Multiple Myeloma

Lenalidomide can reduce the risk of progression from smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) to multiple myeloma (MM), according to a phase 2/3 trial.

At 3 years, the rate of progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in SMM patients randomized to lenalidomide and 66% in those randomized to observation.

However, more than half of patients randomized to lenalidomide discontinued treatment because of toxicity.

These results are scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, discussed the results in a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

A prior trial suggested that lenalidomide plus dexamethasone can improve time to MM development and overall survival in patients with high-risk SMM (Mateos MV et al. NEJM 2013). However, inferior imaging was used in this trial, and the addition of dexamethasone hindered researchers’ ability to isolate the effects of lenalidomide, Dr. Lonial said.

With their trial (NCT01169337), Dr. Lonial and colleagues tested lenalidomide alone and screened patients using magnetic resonance imaging.

The trial enrolled patients with intermediate or high-risk SMM in two phases. In phase 2, all 44 patients received lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. They also received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28.

In the phase 3 portion of the trial, 182 patients were randomized to observation or lenalidomide and aspirin at the aforementioned dose and schedule. Patients were stratified according to time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year.

Safety

Dr. Lonial said, in general, lenalidomide was “very well tolerated.” However, 80% of patients in phase 2 and 51% in phase 3 discontinued lenalidomide due to toxicity.

The rates of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in the phase 2 portion were 34.1% for grade 3 AEs, 11.4% for grade 4, and 4.5% for grade 5. In the phase 3 portion, 35.2% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related AEs, and 5.7% had grade 4 treatment-related AEs.

Common AEs in phase 3 were grade 4 neutrophil count decrease (4.5%) and grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin AEs (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%).
 

Efficacy

“It is worth noting that about 50% of patients had an objective response to lenalidomide in both the phase 2 and the phase 3 trial,” Dr. Lonial said. “I think it’s also important to realize that, in the phase 2 portion of this study, of the 44 patients enrolled, 78% of them did not progress to myeloma with a median follow-up of over 5 years.”

In phase 2, PFS was 98% at 1 year, 87% at 3 years, and 78% at 5 years.

In phase 3, PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide arm and 89% in the observation arm at 1 year. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide arm and 76% in the observation arm. At 3 years, PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide arm and 66% in the observation arm.

“What’s really quite interesting is that each [risk] group appeared to benefit almost equally from the early intervention of lenalidomide as a single agent,” Dr. Lonial said. “[W]hile the high-risk group may be the target now, this may be a fertile area for investigation in the intermediate-risk group as well.”

Dr. Lonial has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Juno Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda. The trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lonial S et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 8001.

Lenalidomide can reduce the risk of progression from smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) to multiple myeloma (MM), according to a phase 2/3 trial.

At 3 years, the rate of progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in SMM patients randomized to lenalidomide and 66% in those randomized to observation.

However, more than half of patients randomized to lenalidomide discontinued treatment because of toxicity.

These results are scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, discussed the results in a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

A prior trial suggested that lenalidomide plus dexamethasone can improve time to MM development and overall survival in patients with high-risk SMM (Mateos MV et al. NEJM 2013). However, inferior imaging was used in this trial, and the addition of dexamethasone hindered researchers’ ability to isolate the effects of lenalidomide, Dr. Lonial said.

With their trial (NCT01169337), Dr. Lonial and colleagues tested lenalidomide alone and screened patients using magnetic resonance imaging.

The trial enrolled patients with intermediate or high-risk SMM in two phases. In phase 2, all 44 patients received lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. They also received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28.

In the phase 3 portion of the trial, 182 patients were randomized to observation or lenalidomide and aspirin at the aforementioned dose and schedule. Patients were stratified according to time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year.

Safety

Dr. Lonial said, in general, lenalidomide was “very well tolerated.” However, 80% of patients in phase 2 and 51% in phase 3 discontinued lenalidomide due to toxicity.

The rates of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in the phase 2 portion were 34.1% for grade 3 AEs, 11.4% for grade 4, and 4.5% for grade 5. In the phase 3 portion, 35.2% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related AEs, and 5.7% had grade 4 treatment-related AEs.

Common AEs in phase 3 were grade 4 neutrophil count decrease (4.5%) and grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin AEs (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%).
 

Efficacy

“It is worth noting that about 50% of patients had an objective response to lenalidomide in both the phase 2 and the phase 3 trial,” Dr. Lonial said. “I think it’s also important to realize that, in the phase 2 portion of this study, of the 44 patients enrolled, 78% of them did not progress to myeloma with a median follow-up of over 5 years.”

In phase 2, PFS was 98% at 1 year, 87% at 3 years, and 78% at 5 years.

In phase 3, PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide arm and 89% in the observation arm at 1 year. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide arm and 76% in the observation arm. At 3 years, PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide arm and 66% in the observation arm.

“What’s really quite interesting is that each [risk] group appeared to benefit almost equally from the early intervention of lenalidomide as a single agent,” Dr. Lonial said. “[W]hile the high-risk group may be the target now, this may be a fertile area for investigation in the intermediate-risk group as well.”

Dr. Lonial has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Juno Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda. The trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lonial S et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 8001.

Lenalidomide can reduce the risk of progression from smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) to multiple myeloma (MM), according to a phase 2/3 trial.

At 3 years, the rate of progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in SMM patients randomized to lenalidomide and 66% in those randomized to observation.

However, more than half of patients randomized to lenalidomide discontinued treatment because of toxicity.

These results are scheduled to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Sagar Lonial, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, discussed the results in a press briefing in advance of the meeting.

A prior trial suggested that lenalidomide plus dexamethasone can improve time to MM development and overall survival in patients with high-risk SMM (Mateos MV et al. NEJM 2013). However, inferior imaging was used in this trial, and the addition of dexamethasone hindered researchers’ ability to isolate the effects of lenalidomide, Dr. Lonial said.

With their trial (NCT01169337), Dr. Lonial and colleagues tested lenalidomide alone and screened patients using magnetic resonance imaging.

The trial enrolled patients with intermediate or high-risk SMM in two phases. In phase 2, all 44 patients received lenalidomide at 25 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. They also received aspirin at 325 mg on days 1-28.

In the phase 3 portion of the trial, 182 patients were randomized to observation or lenalidomide and aspirin at the aforementioned dose and schedule. Patients were stratified according to time since SMM diagnosis – 1 year or less vs. more than 1 year.

Safety

Dr. Lonial said, in general, lenalidomide was “very well tolerated.” However, 80% of patients in phase 2 and 51% in phase 3 discontinued lenalidomide due to toxicity.

The rates of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in the phase 2 portion were 34.1% for grade 3 AEs, 11.4% for grade 4, and 4.5% for grade 5. In the phase 3 portion, 35.2% of patients had grade 3 treatment-related AEs, and 5.7% had grade 4 treatment-related AEs.

Common AEs in phase 3 were grade 4 neutrophil count decrease (4.5%) and grade 3 infections (20.5%), hypertension (9.1%), fatigue (6.8%), skin AEs (5.7%), dyspnea (5.7%), and hypokalemia (3.4%).
 

Efficacy

“It is worth noting that about 50% of patients had an objective response to lenalidomide in both the phase 2 and the phase 3 trial,” Dr. Lonial said. “I think it’s also important to realize that, in the phase 2 portion of this study, of the 44 patients enrolled, 78% of them did not progress to myeloma with a median follow-up of over 5 years.”

In phase 2, PFS was 98% at 1 year, 87% at 3 years, and 78% at 5 years.

In phase 3, PFS was 98% in the lenalidomide arm and 89% in the observation arm at 1 year. At 2 years, PFS was 93% in the lenalidomide arm and 76% in the observation arm. At 3 years, PFS was 91% in the lenalidomide arm and 66% in the observation arm.

“What’s really quite interesting is that each [risk] group appeared to benefit almost equally from the early intervention of lenalidomide as a single agent,” Dr. Lonial said. “[W]hile the high-risk group may be the target now, this may be a fertile area for investigation in the intermediate-risk group as well.”

Dr. Lonial has relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Juno Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda. The trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lonial S et al. ASCO 2019. Abstract 8001.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy bb2121, which targets B-cell maturation agent (BCMA), appears safe and effective for treating patients with refractory multiple myeloma, according to results of a phase 1 trial.

The objective response rate of 85% among 33 heavily pretreated patients suggests “promising efficacy,” reported lead author Noopur Raje, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues.

“Although comparisons among studies are complicated by differences in patient populations, CAR constructs, administered doses, and grading scales of toxic effects, the results observed with bb2121 indicate a favorable safety profile,” the investigators wrote in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study initially involved 36 patients with refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least three lines of prior therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. Although leukapheresis and therapy manufacturing were successful in all patients, three patients were excluded from receiving the infusion because of disease progression.

The 33 remaining patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. Bridging therapy was allowed during the manufacturing process but was stopped at least 2 weeks prior to infusion. In the dose-escalation phase of the study, b2121 was delivered as a single infusion at one of four dose levels: 50 × 10⁶, 150 × 10⁶, 450 × 10⁶, or 800 × 10⁶ CAR T cells. In the expansion phase, the treatment was given at either 150 x 10⁶ or 450 x 10⁶ CAR T cells. The primary endpoint was safety; the secondary endpoints were response rate and duration of response.

After a median follow-up of 11.3 months, most patients (85%) had responded to therapy, and almost half (45%) had achieved a complete response. Of the 15 complete responders, 6 relapsed. The median progression-free survival was 11.8 months; stated differently, two out of five patients (40%) had not experienced disease progression after 1 year. CAR T cells were detectable 1 month after infusion in 96% of patients; however, this value dropped to 86% at 3 months, 57% at 6 months, and 20% at 12 months. The investigators noted that CAR T-cell persistence was associated with treatment response.

All patients had adverse events. Most (85%) had grade 3 or higher hematologic toxicity, which the investigators considered to be the “expected toxic effects of lymphodepleting chemotherapy.” Although other adverse events occurred in the majority of patients, these were generally mild to moderate. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 25 patients (76%), including two instances of grade 3 toxicity but none of grade 4 or higher. Fourteen patients (42%) developed neurologic toxicities: Most were grade 1 or 2, but one patient had a grade 4 toxicity that resolved after a month. Infections occurred at the same rate (42%), although, again, most were grade 1 or 2.

The study was funded by Bluebird Bio and Celgene. The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bluebird and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Raje N et al. NEJM. 1 May 2019. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817226.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy bb2121, which targets B-cell maturation agent (BCMA), appears safe and effective for treating patients with refractory multiple myeloma, according to results of a phase 1 trial.

The objective response rate of 85% among 33 heavily pretreated patients suggests “promising efficacy,” reported lead author Noopur Raje, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues.

“Although comparisons among studies are complicated by differences in patient populations, CAR constructs, administered doses, and grading scales of toxic effects, the results observed with bb2121 indicate a favorable safety profile,” the investigators wrote in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study initially involved 36 patients with refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least three lines of prior therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. Although leukapheresis and therapy manufacturing were successful in all patients, three patients were excluded from receiving the infusion because of disease progression.

The 33 remaining patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. Bridging therapy was allowed during the manufacturing process but was stopped at least 2 weeks prior to infusion. In the dose-escalation phase of the study, b2121 was delivered as a single infusion at one of four dose levels: 50 × 10⁶, 150 × 10⁶, 450 × 10⁶, or 800 × 10⁶ CAR T cells. In the expansion phase, the treatment was given at either 150 x 10⁶ or 450 x 10⁶ CAR T cells. The primary endpoint was safety; the secondary endpoints were response rate and duration of response.

After a median follow-up of 11.3 months, most patients (85%) had responded to therapy, and almost half (45%) had achieved a complete response. Of the 15 complete responders, 6 relapsed. The median progression-free survival was 11.8 months; stated differently, two out of five patients (40%) had not experienced disease progression after 1 year. CAR T cells were detectable 1 month after infusion in 96% of patients; however, this value dropped to 86% at 3 months, 57% at 6 months, and 20% at 12 months. The investigators noted that CAR T-cell persistence was associated with treatment response.

All patients had adverse events. Most (85%) had grade 3 or higher hematologic toxicity, which the investigators considered to be the “expected toxic effects of lymphodepleting chemotherapy.” Although other adverse events occurred in the majority of patients, these were generally mild to moderate. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 25 patients (76%), including two instances of grade 3 toxicity but none of grade 4 or higher. Fourteen patients (42%) developed neurologic toxicities: Most were grade 1 or 2, but one patient had a grade 4 toxicity that resolved after a month. Infections occurred at the same rate (42%), although, again, most were grade 1 or 2.

The study was funded by Bluebird Bio and Celgene. The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bluebird and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Raje N et al. NEJM. 1 May 2019. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817226.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy bb2121, which targets B-cell maturation agent (BCMA), appears safe and effective for treating patients with refractory multiple myeloma, according to results of a phase 1 trial.

The objective response rate of 85% among 33 heavily pretreated patients suggests “promising efficacy,” reported lead author Noopur Raje, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston and colleagues.

“Although comparisons among studies are complicated by differences in patient populations, CAR constructs, administered doses, and grading scales of toxic effects, the results observed with bb2121 indicate a favorable safety profile,” the investigators wrote in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study initially involved 36 patients with refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least three lines of prior therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. Although leukapheresis and therapy manufacturing were successful in all patients, three patients were excluded from receiving the infusion because of disease progression.

The 33 remaining patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. Bridging therapy was allowed during the manufacturing process but was stopped at least 2 weeks prior to infusion. In the dose-escalation phase of the study, b2121 was delivered as a single infusion at one of four dose levels: 50 × 10⁶, 150 × 10⁶, 450 × 10⁶, or 800 × 10⁶ CAR T cells. In the expansion phase, the treatment was given at either 150 x 10⁶ or 450 x 10⁶ CAR T cells. The primary endpoint was safety; the secondary endpoints were response rate and duration of response.

After a median follow-up of 11.3 months, most patients (85%) had responded to therapy, and almost half (45%) had achieved a complete response. Of the 15 complete responders, 6 relapsed. The median progression-free survival was 11.8 months; stated differently, two out of five patients (40%) had not experienced disease progression after 1 year. CAR T cells were detectable 1 month after infusion in 96% of patients; however, this value dropped to 86% at 3 months, 57% at 6 months, and 20% at 12 months. The investigators noted that CAR T-cell persistence was associated with treatment response.

All patients had adverse events. Most (85%) had grade 3 or higher hematologic toxicity, which the investigators considered to be the “expected toxic effects of lymphodepleting chemotherapy.” Although other adverse events occurred in the majority of patients, these were generally mild to moderate. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 25 patients (76%), including two instances of grade 3 toxicity but none of grade 4 or higher. Fourteen patients (42%) developed neurologic toxicities: Most were grade 1 or 2, but one patient had a grade 4 toxicity that resolved after a month. Infections occurred at the same rate (42%), although, again, most were grade 1 or 2.

The study was funded by Bluebird Bio and Celgene. The investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bluebird and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Raje N et al. NEJM. 1 May 2019. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817226.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

New clinical practice guidelines, jointly released by two leading cancer organizations, provide nearly 50 specific recommendations for the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma patients.

The guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) were authored by a panel of 21 experts in medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy who reviewed 124 relevant studies published between 2005 and 2018.

“The treatment of multiple myeloma has changed significantly in the last 5 years. Since 2015, four new drugs have been approved, thus providing more options and adding to the complexity of treatment options,” the expert panel wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The recommendations are intended to put in context recent randomized trials and drug advances, according to the experts, led by cochairs Joseph Mikhael, MD, of City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, and the International Myeloma Foundation, North Hollywood, Calif., and Tom Martin, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Specifically, the recently approved agents include the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab, directed at CD38 and SLAMF7, respectively.

There are 20 specific recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma; 10 recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients; and 16 recommendations related to relapsed disease in the ASCO/CCO guidelines.

All transplant-eligible patients should be offered up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), according to the guidelines. By contrast, allogeneic transplant is not routinely recommended but “may be considered” in select high-risk patients, and tandem transplant “should not be routinely recommended,” the expert panelists said in their report.

Lenalidomide maintenance therapy should be routinely offered to standard-risk, transplant-eligible patients, according to the panel, whereas bortezomib maintenance could be considered in those who are intolerant of lenalidomide or can’t receive that immunomodulatory drug.

“Evidence is emerging for the use of ixazomib as maintenance therapy and may also be considered,” the panel members said, citing the TOURMALINE-MM3 study results presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and recently published in the Lancet.

Although minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status is linked to improved outcomes, there is insufficient evidence that MRD can be used today to modify maintenance therapy based on depth of response in transplant-eligible patients, according to the guidelines. Likewise, in transplant-ineligible patients, MRD shouldn’t be used to guide treatment goals in clinical practice, the authors said.

Triplet therapies such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) can be considered for transplant ineligible patients, as can the combination of daratumumab and bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2018.

For patients with biochemically relapsed myeloma and high-risk disease – defined as early relapse and presence of high-risk cytogenetics – treatment should begin immediately, whereas close observation may be appropriate for patients with asymptomatic, slowly progressive relapse.

Triplets containing two novel therapies should be administered on first relapse, and should continue until disease progression, the expert panel advised.

If it was not already done after primary induction, ASCT should be offered to relapsed, transplant-eligible myeloma patients.

The expert panel reported numerous financial relationships with industry, including Celgene, Sanofi, AbbVie, TeneoBio, Roche, June Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Mikhael J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02096.

New clinical practice guidelines, jointly released by two leading cancer organizations, provide nearly 50 specific recommendations for the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma patients.

The guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) were authored by a panel of 21 experts in medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy who reviewed 124 relevant studies published between 2005 and 2018.

“The treatment of multiple myeloma has changed significantly in the last 5 years. Since 2015, four new drugs have been approved, thus providing more options and adding to the complexity of treatment options,” the expert panel wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The recommendations are intended to put in context recent randomized trials and drug advances, according to the experts, led by cochairs Joseph Mikhael, MD, of City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, and the International Myeloma Foundation, North Hollywood, Calif., and Tom Martin, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Specifically, the recently approved agents include the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab, directed at CD38 and SLAMF7, respectively.

There are 20 specific recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma; 10 recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients; and 16 recommendations related to relapsed disease in the ASCO/CCO guidelines.

All transplant-eligible patients should be offered up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), according to the guidelines. By contrast, allogeneic transplant is not routinely recommended but “may be considered” in select high-risk patients, and tandem transplant “should not be routinely recommended,” the expert panelists said in their report.

Lenalidomide maintenance therapy should be routinely offered to standard-risk, transplant-eligible patients, according to the panel, whereas bortezomib maintenance could be considered in those who are intolerant of lenalidomide or can’t receive that immunomodulatory drug.

“Evidence is emerging for the use of ixazomib as maintenance therapy and may also be considered,” the panel members said, citing the TOURMALINE-MM3 study results presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and recently published in the Lancet.

Although minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status is linked to improved outcomes, there is insufficient evidence that MRD can be used today to modify maintenance therapy based on depth of response in transplant-eligible patients, according to the guidelines. Likewise, in transplant-ineligible patients, MRD shouldn’t be used to guide treatment goals in clinical practice, the authors said.

Triplet therapies such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) can be considered for transplant ineligible patients, as can the combination of daratumumab and bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2018.

For patients with biochemically relapsed myeloma and high-risk disease – defined as early relapse and presence of high-risk cytogenetics – treatment should begin immediately, whereas close observation may be appropriate for patients with asymptomatic, slowly progressive relapse.

Triplets containing two novel therapies should be administered on first relapse, and should continue until disease progression, the expert panel advised.

If it was not already done after primary induction, ASCT should be offered to relapsed, transplant-eligible myeloma patients.

The expert panel reported numerous financial relationships with industry, including Celgene, Sanofi, AbbVie, TeneoBio, Roche, June Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Mikhael J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02096.

New clinical practice guidelines, jointly released by two leading cancer organizations, provide nearly 50 specific recommendations for the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma patients.

The guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) were authored by a panel of 21 experts in medical oncology, surgery, radiation oncology, and advocacy who reviewed 124 relevant studies published between 2005 and 2018.

“The treatment of multiple myeloma has changed significantly in the last 5 years. Since 2015, four new drugs have been approved, thus providing more options and adding to the complexity of treatment options,” the expert panel wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The recommendations are intended to put in context recent randomized trials and drug advances, according to the experts, led by cochairs Joseph Mikhael, MD, of City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, and the International Myeloma Foundation, North Hollywood, Calif., and Tom Martin, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

Specifically, the recently approved agents include the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab, directed at CD38 and SLAMF7, respectively.

There are 20 specific recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma; 10 recommendations for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients; and 16 recommendations related to relapsed disease in the ASCO/CCO guidelines.

All transplant-eligible patients should be offered up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), according to the guidelines. By contrast, allogeneic transplant is not routinely recommended but “may be considered” in select high-risk patients, and tandem transplant “should not be routinely recommended,” the expert panelists said in their report.

Lenalidomide maintenance therapy should be routinely offered to standard-risk, transplant-eligible patients, according to the panel, whereas bortezomib maintenance could be considered in those who are intolerant of lenalidomide or can’t receive that immunomodulatory drug.

“Evidence is emerging for the use of ixazomib as maintenance therapy and may also be considered,” the panel members said, citing the TOURMALINE-MM3 study results presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology and recently published in the Lancet.

Although minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status is linked to improved outcomes, there is insufficient evidence that MRD can be used today to modify maintenance therapy based on depth of response in transplant-eligible patients, according to the guidelines. Likewise, in transplant-ineligible patients, MRD shouldn’t be used to guide treatment goals in clinical practice, the authors said.

Triplet therapies such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) can be considered for transplant ineligible patients, as can the combination of daratumumab and bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2018.

For patients with biochemically relapsed myeloma and high-risk disease – defined as early relapse and presence of high-risk cytogenetics – treatment should begin immediately, whereas close observation may be appropriate for patients with asymptomatic, slowly progressive relapse.

Triplets containing two novel therapies should be administered on first relapse, and should continue until disease progression, the expert panel advised.

If it was not already done after primary induction, ASCT should be offered to relapsed, transplant-eligible myeloma patients.

The expert panel reported numerous financial relationships with industry, including Celgene, Sanofi, AbbVie, TeneoBio, Roche, June Therapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Mikhael J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02096.

Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).

Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”

This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.

“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.

In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.

The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.

About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).

Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.

Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.

Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.

Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.

“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”

When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.

However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.

“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.

The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.

Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).

Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”

This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.

“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.

In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.

The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.

About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).

Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.

Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.

Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.

Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.

“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”

When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.

However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.

“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.

The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.

Glasgow – Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were treated with a combination of the oral protease inhibitor ixazomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in routine clinical practice had similar responses to clinical trial patients, according to a global observational study.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response (OR) rates closely approximated data from the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, reported lead author Gordon Cook, MB ChB, PhD, clinical director of hematology at the University of Leeds (England).

Tolerability appeared slightly higher in routine clinical practice, and in agreement with previous real-world studies for RRMM, patients who received IRd in earlier lines of therapy had better outcomes than did those who received IRd in later lines of therapy. “The translation of clinical trial data into the real world is really important because we practice in the real world,” Dr. Cook said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology. “We know that trials are really important for establishing efficacy and safety of drugs so they can get licensed and market access, but [clinical trials] often don’t tell us about the true effectiveness of the drugs and tolerability because the populations in trials are often different from [patients in] the real world.”

This situation leads to an evidence gap, which the present trial, dubbed INSIGHT MM aims to fill. INSIGHT is the largest global, prospective, observational trial for multiple myeloma conducted to date, with ongoing enrollment of about 4,200 patients from 15 countries with newly diagnosed or refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Dr. Cook estimated that recruitment would be complete by June of 2019.

“The aim of [INSIGHT MM] is to evaluate real-world treatment and outcomes [in multiple myeloma] over 5 years and beyond,” Dr. Cook said.

In combination with interim data from INSIGHT MM (n = 50), Dr. Cook reported patient outcomes from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (n = 113), a similar database. Unlike INSIGHT MM, which includes patients treated with between one and three prior lines of therapy, the Czech registry does not cap the number of prior therapies. Overall, in the data presented by Dr. Cook, nine countries were represented; about 90% of which were European, although approximately 10% of patients were treated in the United States and about 1% were treated in Taiwan.

The median age of diagnosis was 67 years, with about 14% of patients over the age of 75 years. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of IRd was about 3.5 years (42.6 months), at which point 71% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 1.

About two-thirds of the patients (65%) had IgG multiple myeloma, and 14% had extramedullary disease. The most common prior therapy was bortezomib (89%), followed by transplant (61%), thalidomide (42%), lenalidomide (21%), carfilzomib (11%), daratumumab (3%), and pomalidomide (2%).

Half of the patients received IRd as second-line therapy, while the other half received the treatment third-line (30%), or fourth-line or later (20%). Median duration of therapy was just over 1 year (14 months), with 62% of patients still receiving therapy at data cutoff.

Dr. Cook cautioned that with a median follow-up of 9.3 months, data are still immature. However, the results so far suggest strong similarities in tolerability and efficacy when comparing real-world and clinical trial administration of IRd.

Routine clinical use was associated with an overall response rate of 74%, compared with 78% in the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial. Again, showing high similarity, median PFS rates were 20.9 months and 20.6 months for the present data set and the TOURMALINE‑MM1 trial, respectively.

Just 4% of patients permanently discontinued ixazomib in the real-world study, compared with 17% in the clinical trial, suggesting that IRd may be better tolerated in routine clinical practice than the trial data indicated.

“IRd is effective in this setting,” Dr. Cook said. “Bear in mind that patients in the real-world database were further down the line in terms of the treatment pathway, they had prior heavier exposure to bortezomib and lenalidomide, and their performance status was slightly less impressive than it was in [TOURMALINE‑MM1]; therefore, to see this level of response in the real world is very pleasing.”

When asked by an attendee if clinical trials should push for inclusion of patients more representative of real-world populations, Dr. Cook said no. “I think the way we conduct phase 3 clinical trials, in particular, has to be the way it is in order for us to ensure that we can actually get the absolute efficacy and the safety, and that has to be done by a refined population, I’m afraid,” he said.

However, Dr. Cook supported efforts to improve reliability of data for clinicians at the time of drug licensing.

“We should be running real-world exposure in parallel with phase 3 studies, which is harder to do but just requires a bit of imagination,” Dr. Cook said.

The study was funded by Takeda. The investigators reported financial relationships with Takeda and other companies.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. BSH 2019, Abstract OR-018.

Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).

However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m² pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”

The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.

In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m² on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m², which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m² per day on days –2 and –1.

The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.

The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.

Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.

There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.

At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.

Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.

Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.

The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.

Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.

There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).

Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.

One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.

Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.

Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.

“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.

Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).

However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m² pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”

The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.

In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m² on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m², which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m² per day on days –2 and –1.

The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.

The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.

Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.

There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.

At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.

Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.

Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.

The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.

Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.

There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).

Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.

One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.

Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.

Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.

“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.

Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).

However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m² pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”

The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.

In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m² on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m², which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m² per day on days –2 and –1.

The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.

The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.

Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.

There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.

At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.

Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.

Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.

The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.

Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.

There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).

Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.

One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.

Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.

Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.

“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.

The Food and Drug Administration has halted enrollment in trials of venetoclax (Venclexta) for multiple myeloma.

The move comes after a review of data from the phase 3 BELLINI trial, which pitted venetoclax against placebo in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients on a background of bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone. Venetoclax is not approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma; the agency said that patients using the drug for approved indications should continue use of the drug.

There were 41/194 deaths (21.1%) in the venetoclax arm, versus 11/97 (11.3%) in the placebo group; 13 of the deaths in the venetoclax arm (32%) and 1 death in the placebo arm (9%) were treatment related. Sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest were the most common treatment-related causes of death in the venetoclax group; 8 of the 13 deaths (62%) were due to infection.

The FDA estimated that the drug doubled the risk of death compared to placebo.

The agency warned against off-label use of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and noted that the drug “is safe and effective for its approved uses,” which include second-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma in adults, as well as newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adults age 75 years or older or who have contraindications to standard chemotherapy.

There are more than 10 trials in the United States of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and most of them have been suspended, including BELLINI.

Patients already enrolled in the trial can remain on treatment, but they must re-consent to the trial. The FDA “will be working directly with sponsors of Venclexta, as well as other investigators conducting clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, to determine the extent of the safety issue,” the agency said in a statement.

Abbvie, which is developing venetoclax in partnership with Roche, noted in its own press release that the drug otherwise outperformed placebo in BELLINI, both in progression-free survival (22.4 months versus 11.5 months), and in overall (82% versus 68%) and partial (59% versus 36%) response rates.

Severe grade 3-5 toxicity and serious adverse event rates were similar in the two study arms, as was the overall incidence of infections (79.8% versus 77.1%). However, the incidence of pneumonia was 20.7% with venetoclax, versus 15.6% with placebo.

“We will continue working with the FDA and worldwide regulatory agencies to determine appropriate next steps for the multiple myeloma program,” Michael Severino, MD, AbbVie vice chairman and president, said in the press release.

Venetoclax binds and inhibits the B-cell lymphoma-2 protein, which prevents some blood cancer cells from undergoing programmed cell death.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has halted enrollment in trials of venetoclax (Venclexta) for multiple myeloma.

The move comes after a review of data from the phase 3 BELLINI trial, which pitted venetoclax against placebo in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients on a background of bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone. Venetoclax is not approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma; the agency said that patients using the drug for approved indications should continue use of the drug.

There were 41/194 deaths (21.1%) in the venetoclax arm, versus 11/97 (11.3%) in the placebo group; 13 of the deaths in the venetoclax arm (32%) and 1 death in the placebo arm (9%) were treatment related. Sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest were the most common treatment-related causes of death in the venetoclax group; 8 of the 13 deaths (62%) were due to infection.

The FDA estimated that the drug doubled the risk of death compared to placebo.

The agency warned against off-label use of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and noted that the drug “is safe and effective for its approved uses,” which include second-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma in adults, as well as newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adults age 75 years or older or who have contraindications to standard chemotherapy.

There are more than 10 trials in the United States of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and most of them have been suspended, including BELLINI.

Patients already enrolled in the trial can remain on treatment, but they must re-consent to the trial. The FDA “will be working directly with sponsors of Venclexta, as well as other investigators conducting clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, to determine the extent of the safety issue,” the agency said in a statement.

Abbvie, which is developing venetoclax in partnership with Roche, noted in its own press release that the drug otherwise outperformed placebo in BELLINI, both in progression-free survival (22.4 months versus 11.5 months), and in overall (82% versus 68%) and partial (59% versus 36%) response rates.

Severe grade 3-5 toxicity and serious adverse event rates were similar in the two study arms, as was the overall incidence of infections (79.8% versus 77.1%). However, the incidence of pneumonia was 20.7% with venetoclax, versus 15.6% with placebo.

“We will continue working with the FDA and worldwide regulatory agencies to determine appropriate next steps for the multiple myeloma program,” Michael Severino, MD, AbbVie vice chairman and president, said in the press release.

Venetoclax binds and inhibits the B-cell lymphoma-2 protein, which prevents some blood cancer cells from undergoing programmed cell death.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has halted enrollment in trials of venetoclax (Venclexta) for multiple myeloma.

The move comes after a review of data from the phase 3 BELLINI trial, which pitted venetoclax against placebo in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients on a background of bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone. Venetoclax is not approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma; the agency said that patients using the drug for approved indications should continue use of the drug.

There were 41/194 deaths (21.1%) in the venetoclax arm, versus 11/97 (11.3%) in the placebo group; 13 of the deaths in the venetoclax arm (32%) and 1 death in the placebo arm (9%) were treatment related. Sepsis, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest were the most common treatment-related causes of death in the venetoclax group; 8 of the 13 deaths (62%) were due to infection.

The FDA estimated that the drug doubled the risk of death compared to placebo.

The agency warned against off-label use of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and noted that the drug “is safe and effective for its approved uses,” which include second-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma in adults, as well as newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adults age 75 years or older or who have contraindications to standard chemotherapy.

There are more than 10 trials in the United States of venetoclax for multiple myeloma, and most of them have been suspended, including BELLINI.

Patients already enrolled in the trial can remain on treatment, but they must re-consent to the trial. The FDA “will be working directly with sponsors of Venclexta, as well as other investigators conducting clinical trials in patients with multiple myeloma, to determine the extent of the safety issue,” the agency said in a statement.

Abbvie, which is developing venetoclax in partnership with Roche, noted in its own press release that the drug otherwise outperformed placebo in BELLINI, both in progression-free survival (22.4 months versus 11.5 months), and in overall (82% versus 68%) and partial (59% versus 36%) response rates.

Severe grade 3-5 toxicity and serious adverse event rates were similar in the two study arms, as was the overall incidence of infections (79.8% versus 77.1%). However, the incidence of pneumonia was 20.7% with venetoclax, versus 15.6% with placebo.

“We will continue working with the FDA and worldwide regulatory agencies to determine appropriate next steps for the multiple myeloma program,” Michael Severino, MD, AbbVie vice chairman and president, said in the press release.

Venetoclax binds and inhibits the B-cell lymphoma-2 protein, which prevents some blood cancer cells from undergoing programmed cell death.

[email protected]

An all-oral, three-drug regimen may be a treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The regimen – clarithromycin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (ClaPd) – produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 60% in a phase 2 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Response rates were similar whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, or both drugs.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.

Tomer M. Mark, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and his colleagues, reported these results in Blood Advances.

The trial (NCT01159574) included 120 patients with RRMM. They had a median age of 63 years (range, 42-87 years) and were a median of 4.6 years (range, 0.8-21.2 years) from diagnosis at baseline.

The patients had received a median of 5 (range, 3-15) prior lines of therapy. Most patients were refractory to lenalidomide (n = 101), bortezomib (n = 94), or both (n = 81).

The ClaPd regimen consisted of clarithromycin given at 500 mg twice daily, pomalidomide at 4 mg on days 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. The patients received ClaPd until intolerance or disease progression. In addition to ClaPd, patients received thromboprophylaxis (aspirin at 81 mg daily) and Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or an alternative).

The toxicities were manageable, with low rates of nonhematologic and high-grade events, according to the researchers. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were lymphopenia (60%), neutropenia (58%), leukopenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and anemia (28%).

Among all evaluable patients, the ORR was 60% (70/117). One patient had a complete response, 6 had a stringent complete response, 20 had a very good partial response, and 43 had a partial response.

ORRs were similar whether patients were refractory to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or both. The ORR was 58% (n = 59) among lenalidomide-refractory patients, 55% (n = 52) among bortezomib-refractory patients, and 54% (n = 44) among double-refractory patients.

For the entire cohort, the median progression-free survival was 7.7 months and the median overall survival was 19.2 months.

In a multivariate analysis, there were two factors significantly associated with inferior overall survival – having a revised International Staging System score greater than 1 (hazard ratio, 2.75; P = .044) and having at least 5% of CD138 cells positive for Ki67 on immunohistochemistry (hazard ratio, 1.84, P = .030).

“The ClaPd regimen demonstrated high rates of overall response and significant duration of disease control in a heavily pretreated RRMM population while maintaining a toxicity profile similar to Pom-dex [pomalidone-dexamethasone] alone,” Dr. Mark and his colleagues wrote. “The clinical efficacy advantage of adding clarithromycin to Pom-dex should be explored further in a phase 3 clinical trial.”

This research was supported by Celgene; the Myeloma Center at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York; and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mark reported relationships with Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, and Janssen. Other study authors reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mark TM et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Feb 26;3(4):603-11.

An all-oral, three-drug regimen may be a treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The regimen – clarithromycin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (ClaPd) – produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 60% in a phase 2 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Response rates were similar whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, or both drugs.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.

Tomer M. Mark, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and his colleagues, reported these results in Blood Advances.

The trial (NCT01159574) included 120 patients with RRMM. They had a median age of 63 years (range, 42-87 years) and were a median of 4.6 years (range, 0.8-21.2 years) from diagnosis at baseline.

The patients had received a median of 5 (range, 3-15) prior lines of therapy. Most patients were refractory to lenalidomide (n = 101), bortezomib (n = 94), or both (n = 81).

The ClaPd regimen consisted of clarithromycin given at 500 mg twice daily, pomalidomide at 4 mg on days 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. The patients received ClaPd until intolerance or disease progression. In addition to ClaPd, patients received thromboprophylaxis (aspirin at 81 mg daily) and Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or an alternative).

The toxicities were manageable, with low rates of nonhematologic and high-grade events, according to the researchers. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were lymphopenia (60%), neutropenia (58%), leukopenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and anemia (28%).

Among all evaluable patients, the ORR was 60% (70/117). One patient had a complete response, 6 had a stringent complete response, 20 had a very good partial response, and 43 had a partial response.

ORRs were similar whether patients were refractory to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or both. The ORR was 58% (n = 59) among lenalidomide-refractory patients, 55% (n = 52) among bortezomib-refractory patients, and 54% (n = 44) among double-refractory patients.

For the entire cohort, the median progression-free survival was 7.7 months and the median overall survival was 19.2 months.

In a multivariate analysis, there were two factors significantly associated with inferior overall survival – having a revised International Staging System score greater than 1 (hazard ratio, 2.75; P = .044) and having at least 5% of CD138 cells positive for Ki67 on immunohistochemistry (hazard ratio, 1.84, P = .030).

“The ClaPd regimen demonstrated high rates of overall response and significant duration of disease control in a heavily pretreated RRMM population while maintaining a toxicity profile similar to Pom-dex [pomalidone-dexamethasone] alone,” Dr. Mark and his colleagues wrote. “The clinical efficacy advantage of adding clarithromycin to Pom-dex should be explored further in a phase 3 clinical trial.”

This research was supported by Celgene; the Myeloma Center at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York; and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mark reported relationships with Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, and Janssen. Other study authors reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mark TM et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Feb 26;3(4):603-11.

An all-oral, three-drug regimen may be a treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

The regimen – clarithromycin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (ClaPd) – produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 60% in a phase 2 trial of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Response rates were similar whether patients were refractory to lenalidomide, bortezomib, or both drugs.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in this trial were hematologic toxicities.

Tomer M. Mark, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and his colleagues, reported these results in Blood Advances.

The trial (NCT01159574) included 120 patients with RRMM. They had a median age of 63 years (range, 42-87 years) and were a median of 4.6 years (range, 0.8-21.2 years) from diagnosis at baseline.

The patients had received a median of 5 (range, 3-15) prior lines of therapy. Most patients were refractory to lenalidomide (n = 101), bortezomib (n = 94), or both (n = 81).

The ClaPd regimen consisted of clarithromycin given at 500 mg twice daily, pomalidomide at 4 mg on days 1-21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. The patients received ClaPd until intolerance or disease progression. In addition to ClaPd, patients received thromboprophylaxis (aspirin at 81 mg daily) and Pneumocystis jiroveci prophylaxis (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or an alternative).

The toxicities were manageable, with low rates of nonhematologic and high-grade events, according to the researchers. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were lymphopenia (60%), neutropenia (58%), leukopenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and anemia (28%).

Among all evaluable patients, the ORR was 60% (70/117). One patient had a complete response, 6 had a stringent complete response, 20 had a very good partial response, and 43 had a partial response.

ORRs were similar whether patients were refractory to bortezomib, lenalidomide, or both. The ORR was 58% (n = 59) among lenalidomide-refractory patients, 55% (n = 52) among bortezomib-refractory patients, and 54% (n = 44) among double-refractory patients.

For the entire cohort, the median progression-free survival was 7.7 months and the median overall survival was 19.2 months.

In a multivariate analysis, there were two factors significantly associated with inferior overall survival – having a revised International Staging System score greater than 1 (hazard ratio, 2.75; P = .044) and having at least 5% of CD138 cells positive for Ki67 on immunohistochemistry (hazard ratio, 1.84, P = .030).

“The ClaPd regimen demonstrated high rates of overall response and significant duration of disease control in a heavily pretreated RRMM population while maintaining a toxicity profile similar to Pom-dex [pomalidone-dexamethasone] alone,” Dr. Mark and his colleagues wrote. “The clinical efficacy advantage of adding clarithromycin to Pom-dex should be explored further in a phase 3 clinical trial.”

This research was supported by Celgene; the Myeloma Center at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York; and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mark reported relationships with Amgen, Takeda, Celgene, and Janssen. Other study authors reported relationships with Celgene, Takeda, and Onyx Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mark TM et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Feb 26;3(4):603-11.

A proposed clinical scoring system using readily available laboratory data, rather than complex formulas, can be used to predict risk for overall survival and help with clinical decision making for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplants, the system’s creators claim.

Peter Anderson/ Pathology Education Informational Resource Digital Library/copyright University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pathology

When applied to data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, the UK Myeloma Research Alliance Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to accurately group patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories and was prognostic of overall survival, reported Gordon Cook, PhD, of the University of Leeds, England, and his colleagues.

“The ability of clinical scoring systems, such as that proposed here, to predict whether a patient is likely to stop treatment early because of treatment intolerability, could enable preemptive, upfront dose adjustments in patients with multiple myeloma, preventing toxicity and potentially enabling patients to stay on therapy for longer,” they wrote in the Lancet Haematology.

The investigators used data on 1,852 newly diagnosed patients recruited to the non–intensive treatment pathway of the UK’s National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma XI study (NCRI-XI, ISRCTN49407852) for a training dataset and internal validation dataset, and 520 patients recruited into the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX study (MRC-IX, ISRCTN68454111) for the test dataset.

Patient characteristics, biochemical measurements, and hematological data were plugged into univariate and multivariate models to determine their potential as prognostic variables.

The final model for the test and validation datasets included World Health Organization performance status, the multiple myeloma International Staging System, patient age, and C-reactive protein concentrations.

As noted before, the scoring algorithm groups patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories, with each of the prognostic variables increasing in severity across the three groups in both clinical trials.

In the NCRI-XI trial, median overall survival for patients in the MRP low-risk group was 60 months, compared with 44 months in the medium-risk group, and 25 months in the high-risk group.

Similarly, in the MRC-IX trial, the respective median overall survival was 49, 34, and 20 months.

The risk groups also were associated with progression-free survival in each trial, although not as robustly as the association with overall survival.

The investigators also found that, the higher the risk group, the greater the likelihood that the median percentage of protocol dose delivered would be lower, and both a decrease in protocol dose delivered and quality of life at baseline were associated with increased risk.

The MRP categories were prognostic in patients treated with various therapeutic regimens and in patients with high-risk cytogenetics.

“None of the risk scoring systems previously developed in myeloma are dynamic, making them unable to accommodate changes in disease-related frailty that might be minimized by effective anti-myeloma therapy. There is therefore scope to improve clinical risk scores by the addition of a suitable frailty biomarker, which is currently still in developmental stages,” Dr. Cook and his colleagues wrote.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, Ortho Biotech, Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Amgen. Dr. Cook reported grants and nonfinancial support from Celgene, Amgen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, during the conduct of the study and personal fees from other companies outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar;6(3):e154-66.

A proposed clinical scoring system using readily available laboratory data, rather than complex formulas, can be used to predict risk for overall survival and help with clinical decision making for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplants, the system’s creators claim.

Peter Anderson/ Pathology Education Informational Resource Digital Library/copyright University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pathology

When applied to data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, the UK Myeloma Research Alliance Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to accurately group patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories and was prognostic of overall survival, reported Gordon Cook, PhD, of the University of Leeds, England, and his colleagues.

“The ability of clinical scoring systems, such as that proposed here, to predict whether a patient is likely to stop treatment early because of treatment intolerability, could enable preemptive, upfront dose adjustments in patients with multiple myeloma, preventing toxicity and potentially enabling patients to stay on therapy for longer,” they wrote in the Lancet Haematology.

The investigators used data on 1,852 newly diagnosed patients recruited to the non–intensive treatment pathway of the UK’s National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma XI study (NCRI-XI, ISRCTN49407852) for a training dataset and internal validation dataset, and 520 patients recruited into the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX study (MRC-IX, ISRCTN68454111) for the test dataset.

Patient characteristics, biochemical measurements, and hematological data were plugged into univariate and multivariate models to determine their potential as prognostic variables.

The final model for the test and validation datasets included World Health Organization performance status, the multiple myeloma International Staging System, patient age, and C-reactive protein concentrations.

As noted before, the scoring algorithm groups patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories, with each of the prognostic variables increasing in severity across the three groups in both clinical trials.

In the NCRI-XI trial, median overall survival for patients in the MRP low-risk group was 60 months, compared with 44 months in the medium-risk group, and 25 months in the high-risk group.

Similarly, in the MRC-IX trial, the respective median overall survival was 49, 34, and 20 months.

The risk groups also were associated with progression-free survival in each trial, although not as robustly as the association with overall survival.

The investigators also found that, the higher the risk group, the greater the likelihood that the median percentage of protocol dose delivered would be lower, and both a decrease in protocol dose delivered and quality of life at baseline were associated with increased risk.

The MRP categories were prognostic in patients treated with various therapeutic regimens and in patients with high-risk cytogenetics.

“None of the risk scoring systems previously developed in myeloma are dynamic, making them unable to accommodate changes in disease-related frailty that might be minimized by effective anti-myeloma therapy. There is therefore scope to improve clinical risk scores by the addition of a suitable frailty biomarker, which is currently still in developmental stages,” Dr. Cook and his colleagues wrote.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, Ortho Biotech, Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Amgen. Dr. Cook reported grants and nonfinancial support from Celgene, Amgen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, during the conduct of the study and personal fees from other companies outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar;6(3):e154-66.

A proposed clinical scoring system using readily available laboratory data, rather than complex formulas, can be used to predict risk for overall survival and help with clinical decision making for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplants, the system’s creators claim.

Peter Anderson/ Pathology Education Informational Resource Digital Library/copyright University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Pathology

When applied to data from two clinical trials that enrolled patients with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, the UK Myeloma Research Alliance Risk Profile (MRP) was shown to accurately group patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories and was prognostic of overall survival, reported Gordon Cook, PhD, of the University of Leeds, England, and his colleagues.

“The ability of clinical scoring systems, such as that proposed here, to predict whether a patient is likely to stop treatment early because of treatment intolerability, could enable preemptive, upfront dose adjustments in patients with multiple myeloma, preventing toxicity and potentially enabling patients to stay on therapy for longer,” they wrote in the Lancet Haematology.

The investigators used data on 1,852 newly diagnosed patients recruited to the non–intensive treatment pathway of the UK’s National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma XI study (NCRI-XI, ISRCTN49407852) for a training dataset and internal validation dataset, and 520 patients recruited into the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX study (MRC-IX, ISRCTN68454111) for the test dataset.

Patient characteristics, biochemical measurements, and hematological data were plugged into univariate and multivariate models to determine their potential as prognostic variables.

The final model for the test and validation datasets included World Health Organization performance status, the multiple myeloma International Staging System, patient age, and C-reactive protein concentrations.

As noted before, the scoring algorithm groups patients into low-, medium- and high-risk categories, with each of the prognostic variables increasing in severity across the three groups in both clinical trials.

In the NCRI-XI trial, median overall survival for patients in the MRP low-risk group was 60 months, compared with 44 months in the medium-risk group, and 25 months in the high-risk group.

Similarly, in the MRC-IX trial, the respective median overall survival was 49, 34, and 20 months.

The risk groups also were associated with progression-free survival in each trial, although not as robustly as the association with overall survival.

The investigators also found that, the higher the risk group, the greater the likelihood that the median percentage of protocol dose delivered would be lower, and both a decrease in protocol dose delivered and quality of life at baseline were associated with increased risk.

The MRP categories were prognostic in patients treated with various therapeutic regimens and in patients with high-risk cytogenetics.

“None of the risk scoring systems previously developed in myeloma are dynamic, making them unable to accommodate changes in disease-related frailty that might be minimized by effective anti-myeloma therapy. There is therefore scope to improve clinical risk scores by the addition of a suitable frailty biomarker, which is currently still in developmental stages,” Dr. Cook and his colleagues wrote.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council, Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, Ortho Biotech, Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Amgen. Dr. Cook reported grants and nonfinancial support from Celgene, Amgen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, during the conduct of the study and personal fees from other companies outside the submitted work.

SOURCE: Cook G et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar;6(3):e154-66.

WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.

The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.

The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.

The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.

The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).

In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.

“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
 

IMiDs and thromboembolism

In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.

“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.

There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.

Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.

“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.

He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.

WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.

The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.

The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.

The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.

The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).

In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.

“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
 

IMiDs and thromboembolism

In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.

“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.

There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.

Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.

“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.

He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.

WASHINGTON – Proteasome inhibitors are essential components of therapeutic regimens for multiple myeloma, but at least one member of this class of life-extending agents, carfilzomib (Kyprolis), is also associated with a significant increase in risk of heart failure, cautioned a specialist in plasma cell disorders.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

In addition, immunomodulating agents such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) and pomalidomide (Pomalyst) are associated with increased risk for thromboembolic events, said R. Frank Cornell, MD, clinical director of plasma cell disorders at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

In an ongoing, prospective study comparing rates of cardiac adverse events in patients receiving carfilzomib or another proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (Velcade), Dr. Cornell and his colleagues found that while there were no significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between the treatments, “patients who experienced a cardiovascular event had significantly worse progression-free and overall survival compared to those that did not have a cardiovascular event,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.

The Prospective Observation of Cardiac Safety With Proteasome Inhibition (PROTECT) trial, scheduled for completion in August 2019, enrolled 95 patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and randomly assigned them on a 2:1 basis to receive carfilzomib or bortezomib.

The investigators found that cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 33 of the 65 patients (51%) randomized to carfilzomib, compared with 5 of 30 patients (17%) assigned to bortezomib.

The events included grade 1 or 2 heart failure (HF) in 12 patients on carfilzomib vs. 2 on bortezomib, and grade 3 or 4 HF in 11 vs. 1, respectively. Hypertension was significantly more frequent among patients on carfilzomib, and one patient on carfilzomib died from the acute coronary syndrome 24 hours after receiving carfilzomib in the second week of treatment.

The investigators found that both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were highly predictive of cardiovascular adverse events. Patients on carfilzomib who had levels of the markers above normal at baseline had an odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular events of 7.39 (P less than .0001), and those with BNP or NT-proBNP increases at week 2 or 3 during cycle 1 had an OR for a cardiovascular adverse event of 63.5 (P less than .001).

In multivariate analysis, the risk for cardiovascular events for patients treated with carfilzomib was significantly lower for patients with one or no traditional cardiovascular risk factors, compared with patients with two or more.

“Prospective monitoring with natriuretic peptides should be considered, particularly early in treatment,” Dr. Cornell said.
 

IMiDs and thromboembolism

In early clinical trials of immunomodulators (IMiDs) for multiple myeloma, investigators saw that the incidence of thromboembolic events was lower among patients who received thromboprophylaxis than among those who did not, Dr. Cornell noted.

“From this, certain guidelines have been developed such that all patients considered to be at risk should at least receive an aspirin, 81-325 mg, and patients at higher risk for thromboembolism should receive low-molecular-weight heparin or therapeutic-dose warfarin,” he said.

There is little guidance, however, about the use of direct oral anticoagulants in this population, he added, a fact that prompted him and his colleagues in oncology and cardiology to perform a pilot study of apixaban (Eliquis) for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma who were receiving immunodulatory drugs.

Results of the pilot study, reported in a poster session at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, showed that among 50 patients who received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during IMiD therapy, there were no VTEs, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and no episodes of major bleeding. There were just three nonmajor bleeding events, and one early withdrawal from apixaban due to an allergic reaction manifesting as generalized edema.

“Further study is needed to validate this as a potential primary prophylaxis in patients receiving IMiDs for multiple myeloma,” Dr. Cornell said.

He reported having no financial disclosures. Millennium Pharmaceuticals is a sponsor of the PROTECT trial.