Multiple Myeloma

The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review for daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The current application is based on the randomized, multicenter, phase 3 ALCYONE study of daratumumab in combination with bortezomib (Velcade), melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in de novo multiple myeloma patients.

Daratumumab is being developed by Janssen Biotech, in partnership with Genmab.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review for daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The current application is based on the randomized, multicenter, phase 3 ALCYONE study of daratumumab in combination with bortezomib (Velcade), melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in de novo multiple myeloma patients.

Daratumumab is being developed by Janssen Biotech, in partnership with Genmab.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted priority review for daratumumab, a monoclonal antibody treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The current application is based on the randomized, multicenter, phase 3 ALCYONE study of daratumumab in combination with bortezomib (Velcade), melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in de novo multiple myeloma patients.

Daratumumab is being developed by Janssen Biotech, in partnership with Genmab.

[email protected]

The mode and risk of disease progression significantly differs for patients with IgM monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and those with non-IgM MGUS, Robert A. Kyle, MD, and his colleagues reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The risk for progression among IgM MGUS patients was 1.1 events/100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events among those with non-IgM MGUS – a significant difference. The researchers also found that risk is related to monoclonal (M) protein level and abnormal serum-free, light-chain assay results for both forms of MGUS.

Further, risk of progression varied with duration of follow-up in IgM MGUS, unlike non-IgM MGUS. However, for MGUS in general, “the risk of progression to myeloma or a related disorder is much less than the competing risk of death due to other causes,” Dr. Kyle, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his associates wrote.

The findings should help to determine the appropriate type of monitoring for MGUS patients, the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported results of the longest-yet follow-up study of MGUS patients. The team described median 34-year follow-up data on 1,384 patients with MGUS –70% with IgG type, 12% with IgA type, 15% with IgM type, and 3% with a biclonal gammopathy. (The patients formed the basis of an initial 2002 report.) They were diagnosed during 1960-1994, at a mean age of 72 years. Of these patients, 1,300 (94%) have died.

Among the 210 patients with IgM MGUS, the risk of progression was 2%/year in the first 10 years after diagnosis and 1%/year thereafter. Risk of progression did not vary during the follow-up of patients with non-IgM MGUS.

“The initial concentration of the serum M protein and the serum-free, light-chain ratio were the most important univariate risk factors for progression to a plasma cell disorder among patients with IgM or non-IgM MGUS. Combined, these two variables provided prognostic value in both IgM MGUS and non-IgM types of MGUS,” the authors wrote.

They explained that the difference may lie in the origins of MGUS. “IgM MGUS typically arises from a CD20+ lymphoplasmacytic cell that has not undergone switch recombination. … In contrast, non-IgM MGUS typically arises from mature plasma cells that have undergone switch recombination.”

During follow-up, 11% of the group (147) developed an MGUS-related disorder, including multiple myeloma, lymphoma with an IgM serum M protein, AL amyloidosis, macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or plasmacytoma. This represents a 6.5-fold increased risk compared to the age- and sex-matched background population. Patients with IgM MGUS had a higher risk of progression than did those with non-IgM MGUS (relative risk, 10.8 vs. 5.7).

The overall risk of progression to a plasma cell–related disorder was 10% at 10 years; 18% at 20 years; 28% at 30 years; 36% at 35 years, and 36% at 40 years.

Among patients with IgM MGUS, the presence of high serum M protein (at least 1.5 g/dL) and an abnormal serum-free, light-chain ratio increased the risk of progression to 55% at 20 years, compared with a 41% risk among those patients with one risk factor and 19% among those with neither factor.

Among patients with non-IgM MGUS, the presence of both factors conferred a 30% risk of progression by 20 years. The risk was 20% among those with one factor and 7% among those with neither.

Compared with a control population, patients experienced about a 4-year shorter median survival time (8.1 vs. 12 years). Patients with IgM MGUS had worse 30-year overall survival than those with non-IgM MGUS (4% vs. 7%).

“There were 474 excess deaths in the cohort and 142 persons who had progression to multiple myeloma or a related disorder – findings that indicate that many additional deaths cannot be attributed to disease progression,” the authors noted.

The majority of deceased patients had died from non-plasma cell disorders (87%), including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and nonplasma cell cancers. “In addition to the risk of malignant progression, this finding may be related to potentially serious disorders that led to the initial unexpected diagnosis of MGUS.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Kyle disclosed financial relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kyle RA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:241-9.

The mode and risk of disease progression significantly differs for patients with IgM monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and those with non-IgM MGUS, Robert A. Kyle, MD, and his colleagues reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The risk for progression among IgM MGUS patients was 1.1 events/100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events among those with non-IgM MGUS – a significant difference. The researchers also found that risk is related to monoclonal (M) protein level and abnormal serum-free, light-chain assay results for both forms of MGUS.

Further, risk of progression varied with duration of follow-up in IgM MGUS, unlike non-IgM MGUS. However, for MGUS in general, “the risk of progression to myeloma or a related disorder is much less than the competing risk of death due to other causes,” Dr. Kyle, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his associates wrote.

The findings should help to determine the appropriate type of monitoring for MGUS patients, the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported results of the longest-yet follow-up study of MGUS patients. The team described median 34-year follow-up data on 1,384 patients with MGUS –70% with IgG type, 12% with IgA type, 15% with IgM type, and 3% with a biclonal gammopathy. (The patients formed the basis of an initial 2002 report.) They were diagnosed during 1960-1994, at a mean age of 72 years. Of these patients, 1,300 (94%) have died.

Among the 210 patients with IgM MGUS, the risk of progression was 2%/year in the first 10 years after diagnosis and 1%/year thereafter. Risk of progression did not vary during the follow-up of patients with non-IgM MGUS.

“The initial concentration of the serum M protein and the serum-free, light-chain ratio were the most important univariate risk factors for progression to a plasma cell disorder among patients with IgM or non-IgM MGUS. Combined, these two variables provided prognostic value in both IgM MGUS and non-IgM types of MGUS,” the authors wrote.

They explained that the difference may lie in the origins of MGUS. “IgM MGUS typically arises from a CD20+ lymphoplasmacytic cell that has not undergone switch recombination. … In contrast, non-IgM MGUS typically arises from mature plasma cells that have undergone switch recombination.”

During follow-up, 11% of the group (147) developed an MGUS-related disorder, including multiple myeloma, lymphoma with an IgM serum M protein, AL amyloidosis, macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or plasmacytoma. This represents a 6.5-fold increased risk compared to the age- and sex-matched background population. Patients with IgM MGUS had a higher risk of progression than did those with non-IgM MGUS (relative risk, 10.8 vs. 5.7).

The overall risk of progression to a plasma cell–related disorder was 10% at 10 years; 18% at 20 years; 28% at 30 years; 36% at 35 years, and 36% at 40 years.

Among patients with IgM MGUS, the presence of high serum M protein (at least 1.5 g/dL) and an abnormal serum-free, light-chain ratio increased the risk of progression to 55% at 20 years, compared with a 41% risk among those patients with one risk factor and 19% among those with neither factor.

Among patients with non-IgM MGUS, the presence of both factors conferred a 30% risk of progression by 20 years. The risk was 20% among those with one factor and 7% among those with neither.

Compared with a control population, patients experienced about a 4-year shorter median survival time (8.1 vs. 12 years). Patients with IgM MGUS had worse 30-year overall survival than those with non-IgM MGUS (4% vs. 7%).

“There were 474 excess deaths in the cohort and 142 persons who had progression to multiple myeloma or a related disorder – findings that indicate that many additional deaths cannot be attributed to disease progression,” the authors noted.

The majority of deceased patients had died from non-plasma cell disorders (87%), including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and nonplasma cell cancers. “In addition to the risk of malignant progression, this finding may be related to potentially serious disorders that led to the initial unexpected diagnosis of MGUS.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Kyle disclosed financial relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kyle RA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:241-9.

The mode and risk of disease progression significantly differs for patients with IgM monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and those with non-IgM MGUS, Robert A. Kyle, MD, and his colleagues reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The risk for progression among IgM MGUS patients was 1.1 events/100 person-years, compared with 0.8 events among those with non-IgM MGUS – a significant difference. The researchers also found that risk is related to monoclonal (M) protein level and abnormal serum-free, light-chain assay results for both forms of MGUS.

Further, risk of progression varied with duration of follow-up in IgM MGUS, unlike non-IgM MGUS. However, for MGUS in general, “the risk of progression to myeloma or a related disorder is much less than the competing risk of death due to other causes,” Dr. Kyle, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his associates wrote.

The findings should help to determine the appropriate type of monitoring for MGUS patients, the researchers concluded.

The researchers reported results of the longest-yet follow-up study of MGUS patients. The team described median 34-year follow-up data on 1,384 patients with MGUS –70% with IgG type, 12% with IgA type, 15% with IgM type, and 3% with a biclonal gammopathy. (The patients formed the basis of an initial 2002 report.) They were diagnosed during 1960-1994, at a mean age of 72 years. Of these patients, 1,300 (94%) have died.

Among the 210 patients with IgM MGUS, the risk of progression was 2%/year in the first 10 years after diagnosis and 1%/year thereafter. Risk of progression did not vary during the follow-up of patients with non-IgM MGUS.

“The initial concentration of the serum M protein and the serum-free, light-chain ratio were the most important univariate risk factors for progression to a plasma cell disorder among patients with IgM or non-IgM MGUS. Combined, these two variables provided prognostic value in both IgM MGUS and non-IgM types of MGUS,” the authors wrote.

They explained that the difference may lie in the origins of MGUS. “IgM MGUS typically arises from a CD20+ lymphoplasmacytic cell that has not undergone switch recombination. … In contrast, non-IgM MGUS typically arises from mature plasma cells that have undergone switch recombination.”

During follow-up, 11% of the group (147) developed an MGUS-related disorder, including multiple myeloma, lymphoma with an IgM serum M protein, AL amyloidosis, macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or plasmacytoma. This represents a 6.5-fold increased risk compared to the age- and sex-matched background population. Patients with IgM MGUS had a higher risk of progression than did those with non-IgM MGUS (relative risk, 10.8 vs. 5.7).

The overall risk of progression to a plasma cell–related disorder was 10% at 10 years; 18% at 20 years; 28% at 30 years; 36% at 35 years, and 36% at 40 years.

Among patients with IgM MGUS, the presence of high serum M protein (at least 1.5 g/dL) and an abnormal serum-free, light-chain ratio increased the risk of progression to 55% at 20 years, compared with a 41% risk among those patients with one risk factor and 19% among those with neither factor.

Among patients with non-IgM MGUS, the presence of both factors conferred a 30% risk of progression by 20 years. The risk was 20% among those with one factor and 7% among those with neither.

Compared with a control population, patients experienced about a 4-year shorter median survival time (8.1 vs. 12 years). Patients with IgM MGUS had worse 30-year overall survival than those with non-IgM MGUS (4% vs. 7%).

“There were 474 excess deaths in the cohort and 142 persons who had progression to multiple myeloma or a related disorder – findings that indicate that many additional deaths cannot be attributed to disease progression,” the authors noted.

The majority of deceased patients had died from non-plasma cell disorders (87%), including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and nonplasma cell cancers. “In addition to the risk of malignant progression, this finding may be related to potentially serious disorders that led to the initial unexpected diagnosis of MGUS.”

The study was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Kyle disclosed financial relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pharmacyclics, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kyle RA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:241-9.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted priority review to a supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

This sBLA is for daratumumab (D) to be used in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the sBLA by May 21, 2018.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The priority review for this sBLA is based on data from the phase 3 ALCYONE study, which were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in NEJM.

In this study, researchers compared VMP to D-VMP in 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant.

D-VMP produced deeper responses than VMP. The overall response rate was 74% in the VMP arm and 91% in the D-VMP arm (P<0.0001). The rate of complete response was 24% and 43%, respectively (P<0.0001).

D-VMP also prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to VMP.

The median PFS was 18.1 months in the VMP arm and was not reached in the D-VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 76% and 87%, respectively. And the 18-month PFS was 50% and 72%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. The most common of these was pneumonia, with rates of 11% and 4%, respectively.

There were 6 deaths due to treatment-emergent adverse events in the D-VMP arm and 5 in the VMP arm.

About daratumumab

Daratumumab is a CD38-directed cytolytic antibody that is FDA approved for the following indications:

• In combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least 1 prior therapy
• In combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI)
• As monotherapy for MM patients who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, including a PI and an immunomodulatory agent, or who are double-refractory to a PI and an immunomodulatory agent.
  

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted priority review to a supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

This sBLA is for daratumumab (D) to be used in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the sBLA by May 21, 2018.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The priority review for this sBLA is based on data from the phase 3 ALCYONE study, which were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in NEJM.

In this study, researchers compared VMP to D-VMP in 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant.

D-VMP produced deeper responses than VMP. The overall response rate was 74% in the VMP arm and 91% in the D-VMP arm (P<0.0001). The rate of complete response was 24% and 43%, respectively (P<0.0001).

D-VMP also prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to VMP.

The median PFS was 18.1 months in the VMP arm and was not reached in the D-VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 76% and 87%, respectively. And the 18-month PFS was 50% and 72%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. The most common of these was pneumonia, with rates of 11% and 4%, respectively.

There were 6 deaths due to treatment-emergent adverse events in the D-VMP arm and 5 in the VMP arm.

About daratumumab

Daratumumab is a CD38-directed cytolytic antibody that is FDA approved for the following indications:

• In combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least 1 prior therapy
• In combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI)
• As monotherapy for MM patients who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, including a PI and an immunomodulatory agent, or who are double-refractory to a PI and an immunomodulatory agent.
  

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted priority review to a supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) for daratumumab (Darzalex®).

This sBLA is for daratumumab (D) to be used in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

The FDA expects to make a decision on the sBLA by May 21, 2018.

The agency’s goal is to take action on a priority review application within 6 months of receiving it, rather than the standard 10 months.

The FDA grants priority review to applications for products that may provide significant improvements in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions.

The priority review for this sBLA is based on data from the phase 3 ALCYONE study, which were presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting and simultaneously published in NEJM.

In this study, researchers compared VMP to D-VMP in 706 patients with newly diagnosed MM who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant.

D-VMP produced deeper responses than VMP. The overall response rate was 74% in the VMP arm and 91% in the D-VMP arm (P<0.0001). The rate of complete response was 24% and 43%, respectively (P<0.0001).

D-VMP also prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to VMP.

The median PFS was 18.1 months in the VMP arm and was not reached in the D-VMP arm. The 12-month PFS was 76% and 87%, respectively. And the 18-month PFS was 50% and 72%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm.

The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (in the D-VMP and VMP arms, respectively) were neutropenia (40% and 39%), thrombocytopenia (34% and 38%), and anemia (16% and 20%).

The rate of grade 3/4 infections was higher in the D-VMP arm than the VMP arm—23% and 15%, respectively. The most common of these was pneumonia, with rates of 11% and 4%, respectively.

There were 6 deaths due to treatment-emergent adverse events in the D-VMP arm and 5 in the VMP arm.

About daratumumab

Daratumumab is a CD38-directed cytolytic antibody that is FDA approved for the following indications:

• In combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least 1 prior therapy
• In combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least 2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor (PI)
• As monotherapy for MM patients who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, including a PI and an immunomodulatory agent, or who are double-refractory to a PI and an immunomodulatory agent.
  

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

Results of a pilot study suggest that systematic bright light exposure can improve sleep in fatigued cancer survivors.

Subjects who were exposed to bright light every morning for 4 weeks had a significantly greater improvement in sleep efficiency than those who were exposed to dim light over the same period.

In fact, subjects in the bright light group were able to achieve clinically normal levels of sleep efficiency, and subjects in the dim light group were not.

Sleep efficiency is the percentage of time in bed that subjects spent sleeping.

Lisa M. Wu, PhD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, and her colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

The team noted that cancer patients report sleep disturbances at a significantly higher rate than the general population. Between 23% and 44% of cancer patients experience insomnia symptoms even years after treatment.

With this in mind, the researchers studied 44 individuals who had completed cancer treatment and met criteria for clinically significant fatigue at screening.

The subjects had an average age of 53.6, and 75% percent were female. Roughly 55% (n=24) had been diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy.

The subjects were randomized to a bright white light intervention or a dim red light intervention. Subjects in both treatment arms were provided with a light box and instructed to use it every morning for 30 minutes for 4 weeks. Sleep was evaluated using wrist actigraphy and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

At baseline, 52.6% of subjects in the dim light group and 60% in the bright light group exceeded the clinical cutoff for poor sleep efficiency (≤ 85%). The mean sleep efficiency was 81.8% and 82.8%, respectively.

During the study period, sleep efficiency improved significantly more among subjects exposed to the bright light than those exposed to the dim light (P=0.003).

The mean sleep efficiency was in the clinically normal range for subjects in the bright light group at the end of the intervention (86.06%) and 3 weeks after (85.77%).

However, the cutoff for poor sleep efficiency was not reached in the dim light group, either at the end of the intervention (mean=79.35%) or 3 weeks after (mean=80.88%).

Total sleep time tended to increase over the study period for subjects in the bright light group, but there was no significant difference in total sleep time between the bright light and dim light groups.

Likewise, there was no significant between-group difference in waking after sleep onset, although this outcome tended to decrease over the study period for subjects in the bright light group.

“Systematic light exposure using bright white light is a low-cost and easily disseminated intervention that offers a feasible and potentially effective alternative to improve sleep in cancer survivors,” Dr Wu said.

However, she and her colleagues noted that larger-scale studies are needed.

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

Results of a pilot study suggest that systematic bright light exposure can improve sleep in fatigued cancer survivors.

Subjects who were exposed to bright light every morning for 4 weeks had a significantly greater improvement in sleep efficiency than those who were exposed to dim light over the same period.

In fact, subjects in the bright light group were able to achieve clinically normal levels of sleep efficiency, and subjects in the dim light group were not.

Sleep efficiency is the percentage of time in bed that subjects spent sleeping.

Lisa M. Wu, PhD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, and her colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

The team noted that cancer patients report sleep disturbances at a significantly higher rate than the general population. Between 23% and 44% of cancer patients experience insomnia symptoms even years after treatment.

With this in mind, the researchers studied 44 individuals who had completed cancer treatment and met criteria for clinically significant fatigue at screening.

The subjects had an average age of 53.6, and 75% percent were female. Roughly 55% (n=24) had been diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy.

The subjects were randomized to a bright white light intervention or a dim red light intervention. Subjects in both treatment arms were provided with a light box and instructed to use it every morning for 30 minutes for 4 weeks. Sleep was evaluated using wrist actigraphy and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

At baseline, 52.6% of subjects in the dim light group and 60% in the bright light group exceeded the clinical cutoff for poor sleep efficiency (≤ 85%). The mean sleep efficiency was 81.8% and 82.8%, respectively.

During the study period, sleep efficiency improved significantly more among subjects exposed to the bright light than those exposed to the dim light (P=0.003).

The mean sleep efficiency was in the clinically normal range for subjects in the bright light group at the end of the intervention (86.06%) and 3 weeks after (85.77%).

However, the cutoff for poor sleep efficiency was not reached in the dim light group, either at the end of the intervention (mean=79.35%) or 3 weeks after (mean=80.88%).

Total sleep time tended to increase over the study period for subjects in the bright light group, but there was no significant difference in total sleep time between the bright light and dim light groups.

Likewise, there was no significant between-group difference in waking after sleep onset, although this outcome tended to decrease over the study period for subjects in the bright light group.

“Systematic light exposure using bright white light is a low-cost and easily disseminated intervention that offers a feasible and potentially effective alternative to improve sleep in cancer survivors,” Dr Wu said.

However, she and her colleagues noted that larger-scale studies are needed.

Photo by Petr Kratochvil

Results of a pilot study suggest that systematic bright light exposure can improve sleep in fatigued cancer survivors.

Subjects who were exposed to bright light every morning for 4 weeks had a significantly greater improvement in sleep efficiency than those who were exposed to dim light over the same period.

In fact, subjects in the bright light group were able to achieve clinically normal levels of sleep efficiency, and subjects in the dim light group were not.

Sleep efficiency is the percentage of time in bed that subjects spent sleeping.

Lisa M. Wu, PhD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, and her colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

The team noted that cancer patients report sleep disturbances at a significantly higher rate than the general population. Between 23% and 44% of cancer patients experience insomnia symptoms even years after treatment.

With this in mind, the researchers studied 44 individuals who had completed cancer treatment and met criteria for clinically significant fatigue at screening.

The subjects had an average age of 53.6, and 75% percent were female. Roughly 55% (n=24) had been diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy.

The subjects were randomized to a bright white light intervention or a dim red light intervention. Subjects in both treatment arms were provided with a light box and instructed to use it every morning for 30 minutes for 4 weeks. Sleep was evaluated using wrist actigraphy and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

At baseline, 52.6% of subjects in the dim light group and 60% in the bright light group exceeded the clinical cutoff for poor sleep efficiency (≤ 85%). The mean sleep efficiency was 81.8% and 82.8%, respectively.

During the study period, sleep efficiency improved significantly more among subjects exposed to the bright light than those exposed to the dim light (P=0.003).

The mean sleep efficiency was in the clinically normal range for subjects in the bright light group at the end of the intervention (86.06%) and 3 weeks after (85.77%).

However, the cutoff for poor sleep efficiency was not reached in the dim light group, either at the end of the intervention (mean=79.35%) or 3 weeks after (mean=80.88%).

Total sleep time tended to increase over the study period for subjects in the bright light group, but there was no significant difference in total sleep time between the bright light and dim light groups.

Likewise, there was no significant between-group difference in waking after sleep onset, although this outcome tended to decrease over the study period for subjects in the bright light group.

“Systematic light exposure using bright white light is a low-cost and easily disseminated intervention that offers a feasible and potentially effective alternative to improve sleep in cancer survivors,” Dr Wu said.

However, she and her colleagues noted that larger-scale studies are needed.

Photo by Bill Branson

Adding carfilzomib (K) to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) can improve overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Final results from the phase 3 ASPIRE trial showed that KRd reduced the risk of death by 21% and extended OS by 7.9 months, when compared to Rd.

In patients at first relapse, KRd was associated with an OS improvement of 11.4 months.

“Results from the final analysis of the phase 3 ASPIRE trial . . . are significant, as they further validate carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone as a standard-of-care regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma,” said study author Keith Stewart, MBChB, of Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona.

“Furthermore, these data showed that early use of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone at first relapse provided nearly 1 additional year of survival for patients, regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib or transplant.”

ASPIRE enrolled 792 MM patients who had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 1-3). They were randomized to receive KRd (n=396) or Rd (n=396). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms.

Details on patients and treatment, as well as interim results from ASPIRE, were reported at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting and published in NEJM in January 2015.

Treatment update

In the final analysis, there were 340 patients in the KRd arm and 358 in the Rd arm who stopped study treatment.

Reasons for discontinuation (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) were disease progression (n=188 and 224), adverse events (AEs, n=79 and 85), other reasons (n=61 and 35), withdrawn consent (n=10 and 12), and noncompliance (n=2 and 1).

A total of 182 patients in the KRd arm and 211 in the Rd arm received subsequent treatment for MM. These treatments were generally balanced between the KRd and Rd arms.

The median time to next treatment from the time of randomization was 39.0 months in the KRd arm and 24.4 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.65 P<0.001).

Survival

Interim ASPIRE data had shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and a trend toward improved OS in patients who received KRd. Now, researchers have observed a significant improvement in both endpoints with KRd.

The data cutoff for the final analysis was April 28, 2017. For PFS, the median follow-up was 48.8 months in the KRd arm and 48.0 months in the Rd arm.

The median PFS was 26.1 months in the KRd arm and 16.6 months in the Rd arm (9.5-month improvement, HR=0.66; P<0.001). The 3-year PFS rates were 38.2% and 28.4%, respectively. And the 5-year PFS rates were 25.6% and 17.3%, respectively.

The median follow-up for OS was 67.1 months. The median OS was 48.3 months in the KRd arm and 40.4 months in the Rd arm (7.9-month improvement, HR=0.79, P=0.0045).

The researchers also performed subgroup analyses according to prior lines of therapy, prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, and prior transplant at first relapse.

In patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy, the median OS was 47.3 months in the KRd arm and 35.9 months in the Rd arm (11.4-month improvement, HR=0.81). For patients with 2 or more prior lines of therapy, the median OS was 48.8 months and 42.3 months, respectively (6.5-month improvement, HR=0.79).

Among patients with prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, the median OS was 45.9 months in the KRd arm and 33.9 months in the Rd arm (12-month improvement, HR=0.82). Among patients without prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, the median OS was 48.3 months and 40.4 months, respectively (7.9-month improvement, HR=0.80).

Among patients with prior transplant at first relapse, the median OS was 57.2 months in the KRd arm and 38.6 months in the Rd arm (18.6-month improvement, HR=0.71).

Safety

The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was 98% in the KRd arm and 97.9% in the Rd arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 87% and 83.3%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 65.3% and 56.8%, respectively.

Treatment discontinuation due to an AE occurred in 19.9% of patients in the KRd arm and 21.5% of patients in the Rd arm.

AEs of interest (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) included acute renal failure (9.2% and 7.7%), cardiac failure (7.1% and 4.1%), ischemic heart disease (6.9% and 4.6%), hypertension (17.1% and 8.7%), hematopoietic thrombocytopenia (32.7% and 26.2%), and peripheral neuropathy (18.9% and 17.2%).

Fatal AEs were reported in 11.5% of patients in the KRd arm and 10.8% of those in the Rd arm.

Fatal AEs reported in at least 2 patients in the KRd arm included (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) cardiac disorders (2.6% and 2.3%), pneumonia (1.5% and 0.8%), sepsis (0.8% for both), myocardial infarction (0.8% and 0.5%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (0.8% and 0%), death (0.5% for both), and cardiac arrest (0.5% and 0.3%).

This trial was funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Photo by Bill Branson

Adding carfilzomib (K) to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) can improve overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Final results from the phase 3 ASPIRE trial showed that KRd reduced the risk of death by 21% and extended OS by 7.9 months, when compared to Rd.

In patients at first relapse, KRd was associated with an OS improvement of 11.4 months.

“Results from the final analysis of the phase 3 ASPIRE trial . . . are significant, as they further validate carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone as a standard-of-care regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma,” said study author Keith Stewart, MBChB, of Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona.

“Furthermore, these data showed that early use of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone at first relapse provided nearly 1 additional year of survival for patients, regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib or transplant.”

ASPIRE enrolled 792 MM patients who had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 1-3). They were randomized to receive KRd (n=396) or Rd (n=396). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms.

Details on patients and treatment, as well as interim results from ASPIRE, were reported at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting and published in NEJM in January 2015.

Treatment update

In the final analysis, there were 340 patients in the KRd arm and 358 in the Rd arm who stopped study treatment.

Reasons for discontinuation (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) were disease progression (n=188 and 224), adverse events (AEs, n=79 and 85), other reasons (n=61 and 35), withdrawn consent (n=10 and 12), and noncompliance (n=2 and 1).

A total of 182 patients in the KRd arm and 211 in the Rd arm received subsequent treatment for MM. These treatments were generally balanced between the KRd and Rd arms.

The median time to next treatment from the time of randomization was 39.0 months in the KRd arm and 24.4 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.65 P<0.001).

Survival

Interim ASPIRE data had shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and a trend toward improved OS in patients who received KRd. Now, researchers have observed a significant improvement in both endpoints with KRd.

The data cutoff for the final analysis was April 28, 2017. For PFS, the median follow-up was 48.8 months in the KRd arm and 48.0 months in the Rd arm.

The median PFS was 26.1 months in the KRd arm and 16.6 months in the Rd arm (9.5-month improvement, HR=0.66; P<0.001). The 3-year PFS rates were 38.2% and 28.4%, respectively. And the 5-year PFS rates were 25.6% and 17.3%, respectively.

The median follow-up for OS was 67.1 months. The median OS was 48.3 months in the KRd arm and 40.4 months in the Rd arm (7.9-month improvement, HR=0.79, P=0.0045).

The researchers also performed subgroup analyses according to prior lines of therapy, prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, and prior transplant at first relapse.

In patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy, the median OS was 47.3 months in the KRd arm and 35.9 months in the Rd arm (11.4-month improvement, HR=0.81). For patients with 2 or more prior lines of therapy, the median OS was 48.8 months and 42.3 months, respectively (6.5-month improvement, HR=0.79).

Among patients with prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, the median OS was 45.9 months in the KRd arm and 33.9 months in the Rd arm (12-month improvement, HR=0.82). Among patients without prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, the median OS was 48.3 months and 40.4 months, respectively (7.9-month improvement, HR=0.80).

Among patients with prior transplant at first relapse, the median OS was 57.2 months in the KRd arm and 38.6 months in the Rd arm (18.6-month improvement, HR=0.71).

Safety

The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was 98% in the KRd arm and 97.9% in the Rd arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 87% and 83.3%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 65.3% and 56.8%, respectively.

Treatment discontinuation due to an AE occurred in 19.9% of patients in the KRd arm and 21.5% of patients in the Rd arm.

AEs of interest (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) included acute renal failure (9.2% and 7.7%), cardiac failure (7.1% and 4.1%), ischemic heart disease (6.9% and 4.6%), hypertension (17.1% and 8.7%), hematopoietic thrombocytopenia (32.7% and 26.2%), and peripheral neuropathy (18.9% and 17.2%).

Fatal AEs were reported in 11.5% of patients in the KRd arm and 10.8% of those in the Rd arm.

Fatal AEs reported in at least 2 patients in the KRd arm included (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) cardiac disorders (2.6% and 2.3%), pneumonia (1.5% and 0.8%), sepsis (0.8% for both), myocardial infarction (0.8% and 0.5%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (0.8% and 0%), death (0.5% for both), and cardiac arrest (0.5% and 0.3%).

This trial was funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Photo by Bill Branson

Adding carfilzomib (K) to treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) can improve overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Final results from the phase 3 ASPIRE trial showed that KRd reduced the risk of death by 21% and extended OS by 7.9 months, when compared to Rd.

In patients at first relapse, KRd was associated with an OS improvement of 11.4 months.

“Results from the final analysis of the phase 3 ASPIRE trial . . . are significant, as they further validate carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone as a standard-of-care regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma,” said study author Keith Stewart, MBChB, of Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona.

“Furthermore, these data showed that early use of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone at first relapse provided nearly 1 additional year of survival for patients, regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib or transplant.”

ASPIRE enrolled 792 MM patients who had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 1-3). They were randomized to receive KRd (n=396) or Rd (n=396). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms.

Details on patients and treatment, as well as interim results from ASPIRE, were reported at the 2014 ASH Annual Meeting and published in NEJM in January 2015.

Treatment update

In the final analysis, there were 340 patients in the KRd arm and 358 in the Rd arm who stopped study treatment.

Reasons for discontinuation (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) were disease progression (n=188 and 224), adverse events (AEs, n=79 and 85), other reasons (n=61 and 35), withdrawn consent (n=10 and 12), and noncompliance (n=2 and 1).

A total of 182 patients in the KRd arm and 211 in the Rd arm received subsequent treatment for MM. These treatments were generally balanced between the KRd and Rd arms.

The median time to next treatment from the time of randomization was 39.0 months in the KRd arm and 24.4 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.65 P<0.001).

Survival

Interim ASPIRE data had shown a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and a trend toward improved OS in patients who received KRd. Now, researchers have observed a significant improvement in both endpoints with KRd.

The data cutoff for the final analysis was April 28, 2017. For PFS, the median follow-up was 48.8 months in the KRd arm and 48.0 months in the Rd arm.

The median PFS was 26.1 months in the KRd arm and 16.6 months in the Rd arm (9.5-month improvement, HR=0.66; P<0.001). The 3-year PFS rates were 38.2% and 28.4%, respectively. And the 5-year PFS rates were 25.6% and 17.3%, respectively.

The median follow-up for OS was 67.1 months. The median OS was 48.3 months in the KRd arm and 40.4 months in the Rd arm (7.9-month improvement, HR=0.79, P=0.0045).

The researchers also performed subgroup analyses according to prior lines of therapy, prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, and prior transplant at first relapse.

In patients who had received 1 prior line of therapy, the median OS was 47.3 months in the KRd arm and 35.9 months in the Rd arm (11.4-month improvement, HR=0.81). For patients with 2 or more prior lines of therapy, the median OS was 48.8 months and 42.3 months, respectively (6.5-month improvement, HR=0.79).

Among patients with prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, the median OS was 45.9 months in the KRd arm and 33.9 months in the Rd arm (12-month improvement, HR=0.82). Among patients without prior bortezomib exposure at first relapse, the median OS was 48.3 months and 40.4 months, respectively (7.9-month improvement, HR=0.80).

Among patients with prior transplant at first relapse, the median OS was 57.2 months in the KRd arm and 38.6 months in the Rd arm (18.6-month improvement, HR=0.71).

Safety

The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was 98% in the KRd arm and 97.9% in the Rd arm. The incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was 87% and 83.3%, respectively. The incidence of serious AEs was 65.3% and 56.8%, respectively.

Treatment discontinuation due to an AE occurred in 19.9% of patients in the KRd arm and 21.5% of patients in the Rd arm.

AEs of interest (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) included acute renal failure (9.2% and 7.7%), cardiac failure (7.1% and 4.1%), ischemic heart disease (6.9% and 4.6%), hypertension (17.1% and 8.7%), hematopoietic thrombocytopenia (32.7% and 26.2%), and peripheral neuropathy (18.9% and 17.2%).

Fatal AEs were reported in 11.5% of patients in the KRd arm and 10.8% of those in the Rd arm.

Fatal AEs reported in at least 2 patients in the KRd arm included (in the KRd and Rd arms, respectively) cardiac disorders (2.6% and 2.3%), pneumonia (1.5% and 0.8%), sepsis (0.8% for both), myocardial infarction (0.8% and 0.5%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (0.8% and 0%), death (0.5% for both), and cardiac arrest (0.5% and 0.3%).

This trial was funded by Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

ATLANTA – The novel Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor INCB052793 showed encouraging activity, particularly in combination with azacitidine, in certain patients with advanced myeloid malignancies in a phase 1/2 trial.

The activity was seen even in patients who previously failed treatment with hypomethylating agents, Amer M. Zeidan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeidan A et al. ASH 2017 Abstract 640.

ATLANTA – The novel Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor INCB052793 showed encouraging activity, particularly in combination with azacitidine, in certain patients with advanced myeloid malignancies in a phase 1/2 trial.

The activity was seen even in patients who previously failed treatment with hypomethylating agents, Amer M. Zeidan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeidan A et al. ASH 2017 Abstract 640.

ATLANTA – The novel Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor INCB052793 showed encouraging activity, particularly in combination with azacitidine, in certain patients with advanced myeloid malignancies in a phase 1/2 trial.

The activity was seen even in patients who previously failed treatment with hypomethylating agents, Amer M. Zeidan, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeidan A et al. ASH 2017 Abstract 640.

Malignant plasma cells

A long-term study showed that patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) were still at risk of progressing to other plasma-cell or lymphoid disorders after more than 30 years of follow-up.

The risk of developing such disorders was nearly 7 times higher in MGUS patients than in matched control subjects.

Patients with MGUS also had a significantly shorter median survival than controls.

Researchers reported these findings in NEJM.

“Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance is present in more than 3% of the general population age 50 and older,” said study author S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“In some cases, people with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance go on to develop multiple myeloma.”

With this in mind, Dr Rajkumar and his colleagues studied 1384 patients—210 with IgM MGUS and 1129 with non-IgM MGUS. Patients were diagnosed with MGUS from 1960 through 1994, and their median age at diagnosis was 72.

The median follow-up was 34.1 years (range, 0.0 to 43.6), so there were 14,130 person-years of follow-up.

During that time, 147 patients progressed to another disorder, including:

• 97 to multiple myeloma
• 19 to non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• 14 to AL amyloidosis
• 13 to Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
• 3 to chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• 1 to plasmacytoma.

The rate of progression in MGUS patients—11%—represented a risk of these disorders that was 6.5 times higher than the risk observed in an age- and sex-matched control population.

The risk of progression also increased over time for MGUS patients. Without accounting for death due to competing causes, the risk of progression was 10% at 10 years, 18% at 20 years, 28% at 30 years, and 36% at both 35 and 40 years.

“We also found that patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance had shorter survival than comparable people without the condition, which raises the possibility there may be other disorders associated with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance that still need further study,” Dr Rajkumar said.

The median survival was 8.1 years in MGUS patients and 12.4 years in controls (P<0.001).

Overall, 1300 MGUS patients (94%) had died at last follow-up. Of the 84 patients who were still alive, 5 had progressed.

Malignant plasma cells

A long-term study showed that patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) were still at risk of progressing to other plasma-cell or lymphoid disorders after more than 30 years of follow-up.

The risk of developing such disorders was nearly 7 times higher in MGUS patients than in matched control subjects.

Patients with MGUS also had a significantly shorter median survival than controls.

Researchers reported these findings in NEJM.

“Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance is present in more than 3% of the general population age 50 and older,” said study author S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“In some cases, people with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance go on to develop multiple myeloma.”

With this in mind, Dr Rajkumar and his colleagues studied 1384 patients—210 with IgM MGUS and 1129 with non-IgM MGUS. Patients were diagnosed with MGUS from 1960 through 1994, and their median age at diagnosis was 72.

The median follow-up was 34.1 years (range, 0.0 to 43.6), so there were 14,130 person-years of follow-up.

During that time, 147 patients progressed to another disorder, including:

• 97 to multiple myeloma
• 19 to non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• 14 to AL amyloidosis
• 13 to Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
• 3 to chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• 1 to plasmacytoma.

The rate of progression in MGUS patients—11%—represented a risk of these disorders that was 6.5 times higher than the risk observed in an age- and sex-matched control population.

The risk of progression also increased over time for MGUS patients. Without accounting for death due to competing causes, the risk of progression was 10% at 10 years, 18% at 20 years, 28% at 30 years, and 36% at both 35 and 40 years.

“We also found that patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance had shorter survival than comparable people without the condition, which raises the possibility there may be other disorders associated with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance that still need further study,” Dr Rajkumar said.

The median survival was 8.1 years in MGUS patients and 12.4 years in controls (P<0.001).

Overall, 1300 MGUS patients (94%) had died at last follow-up. Of the 84 patients who were still alive, 5 had progressed.

Malignant plasma cells

A long-term study showed that patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) were still at risk of progressing to other plasma-cell or lymphoid disorders after more than 30 years of follow-up.

The risk of developing such disorders was nearly 7 times higher in MGUS patients than in matched control subjects.

Patients with MGUS also had a significantly shorter median survival than controls.

Researchers reported these findings in NEJM.

“Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance is present in more than 3% of the general population age 50 and older,” said study author S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“In some cases, people with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance go on to develop multiple myeloma.”

With this in mind, Dr Rajkumar and his colleagues studied 1384 patients—210 with IgM MGUS and 1129 with non-IgM MGUS. Patients were diagnosed with MGUS from 1960 through 1994, and their median age at diagnosis was 72.

The median follow-up was 34.1 years (range, 0.0 to 43.6), so there were 14,130 person-years of follow-up.

During that time, 147 patients progressed to another disorder, including:

• 97 to multiple myeloma
• 19 to non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• 14 to AL amyloidosis
• 13 to Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia
• 3 to chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• 1 to plasmacytoma.

The rate of progression in MGUS patients—11%—represented a risk of these disorders that was 6.5 times higher than the risk observed in an age- and sex-matched control population.

The risk of progression also increased over time for MGUS patients. Without accounting for death due to competing causes, the risk of progression was 10% at 10 years, 18% at 20 years, 28% at 30 years, and 36% at both 35 and 40 years.

“We also found that patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance had shorter survival than comparable people without the condition, which raises the possibility there may be other disorders associated with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance that still need further study,” Dr Rajkumar said.

The median survival was 8.1 years in MGUS patients and 12.4 years in controls (P<0.001).

Overall, 1300 MGUS patients (94%) had died at last follow-up. Of the 84 patients who were still alive, 5 had progressed.

Photo from Tesaro

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Tesaro, Inc., have updated the prescribing information for Varubi® (rolapitant) injectable emulsion to include a new warning about the risk of allergic reactions.

Varubi injectable emulsion is a substance P/neurokinin receptor antagonist approved to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in adults.

Since Varubi injectable emulsion gained FDA approval, there have been reports of anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, and other serious hypersensitivity reactions to the drug, some of which required hospitalization.

Now, the labeling for Varubi injectable emulsion has been changed to include information about these events. The changes include modifications to the CONTRAINDICATIONS, WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS, and ADVERSE REACTIONS sections of the label.

Since Varubi injectable emulsion was introduced to the US market in late November 2017, at least 7000 doses of the drug have been administered to patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy in the US, according to Tesaro.

Anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, and other serious hypersensitivity reactions have occurred during or soon after the infusion of Varubi. Most reactions have occurred within the first few minutes of administration.

The FDA has advised that patients who are hypersensitive to any component of Varubi injectable emulsion (including soybean oil) do not receive the drug. And patients with known allergies to legumes or other related allergens should be monitored closely.

The FDA said healthcare professionals should be vigilant for signs of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis in all patients receiving Varubi injectable emulsion, both during administration and afterward.

Symptoms of anaphylaxis can include wheezing, difficulty breathing, swelling of the face or throat, hives, flushing, itching, abdominal cramping, abdominal pain, vomiting, back pain, chest pain, hypotension, and shock.

If anaphylaxis or any other serious hypersensitivity/infusion reaction occurs, Varubi injectable emulsion should be stopped immediately and permanently. The patient should receive appropriate medical management, including epinephrine and/or antihistamines.

To ensure patients and healthcare professionals are aware of the label update to Varubi injectable emulsion, Tesaro has issued a Dear Healthcare Professional letter. In addition, the updated prescribing information has been posted on the Varubi website.

For any questions about the use of Varubi injectable emulsion or to report adverse events related to the drug, contact Tesaro’s medical information department at 1-844-4-TESARO (1-844-483-7276).

Adverse events related to Varubi should also be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Photo from Tesaro

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Tesaro, Inc., have updated the prescribing information for Varubi® (rolapitant) injectable emulsion to include a new warning about the risk of allergic reactions.

Varubi injectable emulsion is a substance P/neurokinin receptor antagonist approved to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in adults.

Since Varubi injectable emulsion gained FDA approval, there have been reports of anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, and other serious hypersensitivity reactions to the drug, some of which required hospitalization.

Now, the labeling for Varubi injectable emulsion has been changed to include information about these events. The changes include modifications to the CONTRAINDICATIONS, WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS, and ADVERSE REACTIONS sections of the label.

Since Varubi injectable emulsion was introduced to the US market in late November 2017, at least 7000 doses of the drug have been administered to patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy in the US, according to Tesaro.

Anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, and other serious hypersensitivity reactions have occurred during or soon after the infusion of Varubi. Most reactions have occurred within the first few minutes of administration.

The FDA has advised that patients who are hypersensitive to any component of Varubi injectable emulsion (including soybean oil) do not receive the drug. And patients with known allergies to legumes or other related allergens should be monitored closely.

The FDA said healthcare professionals should be vigilant for signs of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis in all patients receiving Varubi injectable emulsion, both during administration and afterward.

Symptoms of anaphylaxis can include wheezing, difficulty breathing, swelling of the face or throat, hives, flushing, itching, abdominal cramping, abdominal pain, vomiting, back pain, chest pain, hypotension, and shock.

If anaphylaxis or any other serious hypersensitivity/infusion reaction occurs, Varubi injectable emulsion should be stopped immediately and permanently. The patient should receive appropriate medical management, including epinephrine and/or antihistamines.

To ensure patients and healthcare professionals are aware of the label update to Varubi injectable emulsion, Tesaro has issued a Dear Healthcare Professional letter. In addition, the updated prescribing information has been posted on the Varubi website.

For any questions about the use of Varubi injectable emulsion or to report adverse events related to the drug, contact Tesaro’s medical information department at 1-844-4-TESARO (1-844-483-7276).

Adverse events related to Varubi should also be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Photo from Tesaro

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Tesaro, Inc., have updated the prescribing information for Varubi® (rolapitant) injectable emulsion to include a new warning about the risk of allergic reactions.

Varubi injectable emulsion is a substance P/neurokinin receptor antagonist approved to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in adults.

Since Varubi injectable emulsion gained FDA approval, there have been reports of anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, and other serious hypersensitivity reactions to the drug, some of which required hospitalization.

Now, the labeling for Varubi injectable emulsion has been changed to include information about these events. The changes include modifications to the CONTRAINDICATIONS, WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS, and ADVERSE REACTIONS sections of the label.

Since Varubi injectable emulsion was introduced to the US market in late November 2017, at least 7000 doses of the drug have been administered to patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy in the US, according to Tesaro.

Anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, and other serious hypersensitivity reactions have occurred during or soon after the infusion of Varubi. Most reactions have occurred within the first few minutes of administration.

The FDA has advised that patients who are hypersensitive to any component of Varubi injectable emulsion (including soybean oil) do not receive the drug. And patients with known allergies to legumes or other related allergens should be monitored closely.

The FDA said healthcare professionals should be vigilant for signs of hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis in all patients receiving Varubi injectable emulsion, both during administration and afterward.

Symptoms of anaphylaxis can include wheezing, difficulty breathing, swelling of the face or throat, hives, flushing, itching, abdominal cramping, abdominal pain, vomiting, back pain, chest pain, hypotension, and shock.

If anaphylaxis or any other serious hypersensitivity/infusion reaction occurs, Varubi injectable emulsion should be stopped immediately and permanently. The patient should receive appropriate medical management, including epinephrine and/or antihistamines.

To ensure patients and healthcare professionals are aware of the label update to Varubi injectable emulsion, Tesaro has issued a Dear Healthcare Professional letter. In addition, the updated prescribing information has been posted on the Varubi website.

For any questions about the use of Varubi injectable emulsion or to report adverse events related to the drug, contact Tesaro’s medical information department at 1-844-4-TESARO (1-844-483-7276).

Adverse events related to Varubi should also be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Photo from Business Wire

Fresenius Kabi has introduced its generic version of Velcade, Bortezomib for Injection, to the US market.

This is the first intravenous alternative to Velcade available in the US.

Bortezomib for Injection is available as a single dose vial containing 3.5 mg of lyophilized powder.

The product is approved to treat patients with multiple myeloma and patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least 1 prior therapy.

For details, see the prescribing information for Bortezomib for Injection.

Velcade is a registered trademark of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Photo from Business Wire

Fresenius Kabi has introduced its generic version of Velcade, Bortezomib for Injection, to the US market.

This is the first intravenous alternative to Velcade available in the US.

Bortezomib for Injection is available as a single dose vial containing 3.5 mg of lyophilized powder.

The product is approved to treat patients with multiple myeloma and patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least 1 prior therapy.

For details, see the prescribing information for Bortezomib for Injection.

Velcade is a registered trademark of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Photo from Business Wire

Fresenius Kabi has introduced its generic version of Velcade, Bortezomib for Injection, to the US market.

This is the first intravenous alternative to Velcade available in the US.

Bortezomib for Injection is available as a single dose vial containing 3.5 mg of lyophilized powder.

The product is approved to treat patients with multiple myeloma and patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least 1 prior therapy.

For details, see the prescribing information for Bortezomib for Injection.

Velcade is a registered trademark of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

showing MM

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved denosumab (XGEVA®) for use in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug was previously approved to prevent skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors.

Now, denosumab is FDA-approved to prevent skeletal-related events in MM patients as well.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes RANK ligand—a protein essential for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts—thereby inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone destruction.

The FDA’s approval of denosumab in MM is based on data from the phase 3 '482 study, which were presented at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting last June.

In this trial, researchers compared denosumab to zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in 1718 adults with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.

Patients were randomized to receive either subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859).

Denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid in delaying the time to first on-study skeletal-related event (pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression). The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.14; P=0.01).

Denosumab was not superior to zoledronic acid in delaying the time to a first skeletal-related event or delaying the time to first-and-subsequent skeletal-related events.

Overall survival was comparable between the treatment arms. The HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.16; P=0.41).

The median difference in progression-free survival favored denosumab by 10.7 months (HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99; descriptive P=0.036). The median progression-free survival was 46.1 months for denosumab and 35.4 months for zoledronic acid.

The most common adverse events in patients who received denosumab were diarrhea (34%), nausea (32%), anemia (22%), back pain (21%), thrombocytopenia (19%), peripheral edema (17%), hypocalcemia (16%), upper respiratory tract infection (15%), rash (14%) and headache (11%).

The most common adverse event resulting in discontinuation of denosumab was osteonecrosis of the jaw.

In the primary treatment phase of the study, osteonecrosis of the jaw was confirmed in 4.1% of patients in the denosumab arm (median exposure of 16 months; range, 1-50) and 2.8% of those in the zoledronic acid arm (median 15 months; range, 1-45 months).

showing MM

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved denosumab (XGEVA®) for use in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug was previously approved to prevent skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors.

Now, denosumab is FDA-approved to prevent skeletal-related events in MM patients as well.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes RANK ligand—a protein essential for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts—thereby inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone destruction.

The FDA’s approval of denosumab in MM is based on data from the phase 3 '482 study, which were presented at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting last June.

In this trial, researchers compared denosumab to zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in 1718 adults with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.

Patients were randomized to receive either subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859).

Denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid in delaying the time to first on-study skeletal-related event (pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression). The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.14; P=0.01).

Denosumab was not superior to zoledronic acid in delaying the time to a first skeletal-related event or delaying the time to first-and-subsequent skeletal-related events.

Overall survival was comparable between the treatment arms. The HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.16; P=0.41).

The median difference in progression-free survival favored denosumab by 10.7 months (HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99; descriptive P=0.036). The median progression-free survival was 46.1 months for denosumab and 35.4 months for zoledronic acid.

The most common adverse events in patients who received denosumab were diarrhea (34%), nausea (32%), anemia (22%), back pain (21%), thrombocytopenia (19%), peripheral edema (17%), hypocalcemia (16%), upper respiratory tract infection (15%), rash (14%) and headache (11%).

The most common adverse event resulting in discontinuation of denosumab was osteonecrosis of the jaw.

In the primary treatment phase of the study, osteonecrosis of the jaw was confirmed in 4.1% of patients in the denosumab arm (median exposure of 16 months; range, 1-50) and 2.8% of those in the zoledronic acid arm (median 15 months; range, 1-45 months).

showing MM

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved denosumab (XGEVA®) for use in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

The drug was previously approved to prevent skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors.

Now, denosumab is FDA-approved to prevent skeletal-related events in MM patients as well.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes RANK ligand—a protein essential for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts—thereby inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone destruction.

The FDA’s approval of denosumab in MM is based on data from the phase 3 '482 study, which were presented at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting last June.

In this trial, researchers compared denosumab to zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in 1718 adults with newly diagnosed MM and bone disease.

Patients were randomized to receive either subcutaneous denosumab at 120 mg and intravenous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859) or intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (adjusted for renal function) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (n=859).

Denosumab proved non-inferior to zoledronic acid in delaying the time to first on-study skeletal-related event (pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression). The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.14; P=0.01).

Denosumab was not superior to zoledronic acid in delaying the time to a first skeletal-related event or delaying the time to first-and-subsequent skeletal-related events.

Overall survival was comparable between the treatment arms. The HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.16; P=0.41).

The median difference in progression-free survival favored denosumab by 10.7 months (HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99; descriptive P=0.036). The median progression-free survival was 46.1 months for denosumab and 35.4 months for zoledronic acid.

The most common adverse events in patients who received denosumab were diarrhea (34%), nausea (32%), anemia (22%), back pain (21%), thrombocytopenia (19%), peripheral edema (17%), hypocalcemia (16%), upper respiratory tract infection (15%), rash (14%) and headache (11%).

The most common adverse event resulting in discontinuation of denosumab was osteonecrosis of the jaw.

In the primary treatment phase of the study, osteonecrosis of the jaw was confirmed in 4.1% of patients in the denosumab arm (median exposure of 16 months; range, 1-50) and 2.8% of those in the zoledronic acid arm (median 15 months; range, 1-45 months).