BACKGROUND Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) primarily affects older persons who often have coexisting conditions in addition to disease-related immunosuppression and myelosuppression. We conducted an international, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial to compare two oral agents, ibrutinib and chlorambucil, in previously untreated older patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma. METHODS We randomly assigned 269 previously untreated patients who were 65 years of age or older and had CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma to receive ibrutinib or chlorambucil. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent review committee. RESULTS The median age of the patients was 73 years. During a median follow-up period of 18.4 months, ibrutinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than did chlorambucil (median, not reached vs. 18.9 months), with a risk of progression or death that was 84% lower with ibrutinib than that with chlorambucil (hazard ratio, 0.16; P<0.001). Ibrutinib significantly prolonged overall survival; the estimated survival rate at 24 months was 98% with ibrutinib versus 85% with chlorambucil, with a relative risk of death that was 84% lower in the ibrutinib group than in the chlorambucil group (hazard ratio, 0.16; P=0.001). The overall response rate was higher with ibrutinib than with chlorambucil (86% vs. 35%, P<0.001). The rates of sustained increases from baseline values in the hemoglobin and platelet levels were higher with ibrutinib. Adverse events of any grade that occurred in at least 20% of the patients receiving ibrutinib included diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and nausea; adverse events occurring in at least 20% of those receiving chlorambucil included nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, and vomiting. In the ibrutinib group, four patients had a grade 3 hemorrhage and one had a grade 4 hemorrhage. A total of 87% of the patients in the ibrutinib group are continuing to take ibrutinib. CONCLUSIONS Ibrutinib was superior to chlorambucil in previously untreated patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, as assessed by progression-free survival, overall survival, response rate, and improvement in hematologic variables. (Funded by Pharmacyclics and others; RESONATE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01722487.)

Although a classification for mastocytosis and diagnostic criteria are available, there remains a need to define standards for the application of diagnostic tests, clinical evaluations, and treatment responses. To address these demands, leading experts discussed current issues and standards in mastocytosis in a Working Conference. The present article provides the resulting outcome with consensus statements, which focus on the appropriate application of clinical and laboratory tests, patient selection for interventional therapy, and the selection of appropriate drugs. In addition, treatment response criteria for the various clinical conditions, disease-specific symptoms, and specific pathologies are provided. Resulting recommendations and algorithms should greatly facilitate the management of patients with mastocytosis in clinical practice, selection of patients for therapies, and the conduct of clinical trials.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than high-dose dexamethasone alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00424047 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Glasdegib is a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor. This phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01546038) evaluated the efficacy of glasdegib plus low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy. Glasdegib 100 mg (oral, QD) was administered continuously in 28-day cycles; LDAC 20 mg (subcutaneous, BID) was administered for 10 per 28 days. Patients (stratified by cytogenetic risk) were randomized (2:1) to receive glasdegib/LDAC or LDAC. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Eighty-eight and 44 patients were randomized to glasdegib/LDAC and LDAC, respectively. Median (80% confidence interval [CI]) overall survival was 8.8 (6.9–9.9) months with glasdegib/LDAC and 4.9 (3.5–6.0) months with LDAC (hazard ratio, 0.51; 80% CI, 0.39–0.67, P = 0.0004). Fifteen (17.0%) and 1 (2.3%) patients in the glasdegib/LDAC and LDAC arms, respectively, achieved complete remission (P < 0.05). Nonhematologic grade 3/4 all-causality adverse events included pneumonia (16.7%) and fatigue (14.3%) with glasdegib/LDAC and pneumonia (14.6%) with LDAC. Clinical efficacy was evident across patients with diverse mutational profiles. Glasdegib plus LDAC has a favorable benefit–risk profile and may be a promising option for AML patients unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy.

Patients and MethodsPatients received eight weekly infusions of ofatumumab followed by four monthly infusions during a 24-week period (dose 1 ϭ 300 mg; doses 2 to 12 ϭ 2,000 mg); response by an independent review committee (1996 National Cancer Institute Working Group criteria) was assessed every 4 weeks until week 24 and then every 3 months until month 24. Results This planned interim analysis included 138 treated patients with FA-ref (n ϭ 59) and BF-ref (n ϭ 79)CLL. The overall response rates (primary end point) were 58% and 47% in the FA-ref and BF-ref groups, respectively. Complete resolution of constitutional symptoms and improved performance status occurred in 57% and 48% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 5.7 and 13.7 months in the FA-ref group, respectively, and 5.9 and 15.4 months in the BF-ref group, respectively. The most common adverse events during treatment were infusion reactions and infections, which were primarily grade 1 or 2 events. Hematologic events during treatment included anemia and neutropenia. ConclusionOfatumumab is an active, well-tolerated treatment providing clear clinical improvements for fludarabine-refractory patients with very poor-prognosis CLL.

Background: Prophylaxis with factor (F)VIII is considered the optimal treatment for managing hemophilia A patients without inhibitors. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of two prophylaxis regimens (primary outcome) and of on-demand and prophylaxis treatments (secondary outcome), and to continue the evaluation of immunogenicity and overall safety of the ADVATE Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), Plasma/Albumin Free Method (rAHF-PFM). Patients/Methods: Previously on-demand-treated patients aged 7–59 years (n = 66) with FVIII levels ≤ 2% received 6 months of on-demand treatment and then were randomized to 12 months of either standard (20–40 IU kg−1 every other day) or pharmacokinetic (PK)-tailored (20–80 IU kg−1 every third day) prophylaxis, both regimens intended to maintain FVIII trough levels at or above 1%. Efficacy was evaluated in terms of annualized bleeding rates (ABRs). As subjects were first treated on-demand and then on prophylaxis, statistical comparisons between these treatments were paired. Results: Twenty-two (33.3%) subjects on prophylaxis experienced no bleeding episodes, whereas none treated on-demand were free from an episode of bleeding. ABRs for the two prophylaxis regimens were comparable, whereas differences between on-demand and either prophylaxis were statistically significant (P < 0.0001): median (interquartile range [IQR]) ABRs were 43.9 (21.9), 1.0 (3.5), 2.0 (6.9) and 1.1 (4.9) during on-demand treatment, standard, PK-tailored and any prophylaxis, respectively. There were no differences in FVIII consumption or adverse event rates between prophylaxis regimens. No subject developed FVIII inhibitors. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates comparable safety and effectiveness for two prophylaxis regimens and that prophylaxis significantly reduces bleeding compared with on-demand treatment. PK-tailored prophylaxis offers an alternative to standard prophylaxis for the prevention of bleeding.

Therapeutic options for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) resistant to 400 to 600 mg imatinib are limited. Escalating imatinib doses may overcome resistance. Dasatinib, a significantly more potent inhibitor of BCR-ABL, is safe and effective in this population. Patients with imatinibresistant chronic-phase (CP) CML were randomized 2:1 to 140 mg dasatinib (n ‫؍‬ 101) or 800 mg imatinib (n ‫؍‬ 49). With a median follow up of 15 months, complete hematologic responses were observed in 93% and 82% of patients receiving dasatinib and high-dose imatinib (P ‫؍‬ .034), respectively. Dasatinib resulted in higher major cytogenetic response rates (52%) than high-dose imatinib (33%) (P ‫؍‬ .023); this included complete cytogenetic response in 40% and 16% (P ‫؍‬ .004). Major molecular responses were also more frequent with dasatinib (16% versus 4%; P ‫؍‬ 0.038). Treatment failure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; P < .001) and progression-free survival (HR, 0.14; P < .001) both favored dasatinib. Superficial edema (42% versus 15%) and fluid retention (45% versus 30%) were more prevalent with imatinib; pleural effusion was more common with dasatinib (17% versus 0%). Grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicity was minimal. Cytopenias were more frequent and severe with dasatinib. Dasatinib represents a safe and effective therapy for CP-CML resistant to conventional imatinib doses with improved cytogenetic and molecular response rates and progression-free survival relative to high-dose imatinib. (Blood. 2007;109:5143-5150)

Spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk) signaling is central to phagocytosis‐based, antibody‐mediated platelet destruction in adults with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Fostamatinib, an oral Syk inhibitor, produced sustained on‐treatment responses in a phase 2 ITP study. In two parallel, phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trials (FIT1 and FIT2), patients with persistent/chronic ITP were randomized 2:1 to fostamatinib (n = 101) or placebo (n = 49) at 100 mg BID for 24 weeks with a dose increase in nonresponders to 150 mg BID after 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was stable response (platelets ≥50 000/μL at ≥4 of 6 biweekly visits, weeks 14‐24, without rescue therapy). Baseline median platelet count was 16 000/μL; median duration of ITP was 8.5 years. Stable responses occurred in 18% of patients on fostamatinib vs. 2% on placebo (P = .0003). Overall responses (defined retrospectively as ≥1 platelet count ≥50 000/μL within the first 12 weeks on treatment) occurred in 43% of patients on fostamatinib vs. 14% on placebo (P = .0006). Median time to response was 15 days (on 100 mg bid), and 83% responded within 8 weeks. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (31% on fostamatinib vs. 15% on placebo), hypertension (28% vs. 13%), nausea (19% vs. 8%), dizziness (11% vs. 8%), and ALT increase (11% vs. 0%). Most events were mild or moderate and resolved spontaneously or with medical management (antihypertensive, anti‐motility agents). Fostamatinib produced clinically‐meaningful responses in ITP patients including those who failed splenectomy, thrombopoietic agents, and/or rituximab. Fostamatinib is a novel ITP treatment option that targets an important mechanism of ITP pathogenesis.