients and minimize toxicity by not overtreating patients who may not need therapy.”

Dr. Mouhieddine’s current work is focusing on developing clinical trials to test whether immunotherapy can snuff out myeloma when it’s at the smoldering stage, “before anything bad happens.

“If a myeloma patient comes in with renal failure, and we treat the myeloma at that stage, it doesn’t mean that the patient’s kidneys are gonna go back to normal. A lot of the damage can be permanent,” he said. “Even when you treat multiple myeloma, and it goes into remission, it ends up coming back. And you just have to go from one therapy to the other.”

In contrast, a successful treatment for smoldering myeloma would prevent progression to the full disease. In other words, it would be a cure – which is now elusive.

Specifically, Dr. Mouhieddine hopes to test whether bispecific antibodies, a type of immunotherapy that enlists the body’s T cells to kill myeloma cells, will be effective in the smoldering phase. Bispecific antibodies are now being explored as treatments for full multiple myeloma when the immune system is weaker, he said, and they may be even more effective earlier, when the body is better equipped to fight off the disease.

Dr. Mouhieddine hopes better treatments for multiple myeloma itself will help save his 64-year-old aunt Hassana, back in Beirut. He diagnosed her in 2022 after she told him that she felt tired all the time and underwent various tests. The woman he calls his “second mom” is doing well, despite struggles to buy medication due to the lack of access to bank funds in Lebanon.

Dr. Tarek Mouhieddine

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers are calling for the extent of skin erythema to be considered as an outcome measure in patients who develop chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (ccGVHD) after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.

“There is value in collecting erythema serially over time as a continuous variable on a scale of 0%-100%” to identify high-risk patients for prophylactic and preemptive treatment, say investigators led by dermatologist Emily Baumrin, MD, director of the GVHD clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

They report a study of more than 300 patients with ccGVHD, which found that the extent of skin erythema strongly predicted the risk for death from GVHD.

Of the 267 patients with cutaneous GVHD at baseline, 103 patients died, the majority without a relapse of their blood cancer.

With additional research, erythema body surface area (BSA) should be “introduced as an outcome measure in clinical practice and trials,” they conclude.

At the moment, the NIH Skin Score is commonly used for risk assessment in cutaneous GVHD, but the researchers found that erythema BSA out-predicts this score.

The investigators explain that the NIH Skin Score does incorporate erythema surface area, but it does so as a categorical variable, not a continuous variable. Among other additional factors, it also includes assessments of skin sclerosis, which the investigators found was not associated with GVHD mortality.

Overall, the composite score waters down the weight given to erythema BSA because the score is “driven by stable sclerotic features, and erythema changes are missed,” they explain.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Study details

The study included 469 patients with chronic GVHD (cGVHD), of whom 267 (57%) had cutaneous cGVHD at enrollment and 89 (19%) developed skin involvement subsequently.

All of the patients were on systemic immunosuppression for GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.

They were enrolled from 2007 through 2012 at nine U.S. medical centers – all members of the Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease Consortium – and they were followed until 2018.

Erythema BSA and NIH Skin Score were assessed at baseline and then every 3-6 months. Erythema was the first manifestation of skin involvement in the majority of patients, with a median surface area involvement of 11% at baseline.

The study team found that the extent of erythema at first follow-up visit was associated with both nonrelapse mortality (hazard ratio, 1.33 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 1.28 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001), whereas extent of sclerotic skin involvement was not associated with either.

Participants in the study were predominantly White. The investigators note that “BSA assessments of erythema may be less reliable in patients with darker skin.”

The work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baumrin had no disclosures; one coauthor is an employee of CorEvitas, and two others reported grants/adviser fees from several companies, including Janssen, Mallinckrodt, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers are calling for the extent of skin erythema to be considered as an outcome measure in patients who develop chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (ccGVHD) after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.

“There is value in collecting erythema serially over time as a continuous variable on a scale of 0%-100%” to identify high-risk patients for prophylactic and preemptive treatment, say investigators led by dermatologist Emily Baumrin, MD, director of the GVHD clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

They report a study of more than 300 patients with ccGVHD, which found that the extent of skin erythema strongly predicted the risk for death from GVHD.

Of the 267 patients with cutaneous GVHD at baseline, 103 patients died, the majority without a relapse of their blood cancer.

With additional research, erythema body surface area (BSA) should be “introduced as an outcome measure in clinical practice and trials,” they conclude.

At the moment, the NIH Skin Score is commonly used for risk assessment in cutaneous GVHD, but the researchers found that erythema BSA out-predicts this score.

The investigators explain that the NIH Skin Score does incorporate erythema surface area, but it does so as a categorical variable, not a continuous variable. Among other additional factors, it also includes assessments of skin sclerosis, which the investigators found was not associated with GVHD mortality.

Overall, the composite score waters down the weight given to erythema BSA because the score is “driven by stable sclerotic features, and erythema changes are missed,” they explain.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Study details

The study included 469 patients with chronic GVHD (cGVHD), of whom 267 (57%) had cutaneous cGVHD at enrollment and 89 (19%) developed skin involvement subsequently.

All of the patients were on systemic immunosuppression for GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.

They were enrolled from 2007 through 2012 at nine U.S. medical centers – all members of the Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease Consortium – and they were followed until 2018.

Erythema BSA and NIH Skin Score were assessed at baseline and then every 3-6 months. Erythema was the first manifestation of skin involvement in the majority of patients, with a median surface area involvement of 11% at baseline.

The study team found that the extent of erythema at first follow-up visit was associated with both nonrelapse mortality (hazard ratio, 1.33 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 1.28 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001), whereas extent of sclerotic skin involvement was not associated with either.

Participants in the study were predominantly White. The investigators note that “BSA assessments of erythema may be less reliable in patients with darker skin.”

The work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baumrin had no disclosures; one coauthor is an employee of CorEvitas, and two others reported grants/adviser fees from several companies, including Janssen, Mallinckrodt, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers are calling for the extent of skin erythema to be considered as an outcome measure in patients who develop chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (ccGVHD) after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.

“There is value in collecting erythema serially over time as a continuous variable on a scale of 0%-100%” to identify high-risk patients for prophylactic and preemptive treatment, say investigators led by dermatologist Emily Baumrin, MD, director of the GVHD clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

They report a study of more than 300 patients with ccGVHD, which found that the extent of skin erythema strongly predicted the risk for death from GVHD.

Of the 267 patients with cutaneous GVHD at baseline, 103 patients died, the majority without a relapse of their blood cancer.

With additional research, erythema body surface area (BSA) should be “introduced as an outcome measure in clinical practice and trials,” they conclude.

At the moment, the NIH Skin Score is commonly used for risk assessment in cutaneous GVHD, but the researchers found that erythema BSA out-predicts this score.

The investigators explain that the NIH Skin Score does incorporate erythema surface area, but it does so as a categorical variable, not a continuous variable. Among other additional factors, it also includes assessments of skin sclerosis, which the investigators found was not associated with GVHD mortality.

Overall, the composite score waters down the weight given to erythema BSA because the score is “driven by stable sclerotic features, and erythema changes are missed,” they explain.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Study details

The study included 469 patients with chronic GVHD (cGVHD), of whom 267 (57%) had cutaneous cGVHD at enrollment and 89 (19%) developed skin involvement subsequently.

All of the patients were on systemic immunosuppression for GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplants for various blood cancers.

They were enrolled from 2007 through 2012 at nine U.S. medical centers – all members of the Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease Consortium – and they were followed until 2018.

Erythema BSA and NIH Skin Score were assessed at baseline and then every 3-6 months. Erythema was the first manifestation of skin involvement in the majority of patients, with a median surface area involvement of 11% at baseline.

The study team found that the extent of erythema at first follow-up visit was associated with both nonrelapse mortality (hazard ratio, 1.33 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 1.28 per 10% BSA increase; P < .001), whereas extent of sclerotic skin involvement was not associated with either.

Participants in the study were predominantly White. The investigators note that “BSA assessments of erythema may be less reliable in patients with darker skin.”

The work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baumrin had no disclosures; one coauthor is an employee of CorEvitas, and two others reported grants/adviser fees from several companies, including Janssen, Mallinckrodt, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Following stem cell transplant, intensive maintenance therapy with the triplet of carlfilzimb, lenalidomide, and dexamathase (KRd) achieved superior progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) versus lenalidomide alone (K), according to interim results of the phase 3 ATLAS trial.

These results, published in The Lancet Oncology, are not yet practice-changing, but they add to a growing body of evidence supporting this approach.

“Bearing in mind that ATLAS trial data come from unplanned interim analysis, we found that the benefit of combination therapy (KRd) is clearly seen, especially for standard risk patients. We think that, since there are no vast differences in toxicities, there is quite convincing data for considering KRd maintenance for the post autologous stem cell transplantation treatment of MM patients,” ATLAS study coauthor Andrzej Jakubowiak, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

Among patients receiving KRd (n = 93), median PFS was 59 months (95% confidence interval) compared with 41 months in the R group (hazard ratio, 0.51, P = .012). These results come from data collected between 2016 and 2020, from 12 academic and clinical centers in the United States and Poland. The cohort included 180 adults randomly assigned to each study arm, (47% were female, median age 59 years) The most common adverse events were neutropenia 48% vs. 60%, thrombocytopenia 13% vs. 7%, and lower respiratory tract infections 8% vs. 1% in the KRd and R groups, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in 30% of patients in the KRd arm (including one death due to severe pneumonia) and 22% in the R group.

“As expected, there is a slightly higher toxicity in the KRd arm but mostly low-grade events occurred. We believe in KRd maintenance because it provides a longer remission for a relatively small price. The longer a patient is in remission, the better chance that, if relapse does occur, there will be more therapeutic options available to return to remission,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

Although all patients in the trial received stem cell therapy, the induction therapies were varied.

“We designed the study similarly to the CALGB maintenance trial, one of the key phase 3 trials leading to the approval of lenalidomide as post transplantation maintenance. With so many changes currently occurring MM therapies, having a fixed induction can be its own limitation. Importantly, with our study design we found that all comers may benefit from KRd maintenance,” he said.

It is important to note that KRd treatment occurred for 36 cycles unless a patient withdrew, died, or achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) status.

“Per study design, the duration of KRd treatment was shortened to eight cycles for patients without high-risk cytogenetics who achieved MRD-negativity after cycle six. For these patients, treatment was converted from KRd to R maintenance as of cycle nine. Despite treatment deescalation, this subset of patients (44% of all KRd patients) contributed strongly to KRd PFS. While this approach will need to be validated in a randomized setting, the results provide a proof of concept that if you achieve MRD-negative status and have standard risk cytogenetics, you don’t have to go on a long KRd treatment,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

Urvi Shah, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted the importance of the study as “the first randomized phase-3 trial suggesting progression free survival superiority of an alternative maintenance therapy to lenalidomide alone.”

Dr. Shah did have concerns about the applicability of the study, especially regarding the use of varied induction regimens, saying, “Only 11%-13% of patients in this study got lenalidomide during induction and 4%-6% got carfilzomib induction. Therefore, most patients were getting new drugs during maintenance different from their induction agents, which has the downside of leaving fewer options for patients when they relapse.”

Asked about these concerns, Dr. Jakubowiak responded, “Our team’s perspective is to ‘buy’ the longest remission possible using the most effective available treatment strategy. If we do this, there is a good chance that when the patient relapses, we will have availability of new drugs.”

He added the caveat: “There’s a small proportion of patients who will be progressing while on treatment and will be potentially more challenging to treat if already given KRd. It has been proposed that KRd maintenance might be primarily considered for patients with high-risk cytogenetics. However, at this interim analysis, there were not enough events in high-risk patients to comment on KRd’s usefulness as a maintenance therapy in this population.”

The KRd arm of the ATLAS trial had a high dropout-rate for reasons other than toxicity and death, but “because consent for collecting data was discontinued, we can’t really dig deeper into explaining why they dropped out, but half of the patients who discontinued in the KRd arm did so after already completing KRd treatment and were already on R maintenance. Once taking this into consideration, the dropout rates in both arms are similar, and the data does not appear skewed,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

In conclusion, Dr. Jakubowiak noted that the phase-2 FORTE trial, also published recently in The Lancet Oncology, provides supportive data for maintenance therapy with KR versus K.

“It is quite important that the results of both trials be presented to public so that people know that KR or KRd could be reasonably considered for posttransplant maintenance,” he said.

Dr. Shah opined that as yet, the results of neither study were practice changing for maintenance therapy in the United States. She said she would consider using KR maintenance for select patients with high-risk myeloma who received these drugs as induction therapy and where there was concern about early progression, given that this aggressive treatment allows for a longer time in remission.

Dr. Shah noted that in these trials, overall survival data on dual maintenance is still being awaited, and that those results would be important when considering whether to switch patients to a more expensive, toxic, and involved therapy that required regular infusion visits for maintenance.

What Dr. Shah found the most groundbreaking and applicable aspect of the study was that “in the ATLAS trial, they’re adapting treatments to disease response, and if patients achieve MRD negativity, which we know is the best kind of response, therapy was deescalated to lenalidomide single agent. I think this is something that we will see more of in newer study designs and this will help individualize patient treatments to their response.”

Dr. Jakubowiak disclosed consulting fees and honoraria for lectures and presentations from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene (Bristol Myers Squibb), Gracell, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Shah disclosed ties with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen.

Following stem cell transplant, intensive maintenance therapy with the triplet of carlfilzimb, lenalidomide, and dexamathase (KRd) achieved superior progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) versus lenalidomide alone (K), according to interim results of the phase 3 ATLAS trial.

These results, published in The Lancet Oncology, are not yet practice-changing, but they add to a growing body of evidence supporting this approach.

“Bearing in mind that ATLAS trial data come from unplanned interim analysis, we found that the benefit of combination therapy (KRd) is clearly seen, especially for standard risk patients. We think that, since there are no vast differences in toxicities, there is quite convincing data for considering KRd maintenance for the post autologous stem cell transplantation treatment of MM patients,” ATLAS study coauthor Andrzej Jakubowiak, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

Among patients receiving KRd (n = 93), median PFS was 59 months (95% confidence interval) compared with 41 months in the R group (hazard ratio, 0.51, P = .012). These results come from data collected between 2016 and 2020, from 12 academic and clinical centers in the United States and Poland. The cohort included 180 adults randomly assigned to each study arm, (47% were female, median age 59 years) The most common adverse events were neutropenia 48% vs. 60%, thrombocytopenia 13% vs. 7%, and lower respiratory tract infections 8% vs. 1% in the KRd and R groups, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in 30% of patients in the KRd arm (including one death due to severe pneumonia) and 22% in the R group.

“As expected, there is a slightly higher toxicity in the KRd arm but mostly low-grade events occurred. We believe in KRd maintenance because it provides a longer remission for a relatively small price. The longer a patient is in remission, the better chance that, if relapse does occur, there will be more therapeutic options available to return to remission,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

Although all patients in the trial received stem cell therapy, the induction therapies were varied.

“We designed the study similarly to the CALGB maintenance trial, one of the key phase 3 trials leading to the approval of lenalidomide as post transplantation maintenance. With so many changes currently occurring MM therapies, having a fixed induction can be its own limitation. Importantly, with our study design we found that all comers may benefit from KRd maintenance,” he said.

It is important to note that KRd treatment occurred for 36 cycles unless a patient withdrew, died, or achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) status.

“Per study design, the duration of KRd treatment was shortened to eight cycles for patients without high-risk cytogenetics who achieved MRD-negativity after cycle six. For these patients, treatment was converted from KRd to R maintenance as of cycle nine. Despite treatment deescalation, this subset of patients (44% of all KRd patients) contributed strongly to KRd PFS. While this approach will need to be validated in a randomized setting, the results provide a proof of concept that if you achieve MRD-negative status and have standard risk cytogenetics, you don’t have to go on a long KRd treatment,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

Urvi Shah, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted the importance of the study as “the first randomized phase-3 trial suggesting progression free survival superiority of an alternative maintenance therapy to lenalidomide alone.”

Dr. Shah did have concerns about the applicability of the study, especially regarding the use of varied induction regimens, saying, “Only 11%-13% of patients in this study got lenalidomide during induction and 4%-6% got carfilzomib induction. Therefore, most patients were getting new drugs during maintenance different from their induction agents, which has the downside of leaving fewer options for patients when they relapse.”

Asked about these concerns, Dr. Jakubowiak responded, “Our team’s perspective is to ‘buy’ the longest remission possible using the most effective available treatment strategy. If we do this, there is a good chance that when the patient relapses, we will have availability of new drugs.”

He added the caveat: “There’s a small proportion of patients who will be progressing while on treatment and will be potentially more challenging to treat if already given KRd. It has been proposed that KRd maintenance might be primarily considered for patients with high-risk cytogenetics. However, at this interim analysis, there were not enough events in high-risk patients to comment on KRd’s usefulness as a maintenance therapy in this population.”

The KRd arm of the ATLAS trial had a high dropout-rate for reasons other than toxicity and death, but “because consent for collecting data was discontinued, we can’t really dig deeper into explaining why they dropped out, but half of the patients who discontinued in the KRd arm did so after already completing KRd treatment and were already on R maintenance. Once taking this into consideration, the dropout rates in both arms are similar, and the data does not appear skewed,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

In conclusion, Dr. Jakubowiak noted that the phase-2 FORTE trial, also published recently in The Lancet Oncology, provides supportive data for maintenance therapy with KR versus K.

“It is quite important that the results of both trials be presented to public so that people know that KR or KRd could be reasonably considered for posttransplant maintenance,” he said.

Dr. Shah opined that as yet, the results of neither study were practice changing for maintenance therapy in the United States. She said she would consider using KR maintenance for select patients with high-risk myeloma who received these drugs as induction therapy and where there was concern about early progression, given that this aggressive treatment allows for a longer time in remission.

Dr. Shah noted that in these trials, overall survival data on dual maintenance is still being awaited, and that those results would be important when considering whether to switch patients to a more expensive, toxic, and involved therapy that required regular infusion visits for maintenance.

What Dr. Shah found the most groundbreaking and applicable aspect of the study was that “in the ATLAS trial, they’re adapting treatments to disease response, and if patients achieve MRD negativity, which we know is the best kind of response, therapy was deescalated to lenalidomide single agent. I think this is something that we will see more of in newer study designs and this will help individualize patient treatments to their response.”

Dr. Jakubowiak disclosed consulting fees and honoraria for lectures and presentations from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene (Bristol Myers Squibb), Gracell, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Shah disclosed ties with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen.

Following stem cell transplant, intensive maintenance therapy with the triplet of carlfilzimb, lenalidomide, and dexamathase (KRd) achieved superior progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) versus lenalidomide alone (K), according to interim results of the phase 3 ATLAS trial.

These results, published in The Lancet Oncology, are not yet practice-changing, but they add to a growing body of evidence supporting this approach.

“Bearing in mind that ATLAS trial data come from unplanned interim analysis, we found that the benefit of combination therapy (KRd) is clearly seen, especially for standard risk patients. We think that, since there are no vast differences in toxicities, there is quite convincing data for considering KRd maintenance for the post autologous stem cell transplantation treatment of MM patients,” ATLAS study coauthor Andrzej Jakubowiak, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

Among patients receiving KRd (n = 93), median PFS was 59 months (95% confidence interval) compared with 41 months in the R group (hazard ratio, 0.51, P = .012). These results come from data collected between 2016 and 2020, from 12 academic and clinical centers in the United States and Poland. The cohort included 180 adults randomly assigned to each study arm, (47% were female, median age 59 years) The most common adverse events were neutropenia 48% vs. 60%, thrombocytopenia 13% vs. 7%, and lower respiratory tract infections 8% vs. 1% in the KRd and R groups, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in 30% of patients in the KRd arm (including one death due to severe pneumonia) and 22% in the R group.

“As expected, there is a slightly higher toxicity in the KRd arm but mostly low-grade events occurred. We believe in KRd maintenance because it provides a longer remission for a relatively small price. The longer a patient is in remission, the better chance that, if relapse does occur, there will be more therapeutic options available to return to remission,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

Although all patients in the trial received stem cell therapy, the induction therapies were varied.

“We designed the study similarly to the CALGB maintenance trial, one of the key phase 3 trials leading to the approval of lenalidomide as post transplantation maintenance. With so many changes currently occurring MM therapies, having a fixed induction can be its own limitation. Importantly, with our study design we found that all comers may benefit from KRd maintenance,” he said.

It is important to note that KRd treatment occurred for 36 cycles unless a patient withdrew, died, or achieved minimal residual disease (MRD) status.

“Per study design, the duration of KRd treatment was shortened to eight cycles for patients without high-risk cytogenetics who achieved MRD-negativity after cycle six. For these patients, treatment was converted from KRd to R maintenance as of cycle nine. Despite treatment deescalation, this subset of patients (44% of all KRd patients) contributed strongly to KRd PFS. While this approach will need to be validated in a randomized setting, the results provide a proof of concept that if you achieve MRD-negative status and have standard risk cytogenetics, you don’t have to go on a long KRd treatment,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

Urvi Shah, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, noted the importance of the study as “the first randomized phase-3 trial suggesting progression free survival superiority of an alternative maintenance therapy to lenalidomide alone.”

Dr. Shah did have concerns about the applicability of the study, especially regarding the use of varied induction regimens, saying, “Only 11%-13% of patients in this study got lenalidomide during induction and 4%-6% got carfilzomib induction. Therefore, most patients were getting new drugs during maintenance different from their induction agents, which has the downside of leaving fewer options for patients when they relapse.”

Asked about these concerns, Dr. Jakubowiak responded, “Our team’s perspective is to ‘buy’ the longest remission possible using the most effective available treatment strategy. If we do this, there is a good chance that when the patient relapses, we will have availability of new drugs.”

He added the caveat: “There’s a small proportion of patients who will be progressing while on treatment and will be potentially more challenging to treat if already given KRd. It has been proposed that KRd maintenance might be primarily considered for patients with high-risk cytogenetics. However, at this interim analysis, there were not enough events in high-risk patients to comment on KRd’s usefulness as a maintenance therapy in this population.”

The KRd arm of the ATLAS trial had a high dropout-rate for reasons other than toxicity and death, but “because consent for collecting data was discontinued, we can’t really dig deeper into explaining why they dropped out, but half of the patients who discontinued in the KRd arm did so after already completing KRd treatment and were already on R maintenance. Once taking this into consideration, the dropout rates in both arms are similar, and the data does not appear skewed,” said Dr. Jakubowiak.

In conclusion, Dr. Jakubowiak noted that the phase-2 FORTE trial, also published recently in The Lancet Oncology, provides supportive data for maintenance therapy with KR versus K.

“It is quite important that the results of both trials be presented to public so that people know that KR or KRd could be reasonably considered for posttransplant maintenance,” he said.

Dr. Shah opined that as yet, the results of neither study were practice changing for maintenance therapy in the United States. She said she would consider using KR maintenance for select patients with high-risk myeloma who received these drugs as induction therapy and where there was concern about early progression, given that this aggressive treatment allows for a longer time in remission.

Dr. Shah noted that in these trials, overall survival data on dual maintenance is still being awaited, and that those results would be important when considering whether to switch patients to a more expensive, toxic, and involved therapy that required regular infusion visits for maintenance.

What Dr. Shah found the most groundbreaking and applicable aspect of the study was that “in the ATLAS trial, they’re adapting treatments to disease response, and if patients achieve MRD negativity, which we know is the best kind of response, therapy was deescalated to lenalidomide single agent. I think this is something that we will see more of in newer study designs and this will help individualize patient treatments to their response.”

Dr. Jakubowiak disclosed consulting fees and honoraria for lectures and presentations from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene (Bristol Myers Squibb), Gracell, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Shah disclosed ties with Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen.

The Food and Drug Administration has requested that Oncopeptides withdraw the U.S. marketing authorization for its multiple myeloma drug Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), the company announced in a press release.
 

The drug was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA in February 2021, for use in combination with dexamethasone in adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy.

However, the phase 3 OCEAN study raised concerns about safety, as it showed a higher mortality associated with melphalan flufenamide in the experimental arm, compared with pomalidomide (Pomalyst).

The FDA already flagged this issue in July 2021, issuing a safety alert flagging the increased risk for death observed in the OCEAN trial among patients receiving melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide (47.6% vs. 43.4%) and a 5.3-month shorter overall survival.

The issue was also discussed in September 2022 by FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, which voted 14-to-2 against maintaining the accelerated approval, citing an unfavorable risk/benefit profile.

The company stopped marketing the drug in the United States in October 2021 at the FDA’s request but continued to make it available for patients already undergoing treatment.

However, in March 2022, Oncopeptides rescinded the letter that voluntarily withdrew the agent from market, after further review of overall survival data from the OCEAN trial led the company to reconsider its decision. Notably, marketing efforts were still discontinued while the company worked with the FDA to interpret the data, it stated in the press release.

That review of the data showed that progression-free survival was 42% higher with melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide and overall response rates were 32.1% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Now, the FDA has requested that the company withdraw its U.S. marketing authorization.

“We respect FDA’s accelerated approval regulations,” Jakob Lindberg, CEO of Oncopeptides commented in the press release.

However, he also added, “multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, and the treatment options for patients with triple-class refractory disease will ultimately become exhausted. The OCEAN study demonstrated clinical benefit for multiple myeloma patients, in particular for nontransplanted elderly patients where the unmet medical need remains very high.”

Commercialization of the drug in Europe, under the brand name Pepaxti, is ongoing.

“Pepaxti has a full approval from the European Medicines Agency, EMA, since Aug. 18, 2022, and was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, in the U.K. on Nov 11, 2022,” the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has requested that Oncopeptides withdraw the U.S. marketing authorization for its multiple myeloma drug Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), the company announced in a press release.
 

The drug was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA in February 2021, for use in combination with dexamethasone in adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy.

However, the phase 3 OCEAN study raised concerns about safety, as it showed a higher mortality associated with melphalan flufenamide in the experimental arm, compared with pomalidomide (Pomalyst).

The FDA already flagged this issue in July 2021, issuing a safety alert flagging the increased risk for death observed in the OCEAN trial among patients receiving melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide (47.6% vs. 43.4%) and a 5.3-month shorter overall survival.

The issue was also discussed in September 2022 by FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, which voted 14-to-2 against maintaining the accelerated approval, citing an unfavorable risk/benefit profile.

The company stopped marketing the drug in the United States in October 2021 at the FDA’s request but continued to make it available for patients already undergoing treatment.

However, in March 2022, Oncopeptides rescinded the letter that voluntarily withdrew the agent from market, after further review of overall survival data from the OCEAN trial led the company to reconsider its decision. Notably, marketing efforts were still discontinued while the company worked with the FDA to interpret the data, it stated in the press release.

That review of the data showed that progression-free survival was 42% higher with melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide and overall response rates were 32.1% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Now, the FDA has requested that the company withdraw its U.S. marketing authorization.

“We respect FDA’s accelerated approval regulations,” Jakob Lindberg, CEO of Oncopeptides commented in the press release.

However, he also added, “multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, and the treatment options for patients with triple-class refractory disease will ultimately become exhausted. The OCEAN study demonstrated clinical benefit for multiple myeloma patients, in particular for nontransplanted elderly patients where the unmet medical need remains very high.”

Commercialization of the drug in Europe, under the brand name Pepaxti, is ongoing.

“Pepaxti has a full approval from the European Medicines Agency, EMA, since Aug. 18, 2022, and was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, in the U.K. on Nov 11, 2022,” the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has requested that Oncopeptides withdraw the U.S. marketing authorization for its multiple myeloma drug Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide), the company announced in a press release.
 

The drug was granted an accelerated approval by the FDA in February 2021, for use in combination with dexamethasone in adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy.

However, the phase 3 OCEAN study raised concerns about safety, as it showed a higher mortality associated with melphalan flufenamide in the experimental arm, compared with pomalidomide (Pomalyst).

The FDA already flagged this issue in July 2021, issuing a safety alert flagging the increased risk for death observed in the OCEAN trial among patients receiving melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide (47.6% vs. 43.4%) and a 5.3-month shorter overall survival.

The issue was also discussed in September 2022 by FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, which voted 14-to-2 against maintaining the accelerated approval, citing an unfavorable risk/benefit profile.

The company stopped marketing the drug in the United States in October 2021 at the FDA’s request but continued to make it available for patients already undergoing treatment.

However, in March 2022, Oncopeptides rescinded the letter that voluntarily withdrew the agent from market, after further review of overall survival data from the OCEAN trial led the company to reconsider its decision. Notably, marketing efforts were still discontinued while the company worked with the FDA to interpret the data, it stated in the press release.

That review of the data showed that progression-free survival was 42% higher with melphalan flufenamide versus pomalidomide and overall response rates were 32.1% versus 26.5%, respectively.

Now, the FDA has requested that the company withdraw its U.S. marketing authorization.

“We respect FDA’s accelerated approval regulations,” Jakob Lindberg, CEO of Oncopeptides commented in the press release.

However, he also added, “multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, and the treatment options for patients with triple-class refractory disease will ultimately become exhausted. The OCEAN study demonstrated clinical benefit for multiple myeloma patients, in particular for nontransplanted elderly patients where the unmet medical need remains very high.”

Commercialization of the drug in Europe, under the brand name Pepaxti, is ongoing.

“Pepaxti has a full approval from the European Medicines Agency, EMA, since Aug. 18, 2022, and was approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, in the U.K. on Nov 11, 2022,” the company noted.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published on Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Patients with multiple myeloma were diagnosed at a significantly higher rate through emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with before.

Why this matters

While trying to avoid COVID-19 infection, patients ultimately diagnosed with multiple myeloma may have delayed interactions with healthcare professionals and consequently delayed their cancer diagnosis.

Study design

Researchers collected data on newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma from January 2019 until July 2021 across five institutions (three universities and two hospitals) in England. In total, 323 patients with multiple myeloma were identified.

Patients were divided into two groups: those diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2019, until Jan. 31, 2020, or pre-COVID, and those diagnosed from Feb. 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, or post COVID.
 

Key results

Among all patients, 80 (24.8%) were diagnosed with smoldering multiple myeloma and 243 (75.2%) were diagnosed with multiple myeloma requiring treatment.

Significantly more patients in the post-COVID group were diagnosed with myeloma through the emergency route (45.5% post COVID vs. 32.7% pre-COVID; P = .03).

Clinical complications leading to emergency admission prior to a myeloma diagnosis also differed between the two cohorts: Acute kidney injury accounted for most emergency admissions in the pre-COVID cohort while skeletal-related events, including spinal cord compression, were the major causes for diagnosis through the emergency route in the post-COVID cohort.

Patients who were diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma pre-COVID were more likely to be treated with a triplet rather than doublet combination compared with those diagnosed in the post-COVID period (triplet pre-COVID 79.1%, post COVID 63.75%; P = .014).

Overall survival at 1 year was not significantly different between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups: 88.2% pre-COVID, compared with 87.8% post COVID. 

Overall, the authors concluded that the COVID pandemic “resulted in a shift in the symptomatology, disease burden, and routes of diagnosis of patients presenting with myeloma” and “this may have significant consequences” over the long term.
 

Limitations

The study does not provide a clear time frame of delays in diagnosis.

Disclosures

The study authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

The study covered in this summary was published on Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Patients with multiple myeloma were diagnosed at a significantly higher rate through emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with before.

Why this matters

While trying to avoid COVID-19 infection, patients ultimately diagnosed with multiple myeloma may have delayed interactions with healthcare professionals and consequently delayed their cancer diagnosis.

Study design

Researchers collected data on newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma from January 2019 until July 2021 across five institutions (three universities and two hospitals) in England. In total, 323 patients with multiple myeloma were identified.

Patients were divided into two groups: those diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2019, until Jan. 31, 2020, or pre-COVID, and those diagnosed from Feb. 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, or post COVID.
 

Key results

Among all patients, 80 (24.8%) were diagnosed with smoldering multiple myeloma and 243 (75.2%) were diagnosed with multiple myeloma requiring treatment.

Significantly more patients in the post-COVID group were diagnosed with myeloma through the emergency route (45.5% post COVID vs. 32.7% pre-COVID; P = .03).

Clinical complications leading to emergency admission prior to a myeloma diagnosis also differed between the two cohorts: Acute kidney injury accounted for most emergency admissions in the pre-COVID cohort while skeletal-related events, including spinal cord compression, were the major causes for diagnosis through the emergency route in the post-COVID cohort.

Patients who were diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma pre-COVID were more likely to be treated with a triplet rather than doublet combination compared with those diagnosed in the post-COVID period (triplet pre-COVID 79.1%, post COVID 63.75%; P = .014).

Overall survival at 1 year was not significantly different between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups: 88.2% pre-COVID, compared with 87.8% post COVID. 

Overall, the authors concluded that the COVID pandemic “resulted in a shift in the symptomatology, disease burden, and routes of diagnosis of patients presenting with myeloma” and “this may have significant consequences” over the long term.
 

Limitations

The study does not provide a clear time frame of delays in diagnosis.

Disclosures

The study authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

The study covered in this summary was published on Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Patients with multiple myeloma were diagnosed at a significantly higher rate through emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with before.

Why this matters

While trying to avoid COVID-19 infection, patients ultimately diagnosed with multiple myeloma may have delayed interactions with healthcare professionals and consequently delayed their cancer diagnosis.

Study design

Researchers collected data on newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma from January 2019 until July 2021 across five institutions (three universities and two hospitals) in England. In total, 323 patients with multiple myeloma were identified.

Patients were divided into two groups: those diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2019, until Jan. 31, 2020, or pre-COVID, and those diagnosed from Feb. 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, or post COVID.
 

Key results

Among all patients, 80 (24.8%) were diagnosed with smoldering multiple myeloma and 243 (75.2%) were diagnosed with multiple myeloma requiring treatment.

Significantly more patients in the post-COVID group were diagnosed with myeloma through the emergency route (45.5% post COVID vs. 32.7% pre-COVID; P = .03).

Clinical complications leading to emergency admission prior to a myeloma diagnosis also differed between the two cohorts: Acute kidney injury accounted for most emergency admissions in the pre-COVID cohort while skeletal-related events, including spinal cord compression, were the major causes for diagnosis through the emergency route in the post-COVID cohort.

Patients who were diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma pre-COVID were more likely to be treated with a triplet rather than doublet combination compared with those diagnosed in the post-COVID period (triplet pre-COVID 79.1%, post COVID 63.75%; P = .014).

Overall survival at 1 year was not significantly different between the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups: 88.2% pre-COVID, compared with 87.8% post COVID. 

Overall, the authors concluded that the COVID pandemic “resulted in a shift in the symptomatology, disease burden, and routes of diagnosis of patients presenting with myeloma” and “this may have significant consequences” over the long term.
 

Limitations

The study does not provide a clear time frame of delays in diagnosis.

Disclosures

The study authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

NEW ORLEANS – A novel, off-the-shelf antibody, talquetamab, has shown high response rates among patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma in both phase 1 and now phase 2 studies, which have been submitted for approval.

“Talquetamab is a novel agent directed against a new antigen target in myeloma,” explained lead investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The product has demonstrated “a response rate of 73% to 74% with both weekly and every 2-week schedules in a heavily treated patient population. Even in those patients with prior T-cell redirection, we see a 63% response rate,” said Dr. Chari, who reported the data at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

It is encouraging to see high response rates among patients with disease that is refractory to multiple prior lines of therapy, and the results suggest that talquetamab may buy time for patients with few other options, said Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, and a former ASH president.

“It looks like there are responses even in people who are heavily pretreated and have had other agents similar to it, “ she said. “We hear about ‘penta-refractory’ [disease] and everything, and I think we’re going to start hearing about ‘octo-refractory’ and ‘deci-refractory,’ and those things. It’s really exciting [to see these responses],” she said. Dr. Lee moderated a media briefing prior to Dr. Chari’s discussion of the data.

Talquetamab is a bispecific antibody directed against a novel target with the prosaic name of “G protein–coupled receptor, family C, group 5, member D” or simply GPRC5D. The antigen is a so-called “orphan” receptor with an unidentified ligand. The receptor is expressed in malignant plasma cells, making it a particularly attractive target for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“It’s important to pick the right target for these [patients] and GPRC5D is a good candidate for that because it’s highly expressed on myeloma cells but spares normal tissues, in particular the hematopoietic stem cells for the precursors to their blood,” Dr. Chari said.

The new drug could be available next year. The manufacturer, Janssen, announced last week that it had submitted an approval application with the Food and Drug Administration for talquetamab use in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The clinical results so far “indicate the potential of this treatment for heavily pretreated patients who have exhausted currently approved therapies,” Dr. Chari said in a statement.
 

MonumenTAL study

Dr. Chari and colleagues recently reported results of the phase 1 MonumenTAL-1 study in The New England Journal of Medicine. At ASH 2022, they reported phase 2 results from the same study, including some patients carried over from phase 1, but also a subgroup of patients with prior exposure to either chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy or other bispecific T cell-engaging antibodies.

In the phase 1 dose-escalation study published in NEJM,  the response rates among patients who had a median of six prior lines of therapy ranged from 64% to 70%. The drug was delivered in this phase at a variety of dose levels and schedules, and both intravenously and subcutaneously.
 

Three cohorts, two doses

The phase 2 study enrolled patients who had a minimum of three prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulating agent, and anti-CD38 antibody, and who had good-to-fair performance status.

There were three cohorts. The first cohort comprised 21 patients from phase 1 and 122 from phase 2 who received talquetamab at a dose of 0.4 mg/kg subcutaneously once weekly. These patients were allowed to have received prior therapy with an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeted against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), but could not have received a prior T-cell redirection therapy.

The second cohort comprised 36 patients in phase 1 and 109 in phase 2 who were treated with 0.8 mg/kg subcutaneously every 2 weeks. These patients had the same prior therapy allowances and restrictions as the first cohort.

The third cohort comprised 17 patients in phase 1 plus 34 patients in phase 2 who had received either CAR T-cell receptor therapy or a different bispecific T-cell engager. These patients received either 0.4 mg/kg weekly subcutaneous talquetamab, or 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks.
 

Phase 2 results

The overall response rate (ORR)  among patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 74.1%, including 23.8% stringent complete responses (sCR), 9.8% complete response (CR), 25.9% very good partial responses (VGPR) and 14.7% partial responses (PR).

The ORR among patients treated at the 0.8 mg/kg every 2 week dose was 73.1%, consisting of 20% sCR, 12.4% CR, 24,8% VGPR, and 15.9% PR.

The response rates were consistent across subgroups, including baseline International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease, baseline cytogenetic risk, number of prior therapies, degree of refractoriness to prior therapy, and prior exposure to the anti-BCMA antibody belantamab (except patients with baseline plasmacytomas).

The median durations of responses were 9.3 months and 13 months in the 0.4 and 0.8 mg/kg doses, respectively. The median duration of response was not reached among patients who had achieved a CR or better in either dosing group.
 

Safety profile

Most adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were cytopenias, including anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. These adverse events were generally limited to the first three cycles, and less than a third of all cytopenias were grade 3 or greater.

Infection occurred in 57.3% of patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg weekly and 50.3% treated at 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Of these infections, 16.8% and 11.7%, respectively, were grade 3 or 4.

Opportunistic infections were seen in 3.5% of patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg and 2.8% of those treated at 0.8 mg/kg.

Taste alterations (dysgeusia) occurred in nearly half of patients in each dosing group. Dysgeusia was managed with supportive care, including hydration, and in some cases  with dose reductions.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was observed in 10% to 11% of patients, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2.
 

What’s next?

At the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Chari whether, given the evident efficacy and relative safety of this agent, it could be moved up higher in the therapeutic lines and combined with other agents such as proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib et al.), immunomodulators (lenalidomide and others) and CD38-directed antibodies (daratumumab, etc.)

Dr. Chari replied that several studies combining talquetamab with agents in all of these classes and with other bispecific T-cell engagers are currently underway.

Dr. Chari disclosed consulting fees from Janssen, which supported the study. Dr. Lee has received clinical trial research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kadmon, Novartis, Pfizer, Syndax, and Takeda and has served as a consultant to Incyte.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – A novel, off-the-shelf antibody, talquetamab, has shown high response rates among patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma in both phase 1 and now phase 2 studies, which have been submitted for approval.

“Talquetamab is a novel agent directed against a new antigen target in myeloma,” explained lead investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The product has demonstrated “a response rate of 73% to 74% with both weekly and every 2-week schedules in a heavily treated patient population. Even in those patients with prior T-cell redirection, we see a 63% response rate,” said Dr. Chari, who reported the data at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

It is encouraging to see high response rates among patients with disease that is refractory to multiple prior lines of therapy, and the results suggest that talquetamab may buy time for patients with few other options, said Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, and a former ASH president.

“It looks like there are responses even in people who are heavily pretreated and have had other agents similar to it, “ she said. “We hear about ‘penta-refractory’ [disease] and everything, and I think we’re going to start hearing about ‘octo-refractory’ and ‘deci-refractory,’ and those things. It’s really exciting [to see these responses],” she said. Dr. Lee moderated a media briefing prior to Dr. Chari’s discussion of the data.

Talquetamab is a bispecific antibody directed against a novel target with the prosaic name of “G protein–coupled receptor, family C, group 5, member D” or simply GPRC5D. The antigen is a so-called “orphan” receptor with an unidentified ligand. The receptor is expressed in malignant plasma cells, making it a particularly attractive target for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“It’s important to pick the right target for these [patients] and GPRC5D is a good candidate for that because it’s highly expressed on myeloma cells but spares normal tissues, in particular the hematopoietic stem cells for the precursors to their blood,” Dr. Chari said.

The new drug could be available next year. The manufacturer, Janssen, announced last week that it had submitted an approval application with the Food and Drug Administration for talquetamab use in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The clinical results so far “indicate the potential of this treatment for heavily pretreated patients who have exhausted currently approved therapies,” Dr. Chari said in a statement.
 

MonumenTAL study

Dr. Chari and colleagues recently reported results of the phase 1 MonumenTAL-1 study in The New England Journal of Medicine. At ASH 2022, they reported phase 2 results from the same study, including some patients carried over from phase 1, but also a subgroup of patients with prior exposure to either chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy or other bispecific T cell-engaging antibodies.

In the phase 1 dose-escalation study published in NEJM,  the response rates among patients who had a median of six prior lines of therapy ranged from 64% to 70%. The drug was delivered in this phase at a variety of dose levels and schedules, and both intravenously and subcutaneously.
 

Three cohorts, two doses

The phase 2 study enrolled patients who had a minimum of three prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulating agent, and anti-CD38 antibody, and who had good-to-fair performance status.

There were three cohorts. The first cohort comprised 21 patients from phase 1 and 122 from phase 2 who received talquetamab at a dose of 0.4 mg/kg subcutaneously once weekly. These patients were allowed to have received prior therapy with an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeted against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), but could not have received a prior T-cell redirection therapy.

The second cohort comprised 36 patients in phase 1 and 109 in phase 2 who were treated with 0.8 mg/kg subcutaneously every 2 weeks. These patients had the same prior therapy allowances and restrictions as the first cohort.

The third cohort comprised 17 patients in phase 1 plus 34 patients in phase 2 who had received either CAR T-cell receptor therapy or a different bispecific T-cell engager. These patients received either 0.4 mg/kg weekly subcutaneous talquetamab, or 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks.
 

Phase 2 results

The overall response rate (ORR)  among patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 74.1%, including 23.8% stringent complete responses (sCR), 9.8% complete response (CR), 25.9% very good partial responses (VGPR) and 14.7% partial responses (PR).

The ORR among patients treated at the 0.8 mg/kg every 2 week dose was 73.1%, consisting of 20% sCR, 12.4% CR, 24,8% VGPR, and 15.9% PR.

The response rates were consistent across subgroups, including baseline International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease, baseline cytogenetic risk, number of prior therapies, degree of refractoriness to prior therapy, and prior exposure to the anti-BCMA antibody belantamab (except patients with baseline plasmacytomas).

The median durations of responses were 9.3 months and 13 months in the 0.4 and 0.8 mg/kg doses, respectively. The median duration of response was not reached among patients who had achieved a CR or better in either dosing group.
 

Safety profile

Most adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were cytopenias, including anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. These adverse events were generally limited to the first three cycles, and less than a third of all cytopenias were grade 3 or greater.

Infection occurred in 57.3% of patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg weekly and 50.3% treated at 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Of these infections, 16.8% and 11.7%, respectively, were grade 3 or 4.

Opportunistic infections were seen in 3.5% of patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg and 2.8% of those treated at 0.8 mg/kg.

Taste alterations (dysgeusia) occurred in nearly half of patients in each dosing group. Dysgeusia was managed with supportive care, including hydration, and in some cases  with dose reductions.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was observed in 10% to 11% of patients, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2.
 

What’s next?

At the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Chari whether, given the evident efficacy and relative safety of this agent, it could be moved up higher in the therapeutic lines and combined with other agents such as proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib et al.), immunomodulators (lenalidomide and others) and CD38-directed antibodies (daratumumab, etc.)

Dr. Chari replied that several studies combining talquetamab with agents in all of these classes and with other bispecific T-cell engagers are currently underway.

Dr. Chari disclosed consulting fees from Janssen, which supported the study. Dr. Lee has received clinical trial research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kadmon, Novartis, Pfizer, Syndax, and Takeda and has served as a consultant to Incyte.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – A novel, off-the-shelf antibody, talquetamab, has shown high response rates among patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma in both phase 1 and now phase 2 studies, which have been submitted for approval.

“Talquetamab is a novel agent directed against a new antigen target in myeloma,” explained lead investigator Ajai Chari, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The product has demonstrated “a response rate of 73% to 74% with both weekly and every 2-week schedules in a heavily treated patient population. Even in those patients with prior T-cell redirection, we see a 63% response rate,” said Dr. Chari, who reported the data at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

It is encouraging to see high response rates among patients with disease that is refractory to multiple prior lines of therapy, and the results suggest that talquetamab may buy time for patients with few other options, said Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, and a former ASH president.

“It looks like there are responses even in people who are heavily pretreated and have had other agents similar to it, “ she said. “We hear about ‘penta-refractory’ [disease] and everything, and I think we’re going to start hearing about ‘octo-refractory’ and ‘deci-refractory,’ and those things. It’s really exciting [to see these responses],” she said. Dr. Lee moderated a media briefing prior to Dr. Chari’s discussion of the data.

Talquetamab is a bispecific antibody directed against a novel target with the prosaic name of “G protein–coupled receptor, family C, group 5, member D” or simply GPRC5D. The antigen is a so-called “orphan” receptor with an unidentified ligand. The receptor is expressed in malignant plasma cells, making it a particularly attractive target for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

“It’s important to pick the right target for these [patients] and GPRC5D is a good candidate for that because it’s highly expressed on myeloma cells but spares normal tissues, in particular the hematopoietic stem cells for the precursors to their blood,” Dr. Chari said.

The new drug could be available next year. The manufacturer, Janssen, announced last week that it had submitted an approval application with the Food and Drug Administration for talquetamab use in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The clinical results so far “indicate the potential of this treatment for heavily pretreated patients who have exhausted currently approved therapies,” Dr. Chari said in a statement.
 

MonumenTAL study

Dr. Chari and colleagues recently reported results of the phase 1 MonumenTAL-1 study in The New England Journal of Medicine. At ASH 2022, they reported phase 2 results from the same study, including some patients carried over from phase 1, but also a subgroup of patients with prior exposure to either chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy or other bispecific T cell-engaging antibodies.

In the phase 1 dose-escalation study published in NEJM,  the response rates among patients who had a median of six prior lines of therapy ranged from 64% to 70%. The drug was delivered in this phase at a variety of dose levels and schedules, and both intravenously and subcutaneously.
 

Three cohorts, two doses

The phase 2 study enrolled patients who had a minimum of three prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulating agent, and anti-CD38 antibody, and who had good-to-fair performance status.

There were three cohorts. The first cohort comprised 21 patients from phase 1 and 122 from phase 2 who received talquetamab at a dose of 0.4 mg/kg subcutaneously once weekly. These patients were allowed to have received prior therapy with an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeted against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), but could not have received a prior T-cell redirection therapy.

The second cohort comprised 36 patients in phase 1 and 109 in phase 2 who were treated with 0.8 mg/kg subcutaneously every 2 weeks. These patients had the same prior therapy allowances and restrictions as the first cohort.

The third cohort comprised 17 patients in phase 1 plus 34 patients in phase 2 who had received either CAR T-cell receptor therapy or a different bispecific T-cell engager. These patients received either 0.4 mg/kg weekly subcutaneous talquetamab, or 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks.
 

Phase 2 results

The overall response rate (ORR)  among patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 74.1%, including 23.8% stringent complete responses (sCR), 9.8% complete response (CR), 25.9% very good partial responses (VGPR) and 14.7% partial responses (PR).

The ORR among patients treated at the 0.8 mg/kg every 2 week dose was 73.1%, consisting of 20% sCR, 12.4% CR, 24,8% VGPR, and 15.9% PR.

The response rates were consistent across subgroups, including baseline International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease, baseline cytogenetic risk, number of prior therapies, degree of refractoriness to prior therapy, and prior exposure to the anti-BCMA antibody belantamab (except patients with baseline plasmacytomas).

The median durations of responses were 9.3 months and 13 months in the 0.4 and 0.8 mg/kg doses, respectively. The median duration of response was not reached among patients who had achieved a CR or better in either dosing group.
 

Safety profile

Most adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were cytopenias, including anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. These adverse events were generally limited to the first three cycles, and less than a third of all cytopenias were grade 3 or greater.

Infection occurred in 57.3% of patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg weekly and 50.3% treated at 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Of these infections, 16.8% and 11.7%, respectively, were grade 3 or 4.

Opportunistic infections were seen in 3.5% of patients treated at 0.4 mg/kg and 2.8% of those treated at 0.8 mg/kg.

Taste alterations (dysgeusia) occurred in nearly half of patients in each dosing group. Dysgeusia was managed with supportive care, including hydration, and in some cases  with dose reductions.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was observed in 10% to 11% of patients, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2.
 

What’s next?

At the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Chari whether, given the evident efficacy and relative safety of this agent, it could be moved up higher in the therapeutic lines and combined with other agents such as proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib et al.), immunomodulators (lenalidomide and others) and CD38-directed antibodies (daratumumab, etc.)

Dr. Chari replied that several studies combining talquetamab with agents in all of these classes and with other bispecific T-cell engagers are currently underway.

Dr. Chari disclosed consulting fees from Janssen, which supported the study. Dr. Lee has received clinical trial research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Kadmon, Novartis, Pfizer, Syndax, and Takeda and has served as a consultant to Incyte.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.

The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).

The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.

The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.

“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.

The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”

Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.

The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.

However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
 

For relapsed/refractory disease

Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.

“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
 

Details of DREAMM-3 results

DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.

The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).

At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.

The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).

The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.

The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.

“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.

The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”

Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.

The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.

However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
 

For relapsed/refractory disease

Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.

“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
 

Details of DREAMM-3 results

DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.

The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).

At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.

The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).

The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).

The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.

The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.

“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.

The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”

Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.

The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.

However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
 

For relapsed/refractory disease

Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.

Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.

“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
 

Details of DREAMM-3 results

DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.

The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).

At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Following “unprecedented” results in a phase 1/2 study, teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration for adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four lines of therapy. Typically, patients in this situation have just a few weeks to live. The nod from the FDA on Oct. 25 for teclistamab, the first bispecific B-cell maturation antigen–directed CD3 T-cell engager to be approved, was based on data from a phase 1/2 study called MagesTEC-1 (NCT03145181; NCT04557098). Patients in the study showed an overall response rate of 61.8%, and 26.7% of people in the study had no detectable disease.

This is “unprecedented” said Nikhil Munshi, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the study. “Pomalidomide got approved with 30% response rate, carfilzomib got approved with 29% response rate, selinexor got approved with 31% response rate and so on and on. ... So here is teclistamab with [this] response rate in patients having five, six lines of treatment. ...[It’s] going to be so much in demand because it’s a great drug.”

The first cut of the data appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

At the 6-month mark, 90.6% of patients who responded had no progression of their disease, and at 9 months, 66.5% of patients were still holding steady.

Senior investigator in the trial, Saad Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “What was most striking was the high response rates and the durability of response.”

Dr. Usmani said ease of administration was the other aspect of teclistamab that impressed him. The drug is given by subcutaneous injection weekly after a short ramp-up period.

He contrasted this regimen with that of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, the only alternative with similar efficacy in such sick patients: “I can prescribe [teclistamab] today, and my patient gets it tomorrow,” Dr. Usmani said. “With CAR T, I prescribe today and it will take 4-6 weeks for us to collect T cells and another 6-7 weeks for the product to come back.” Dr. Usmani said many patients die before CAR T reaches them.

Community oncology will benefit greatly from teclistamab, especially patients for whom CAR T isn’t feasible, said Kashyap Patel, MD, president of the Community Oncology Alliance. “My patients are most of them underserved minority-class populations with myeloma, and they cannot travel many miles to go to a CAR T center. With sub[cutaneous] injection, the patient can have [teclistamab] administered in their doctor’s office and continue to live their normal life.”

However, how should the wider oncology community make sense of a drug approval based solely on response in a single-arm, phase 1/2 study, with no survival data?

Dr. Patel said, “Phase 1 plus phase 2 data is probably a little bit quick, but time will tell eventually.” He cited melflufen as a cautionary tale: a product given accelerated approval for multiple myeloma, then withdrawn when new data showed that it increased the risk of death.

When Dr. Munshi was asked about trial design for accelerated approvals, he responded, “you are touching a topic very close to my heart, a topic of great significance currently.”

He went on to say that overall survival (OS) is no longer a viable trial endpoint in diseases like multiple myeloma for several reasons. Most significantly, he noted: “Survival has gone up to 10 or 15 years [so] today, if you randomize between one [drug] versus another, there are going to be seven or eight more treatments before the patient dies.”

Similarly, progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma is now as much as 5 years, Dr. Munshi said. “Do we want a patient to wait 5 years to get a very good new drug?”

For these reasons and others, Dr, Munshi observed, myeloma researchers are increasingly relying on a surrogate called “negative minimal residual disease” (negative MRD) – in other words, a situation in which myeloma cells can no longer be detected in the bone marrow. MRD is hunted out using next-generation flow or next-generation sequencing of myeloma-cell DNA from bone-marrow aspirate to levels as low as 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000 cells.

In 2020, Dr. Munshi and colleagues published a large meta-analysis showing that a negative MRD in a patient with multiple myeloma was significantly prognostic for both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.33; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.45; P < .001). The team concluded: “MRD can fulfill all the prerequisites to be a clinically valid surrogate biomarker for PFS and OS in [multiple myeloma].”

In MajesTEC-1 overall, 26.7% of patients on teclistamab had no signs of residual disease at a threshold of 1 in 100,000. Among patients who showed a “complete response” by International Myeloma Working Group criteria, 46% had no residual disease.

Dr. Munshi stressed that such patients are not necessarily “cured.” It will take a few more years to prove that. He noted: “Simply, physiologically, [negative MRD] means that if a patient has one [myeloma] cell in a million, that cell is going to take a much longer time to grow up to be myeloma.”

On Nov. 8 and 9, the FDA and the International Myeloma Society held a workshop to discuss the vexed question of surrogate endpoints and single-arm studies for drug approvals entitled the “Future of Drug Development in Multiple Myeloma.” Dr. Munshi was cochair.

A panelist at the meeting who was a senior investigator in the MajesTEC-1 trial, Ajai Chari, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, summed up the dilemma: “No one disagrees that randomized studies are the best way of doing things. The question is, if you’re a patient who’s exhausted all available therapies, do you have that time to wait? ... The role of accelerated approval is to get the drug to the patient faster. But what does it not pick up? How do we make these accelerated approvals more meaningful and not have to retract for safety?”

Jonathon Vallejo, also on the panel, agreed that safety was the key worry. The ideal scenario for accelerated approval would be a drug that was better than available therapy, and “in some sense, it’s much safer.” However, such situations are rare.

“Most of the time, we don’t have these products that come in that have no toxicity signals,” he said. “So one thing we have to think carefully about in the single-arm trial setting is, what are the toxicities? How do they stack up?”

Dr. Chari said that, for his part, he wanted to see more transparency around “cause of death” in all studies that lead to accelerated approvals. He said he was “tired” of seeing a death labeled as “not attributed” to the drug by the investigator or the drug company.

“Let me decide. Show me the deaths, and show me the myeloma status at that point,” Dr. Chari said. “That’s a signal – if you’re a responding patient and dying, then the FDA should be a little bit more cautious.”

The FDA has added a boxed warning to the teclistamab product information concerning cytokine-release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.

Cytokine-release syndrome, the most common side effect overall, showed up in 72% of patients, typically 2 days after the first step-up dose.

Neurologic toxicity occurred in 57% of patients, including headache (25%), motor dysfunction (16%), sensory neuropathy (15%) and encephalopathy (13%). About 6%of patients developed a serious, life-threatening neurologic condition called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome.

Overall, serious adverse reactions occurred in 54% of participants in MajesTEC-1, and 5% of people in the trial died from adverse reactions during the study, most commonly infections.

Because of its safety profile, teclistamab is available only through a restricted program called TECVAYLI Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.

The continued approval of teclistamab for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.

To that end, eight more studies of teclistamab are underway, aiming for approximately 1,300 multiple myeloma patients around the world. Three of these trials are in newly diagnosed patients. Four more studies are planned to come online in the next 3 months, raising the final tally of patients testing out teclistamab to approximately 4,700. The trials will look at teclistamab in sequence or in combination with standards such as bortezomib and pomalidomide. All studies are open label.

Dr. Patel believes that, until these trials say otherwise, the benefits of teclistamab outweigh the risks. “I’m very happy we have one more option in this space, particularly the fourth or fifth line for patients who want to continue to fight the disease,” Dr. Patel concluded.

Dr. Munshi disclosed advisory board/consultant work for Adaptive, Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend, Millennium, Novartis, Oncopep, and Pfizer and is the scientific founder of Oncopep and DCT. The 2020 meta-analysis by Dr. Munshi and colleagues was funded by Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Patel declared funding from Janssen for a diversity-equity initiative and membership of the South Carolina Medicaid P & T Committee. Dr. Usmani declared conflicts of interest with Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Genentech, Gilead, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SecuraBio, SkylineDX, Takeda, and TeneoBio.

Following “unprecedented” results in a phase 1/2 study, teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration for adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four lines of therapy. Typically, patients in this situation have just a few weeks to live. The nod from the FDA on Oct. 25 for teclistamab, the first bispecific B-cell maturation antigen–directed CD3 T-cell engager to be approved, was based on data from a phase 1/2 study called MagesTEC-1 (NCT03145181; NCT04557098). Patients in the study showed an overall response rate of 61.8%, and 26.7% of people in the study had no detectable disease.

This is “unprecedented” said Nikhil Munshi, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the study. “Pomalidomide got approved with 30% response rate, carfilzomib got approved with 29% response rate, selinexor got approved with 31% response rate and so on and on. ... So here is teclistamab with [this] response rate in patients having five, six lines of treatment. ...[It’s] going to be so much in demand because it’s a great drug.”

The first cut of the data appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

At the 6-month mark, 90.6% of patients who responded had no progression of their disease, and at 9 months, 66.5% of patients were still holding steady.

Senior investigator in the trial, Saad Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “What was most striking was the high response rates and the durability of response.”

Dr. Usmani said ease of administration was the other aspect of teclistamab that impressed him. The drug is given by subcutaneous injection weekly after a short ramp-up period.

He contrasted this regimen with that of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, the only alternative with similar efficacy in such sick patients: “I can prescribe [teclistamab] today, and my patient gets it tomorrow,” Dr. Usmani said. “With CAR T, I prescribe today and it will take 4-6 weeks for us to collect T cells and another 6-7 weeks for the product to come back.” Dr. Usmani said many patients die before CAR T reaches them.

Community oncology will benefit greatly from teclistamab, especially patients for whom CAR T isn’t feasible, said Kashyap Patel, MD, president of the Community Oncology Alliance. “My patients are most of them underserved minority-class populations with myeloma, and they cannot travel many miles to go to a CAR T center. With sub[cutaneous] injection, the patient can have [teclistamab] administered in their doctor’s office and continue to live their normal life.”

However, how should the wider oncology community make sense of a drug approval based solely on response in a single-arm, phase 1/2 study, with no survival data?

Dr. Patel said, “Phase 1 plus phase 2 data is probably a little bit quick, but time will tell eventually.” He cited melflufen as a cautionary tale: a product given accelerated approval for multiple myeloma, then withdrawn when new data showed that it increased the risk of death.

When Dr. Munshi was asked about trial design for accelerated approvals, he responded, “you are touching a topic very close to my heart, a topic of great significance currently.”

He went on to say that overall survival (OS) is no longer a viable trial endpoint in diseases like multiple myeloma for several reasons. Most significantly, he noted: “Survival has gone up to 10 or 15 years [so] today, if you randomize between one [drug] versus another, there are going to be seven or eight more treatments before the patient dies.”

Similarly, progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma is now as much as 5 years, Dr. Munshi said. “Do we want a patient to wait 5 years to get a very good new drug?”

For these reasons and others, Dr, Munshi observed, myeloma researchers are increasingly relying on a surrogate called “negative minimal residual disease” (negative MRD) – in other words, a situation in which myeloma cells can no longer be detected in the bone marrow. MRD is hunted out using next-generation flow or next-generation sequencing of myeloma-cell DNA from bone-marrow aspirate to levels as low as 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000 cells.

In 2020, Dr. Munshi and colleagues published a large meta-analysis showing that a negative MRD in a patient with multiple myeloma was significantly prognostic for both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.33; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.45; P < .001). The team concluded: “MRD can fulfill all the prerequisites to be a clinically valid surrogate biomarker for PFS and OS in [multiple myeloma].”

In MajesTEC-1 overall, 26.7% of patients on teclistamab had no signs of residual disease at a threshold of 1 in 100,000. Among patients who showed a “complete response” by International Myeloma Working Group criteria, 46% had no residual disease.

Dr. Munshi stressed that such patients are not necessarily “cured.” It will take a few more years to prove that. He noted: “Simply, physiologically, [negative MRD] means that if a patient has one [myeloma] cell in a million, that cell is going to take a much longer time to grow up to be myeloma.”

On Nov. 8 and 9, the FDA and the International Myeloma Society held a workshop to discuss the vexed question of surrogate endpoints and single-arm studies for drug approvals entitled the “Future of Drug Development in Multiple Myeloma.” Dr. Munshi was cochair.

A panelist at the meeting who was a senior investigator in the MajesTEC-1 trial, Ajai Chari, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, summed up the dilemma: “No one disagrees that randomized studies are the best way of doing things. The question is, if you’re a patient who’s exhausted all available therapies, do you have that time to wait? ... The role of accelerated approval is to get the drug to the patient faster. But what does it not pick up? How do we make these accelerated approvals more meaningful and not have to retract for safety?”

Jonathon Vallejo, also on the panel, agreed that safety was the key worry. The ideal scenario for accelerated approval would be a drug that was better than available therapy, and “in some sense, it’s much safer.” However, such situations are rare.

“Most of the time, we don’t have these products that come in that have no toxicity signals,” he said. “So one thing we have to think carefully about in the single-arm trial setting is, what are the toxicities? How do they stack up?”

Dr. Chari said that, for his part, he wanted to see more transparency around “cause of death” in all studies that lead to accelerated approvals. He said he was “tired” of seeing a death labeled as “not attributed” to the drug by the investigator or the drug company.

“Let me decide. Show me the deaths, and show me the myeloma status at that point,” Dr. Chari said. “That’s a signal – if you’re a responding patient and dying, then the FDA should be a little bit more cautious.”

The FDA has added a boxed warning to the teclistamab product information concerning cytokine-release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.

Cytokine-release syndrome, the most common side effect overall, showed up in 72% of patients, typically 2 days after the first step-up dose.

Neurologic toxicity occurred in 57% of patients, including headache (25%), motor dysfunction (16%), sensory neuropathy (15%) and encephalopathy (13%). About 6%of patients developed a serious, life-threatening neurologic condition called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome.

Overall, serious adverse reactions occurred in 54% of participants in MajesTEC-1, and 5% of people in the trial died from adverse reactions during the study, most commonly infections.

Because of its safety profile, teclistamab is available only through a restricted program called TECVAYLI Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.

The continued approval of teclistamab for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.

To that end, eight more studies of teclistamab are underway, aiming for approximately 1,300 multiple myeloma patients around the world. Three of these trials are in newly diagnosed patients. Four more studies are planned to come online in the next 3 months, raising the final tally of patients testing out teclistamab to approximately 4,700. The trials will look at teclistamab in sequence or in combination with standards such as bortezomib and pomalidomide. All studies are open label.

Dr. Patel believes that, until these trials say otherwise, the benefits of teclistamab outweigh the risks. “I’m very happy we have one more option in this space, particularly the fourth or fifth line for patients who want to continue to fight the disease,” Dr. Patel concluded.

Dr. Munshi disclosed advisory board/consultant work for Adaptive, Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend, Millennium, Novartis, Oncopep, and Pfizer and is the scientific founder of Oncopep and DCT. The 2020 meta-analysis by Dr. Munshi and colleagues was funded by Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Patel declared funding from Janssen for a diversity-equity initiative and membership of the South Carolina Medicaid P & T Committee. Dr. Usmani declared conflicts of interest with Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Genentech, Gilead, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SecuraBio, SkylineDX, Takeda, and TeneoBio.

Following “unprecedented” results in a phase 1/2 study, teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen Biotech) received accelerated approval from the Food and Drug Administration for adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four lines of therapy. Typically, patients in this situation have just a few weeks to live. The nod from the FDA on Oct. 25 for teclistamab, the first bispecific B-cell maturation antigen–directed CD3 T-cell engager to be approved, was based on data from a phase 1/2 study called MagesTEC-1 (NCT03145181; NCT04557098). Patients in the study showed an overall response rate of 61.8%, and 26.7% of people in the study had no detectable disease.

This is “unprecedented” said Nikhil Munshi, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the study. “Pomalidomide got approved with 30% response rate, carfilzomib got approved with 29% response rate, selinexor got approved with 31% response rate and so on and on. ... So here is teclistamab with [this] response rate in patients having five, six lines of treatment. ...[It’s] going to be so much in demand because it’s a great drug.”

The first cut of the data appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

At the 6-month mark, 90.6% of patients who responded had no progression of their disease, and at 9 months, 66.5% of patients were still holding steady.

Senior investigator in the trial, Saad Usmani, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “What was most striking was the high response rates and the durability of response.”

Dr. Usmani said ease of administration was the other aspect of teclistamab that impressed him. The drug is given by subcutaneous injection weekly after a short ramp-up period.

He contrasted this regimen with that of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, the only alternative with similar efficacy in such sick patients: “I can prescribe [teclistamab] today, and my patient gets it tomorrow,” Dr. Usmani said. “With CAR T, I prescribe today and it will take 4-6 weeks for us to collect T cells and another 6-7 weeks for the product to come back.” Dr. Usmani said many patients die before CAR T reaches them.

Community oncology will benefit greatly from teclistamab, especially patients for whom CAR T isn’t feasible, said Kashyap Patel, MD, president of the Community Oncology Alliance. “My patients are most of them underserved minority-class populations with myeloma, and they cannot travel many miles to go to a CAR T center. With sub[cutaneous] injection, the patient can have [teclistamab] administered in their doctor’s office and continue to live their normal life.”

However, how should the wider oncology community make sense of a drug approval based solely on response in a single-arm, phase 1/2 study, with no survival data?

Dr. Patel said, “Phase 1 plus phase 2 data is probably a little bit quick, but time will tell eventually.” He cited melflufen as a cautionary tale: a product given accelerated approval for multiple myeloma, then withdrawn when new data showed that it increased the risk of death.

When Dr. Munshi was asked about trial design for accelerated approvals, he responded, “you are touching a topic very close to my heart, a topic of great significance currently.”

He went on to say that overall survival (OS) is no longer a viable trial endpoint in diseases like multiple myeloma for several reasons. Most significantly, he noted: “Survival has gone up to 10 or 15 years [so] today, if you randomize between one [drug] versus another, there are going to be seven or eight more treatments before the patient dies.”

Similarly, progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma is now as much as 5 years, Dr. Munshi said. “Do we want a patient to wait 5 years to get a very good new drug?”

For these reasons and others, Dr, Munshi observed, myeloma researchers are increasingly relying on a surrogate called “negative minimal residual disease” (negative MRD) – in other words, a situation in which myeloma cells can no longer be detected in the bone marrow. MRD is hunted out using next-generation flow or next-generation sequencing of myeloma-cell DNA from bone-marrow aspirate to levels as low as 1 in 100,000 or 1,000,000 cells.

In 2020, Dr. Munshi and colleagues published a large meta-analysis showing that a negative MRD in a patient with multiple myeloma was significantly prognostic for both progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.33; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.45; P < .001). The team concluded: “MRD can fulfill all the prerequisites to be a clinically valid surrogate biomarker for PFS and OS in [multiple myeloma].”

In MajesTEC-1 overall, 26.7% of patients on teclistamab had no signs of residual disease at a threshold of 1 in 100,000. Among patients who showed a “complete response” by International Myeloma Working Group criteria, 46% had no residual disease.

Dr. Munshi stressed that such patients are not necessarily “cured.” It will take a few more years to prove that. He noted: “Simply, physiologically, [negative MRD] means that if a patient has one [myeloma] cell in a million, that cell is going to take a much longer time to grow up to be myeloma.”

On Nov. 8 and 9, the FDA and the International Myeloma Society held a workshop to discuss the vexed question of surrogate endpoints and single-arm studies for drug approvals entitled the “Future of Drug Development in Multiple Myeloma.” Dr. Munshi was cochair.

A panelist at the meeting who was a senior investigator in the MajesTEC-1 trial, Ajai Chari, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, summed up the dilemma: “No one disagrees that randomized studies are the best way of doing things. The question is, if you’re a patient who’s exhausted all available therapies, do you have that time to wait? ... The role of accelerated approval is to get the drug to the patient faster. But what does it not pick up? How do we make these accelerated approvals more meaningful and not have to retract for safety?”

Jonathon Vallejo, also on the panel, agreed that safety was the key worry. The ideal scenario for accelerated approval would be a drug that was better than available therapy, and “in some sense, it’s much safer.” However, such situations are rare.

“Most of the time, we don’t have these products that come in that have no toxicity signals,” he said. “So one thing we have to think carefully about in the single-arm trial setting is, what are the toxicities? How do they stack up?”

Dr. Chari said that, for his part, he wanted to see more transparency around “cause of death” in all studies that lead to accelerated approvals. He said he was “tired” of seeing a death labeled as “not attributed” to the drug by the investigator or the drug company.

“Let me decide. Show me the deaths, and show me the myeloma status at that point,” Dr. Chari said. “That’s a signal – if you’re a responding patient and dying, then the FDA should be a little bit more cautious.”

The FDA has added a boxed warning to the teclistamab product information concerning cytokine-release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.

Cytokine-release syndrome, the most common side effect overall, showed up in 72% of patients, typically 2 days after the first step-up dose.

Neurologic toxicity occurred in 57% of patients, including headache (25%), motor dysfunction (16%), sensory neuropathy (15%) and encephalopathy (13%). About 6%of patients developed a serious, life-threatening neurologic condition called immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome.

Overall, serious adverse reactions occurred in 54% of participants in MajesTEC-1, and 5% of people in the trial died from adverse reactions during the study, most commonly infections.

Because of its safety profile, teclistamab is available only through a restricted program called TECVAYLI Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.

The continued approval of teclistamab for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.

To that end, eight more studies of teclistamab are underway, aiming for approximately 1,300 multiple myeloma patients around the world. Three of these trials are in newly diagnosed patients. Four more studies are planned to come online in the next 3 months, raising the final tally of patients testing out teclistamab to approximately 4,700. The trials will look at teclistamab in sequence or in combination with standards such as bortezomib and pomalidomide. All studies are open label.

Dr. Patel believes that, until these trials say otherwise, the benefits of teclistamab outweigh the risks. “I’m very happy we have one more option in this space, particularly the fourth or fifth line for patients who want to continue to fight the disease,” Dr. Patel concluded.

Dr. Munshi disclosed advisory board/consultant work for Adaptive, Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend, Millennium, Novartis, Oncopep, and Pfizer and is the scientific founder of Oncopep and DCT. The 2020 meta-analysis by Dr. Munshi and colleagues was funded by Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Patel declared funding from Janssen for a diversity-equity initiative and membership of the South Carolina Medicaid P & T Committee. Dr. Usmani declared conflicts of interest with Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Genentech, Gilead, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, SecuraBio, SkylineDX, Takeda, and TeneoBio.