e19043 Background: Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) is generally treated with rituximab (R) in combination with other drugs. However, treatment for relapsed or refractory (RR) MCL is challenging. For Ibrutinib (Ibr), we aim to determine the efficacy in combination therapy for newly diagnosed (ND) and RR MCL. Methods: Per PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed using four databases. Results: Eleven studies with 363 patients were identified, most commonly studied regimens were ibrutinib in combination with R in 2 phase II studies and 2 studies on Ibr in combination with venetoclax. Ibr was also studied as part of the three-drug regimens in combination with bendamustine & R, lenalidomide & R, and obinutuzumab & venetoclax. Ibr was studied in combination with other drugs such as palbociclib, ublituximab, and bortezomib as part of the two-drug regimens. Results summarized in Table. Adverse events included cytopenia, atrial fibrillation, septic shock, tumor lysis syndrome, and GI toxicities. Conclusions: Ibr in combination with R demonstrated the highest overall ORR and CR in treatment of ND MCL, whereas combination with venetoclax and obinutuzumab demonstrated highest overall ORR and CR in treatment of RR MCL. Additional studies are needed to further assess and confirm its role in treatment. [Table: see text]
e19536 Background: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease. High Risk (HR) MM is defined as the presence of abnormal cytogenetics i.e. t(4:14), t(14:16), t(14:20), del(17/17p), non hyperdiploidy and gain (1q). HR MM is a treatment challenge. We aim to explore efficacy of anti-myeloma therapy for newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed/refractory (RR) HR MM. Methods: We used Pubmed, Ebsco and MBASE to select 18 trials with outcome data on ND (n = 598) and RR(n = 726) HR MM (n = 1321), after extensive review, treatment efficacy (CR, VGPR, ORR) and survival (mPFS, OS) data was extracted. Results: In HR MM the range of overall response rate (ORR) was 31%-100% (Standard Risk (SR): 56%-94.7%), complete response (CR) was 10%-58.3% (SR: 7%-38.1%) and very good partial response (VGPR) was 15%-88.3% (SR: 25%-63%). In ND HR patients, range of ORR was 71.2% - 86.2% (SR: 71.2% - 91.7%) and CR was 35% - 58.3% (SR: 22%-35%) and median progression free survival (mPFS) was 18 months (m) - 31.3m (SR: 31.3m – Not Reached). In RR HR patients, range of ORR was 31% – 85.2% (SR: 56%-94.7%) and CR was 10%-29.2% (SR: 7%-38.1%) and mPFS was 3.3m - 23.1m (SR: 4m - Not Reached). In RR HR MM, Daratumumab ( Dara) , lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone (d) combination resulted in highest minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity 21.4%. In RR HR, Carfilzomib (Car)- R-d resulted in the longest mPFS of 23.1m (SR: 29.6m) followed by (Dara)-R-d of 22.6m (SR:NR) and Ixazomib (I)- R-d of 21.4m (SR:20.6). In ND HR, Bortezomib (V) with thalidomide (T)- d resulted in longest mPFS of 23.5m (SR: NR) and OS of 56.6m followed by Cyclophosphamide (Cy)-T-d of 20m (SR:34m) and (Dara)-V- Melphalan(M) and Prednisone of 18m (SR:NR). Quadruplet therapy in ND with Cy- V – d with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin resulted in the highest CR 58.3% and mPFS of 31.3m (~8m longer). Conclusions: Cytogenetically HR MM achieved high ORR, CR and VGPR similar to SR MM yet, the PFS and OS in HR (mPFS: 11.2m - 31.3m) was significantly shorter than SR (mPFS: 19m - Not Reached) representing poor prognosis. Promising strategies and targeted therapies that are currently evolving include antibody based combination therapy (3 or 4 drugs), various CAR-T cells constructs, targeted inhibitors, and antibody-drug conjugates.
Introduction: Rationale for anticancer vaccine therapy is based on humoral and/or cellular response against unique tumor antigens (Ag). Peptide vaccines specific for Ag are under investigation for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Among cell-based vaccines, monocyte derived dendritic cell (MDDC) fused with myeloma cells serve as Ag presenting cells to develop an immune response against a variety of targets. The purpose of this study is to report clinical response and tolerability of anti-myeloma vaccines. Methods: We included phase I and I/II trials developed between January 2008 to December 2017, where vaccines or viruses were used against MM, irrespective of the geo-location, age, and sex. We performed a comprehensive literature search (last update 3-30-2018) using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, AdisInsight, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Results: The initial search identified 2537 early phase studies. After screening by 2 reviewers and categorization by mechanism of action, 25 clinical trials (CT) that involved vaccines and/or viruses were included. We added 1 CT after the manual search. Therapy was given to 3 distinct classes of patients: patients without prior treatment (high risk smoldering MM or stage I MM, 4 CT), as an adjunct therapy for patients undergoing FDA approved treatments [high dose chemotherapy (HDT), allogeneic (allo-SCT) or autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), 9 CT], and patients with residual or relapsed/refractory (RR) disease after FDA approved therapies (11 CT). Of the included 25 CT, 14 have published results available for analysis. For patients without prior treatments, PVX-410, a multi-peptide vaccine, resulted in at least minimal response (MR) in 50% of patients when combined with lenalidomiden and achieved stable disease (SD) for 60% of patients when used alone at 12 months follow up. Treatment with Idiotype-pulsed mature MMDC targeting idiotype proteins in MM showed MR in 30% of patients and SD in 43% of patients at 12 months. For patients receiving vaccines as an adjuvant treatment, recMAGE-A3 resulted in complete response (CR) and very good partial response (VGPR) in 46% and 54% respectively, at 3 months post ASCT follow up. By 12 months post ASCT, these responses were 38% CR and 23% VGPR. Treatment with MDDC (MAGE3 + Survivin + BCMA) resulted in SD in 42% of patients at a median of 25 months post vaccination and 55 months post ASCT. ScFv-FrC, a DNA fusion vaccine, resulted in CR in 50% and MR/SD in 21% at 52 weeks post vaccination. Ongoing CR/PR was maintained for 3+ years in 57 % patients, 4+ years in 36%, and 5+ years in 14% of patients following ASCT; OS was 64% after a median follow up of 85.6 months . Patients treated with MDDCs/tumor cells fusion vaccine had 69% SD after vaccination and 20% SD at a median of 26 months. When vaccines were given as a salvage therapy in RR MM, ImMucin vaccine showed a CR in 30% of patients during treatment, 20% maintained CR, and 13% had SD at a median of 24 months. Galinpepimut-S vaccine showed CR or very good partial response (VGPR) in 37% of patients at a median of 12 months, and 26% CR and VGPR at 18 months, with a progression free survival rate of 23.6 months. Patients receiving mHag loaded host MDDC vaccination also showed 8% CR for > 6 years (n=1) and 8% PR for 19 weeks (n=1); 33% had SD. Reolysin (wild-type reovirus), a virus-based vaccine, was used in 3 trials for RR MM patients. When alone, 42% of patients had SD and 58% had PD. When combined with dexamethasone and bortezomib 37% of patients had SD lasting for 3 cycles. Whereas, when combined with dexamethasone and carfilzomib, all patients had decrease in monoclonal proteins, with VGPR reported in 28%, PR in 43%, MR in 8%, and SD in 8% patients after 8 cycles. Most vaccines were well tolerated by patients, only grade (G) 1 and G2 side effects (SE), which were mostly flu-like symptoms and local skin reactions. G3 SE included pneumonia with mHag DC and Bcl2 peptide vaccine, GVHD with hTERT tumor vaccine, DVT and rash seen with scFv-FrC DNA vaccines. G4 SE were rare, but seen with reolysin, requiring 2 patients to be removed from study, and with DC/tumor cell fusion vaccine (1 pulmonary embolism). Conclusion Anti-myeloma vaccination therapy appears to be well tolerated, which makes it a promising adjuvant therapeutic agent against MM. Current data reveals positive immunologic activity in most patients and there is possibility of promising clinical responses with further drug development. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Background Light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is a multi-organ amyloid deposition disease caused by misfolded protein aggregation. Current treatments have improved overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) but challenges remain in improving therapy with newer agents and targeting amyloid protein deposits with novel immunotherapy. We review the literature regarding efficacy of existing chemotherapy in AL amyloidosis and summarize non-FDA approved novel drugs and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in early phase clinical development. Methods We searched databases including Cochrane library, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for all prospective and retrospective studies (As of 4/15/2018) with measured hematologic response rate (HR) in patients with AL amyloidosis since 2000. Inclusion criteria included all prospective and retrospective studies with melphalan-based treatments, bortezomib combinations including bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD), bortezomib and dexamethasone (VD) and immunotherapies. We included all studies with at least 5 or more patients and reported HR. Results From 918 studies, we selected 57 studies (2640 patients) evaluating HR with melphalan-based stem cell transplant (SCT) treatments and non-stem cell transplant treatments including melphalan and bortezomib combinations. Other agents included daratumumab (anti-CD38 mAb), and ixazomib (proteasome inhibitor). Mean aggregate HR reported from studies with melphalan-based SCT treatment (17 studies, n=587) was 67%. Mean aggregate HR from all non-transplant treatments (40 studies, n=2053) was 64%. Of the non-transplant treatments, HR for melphalan-based treatments (21 studies, n=1148) was 59% and varied as follows: melphalan + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (57%) and melphalan + dexamethasone (52%). Mean aggregated HR for non-transplant bortezomib-based treatment (17 studies, n=859) was 72% consisting of VD (69%) and VCD (76%). HR with Ixazomib (1 study) and Daratumumab (1 study) was 52% and 76% respectively. Other novel drugs currently being studied include 11-1F4 (chimeric fibril-reactive mAb), GSK2398852 and GSK2315698 (anti-serum amyloid protein mAbs), and NEOD001 (anti-circulating soluble and deposited aggregated amyloid mAb). Conclusion For AL amyloidosis, melphalan-based SCT has shown effectiveness while VD and VCD demonstrate effectiveness in non-transplant patients. Further studies are warranted to evaluate novel proteasome inhibitors (Ixazomib) and emerging immunotherapy with daratumumab. Current trials including amyloid protein and fibril targeting (circulating and tissue-fixed) with novel immunotherapy are innovative and may have higher clinical efficacy, but need further testing. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Introduction: Insulin resistance occurs most commonly in association with obesity but may result from multiple causes, e.g. medications, lipodystrophy, or antibodies to insulin or insulin receptors. We review a case of an unusual presentation of insulin resistance. We highlight challenges of diagnostic testing and treatment when there are cost limitations. Clinical Case:A 41 year old Hispanic male with T2DM and a history of well-controlled BPD on quetiapine only presents for management of diabetes. His current treatment is metformin and a TDD of 170 U human insulin; A1C is 12.2%. He was diagnosed at age 32 via routine lab tests. At diagnosis BW was 96.4 kg, BMI 29, BP 100/70, CHOL 152, TG 247, HDL 35, LDL 68. Physical exam was unremarkable without acanthosis or lipodystrophy. Anti-GAD, anti-islet cell antibodies, insulin and C-peptide levels were ordered, but not obtained due to cost. He was managed with lifestyle modification for 2 years with maintenance of A1C <7%. At age 35 he developed symptomatic hyperglycemia with A1C 9.4% and was started on metformin and glyburide. At age 36 A1C was >11%, with no change in BW. Glargine 5 U was added, and glyburide was changed to glipizide. Glargine was increased to 40 U without changes in glycemia. At age 37 glipizide was stopped, and he could not afford glargine. He was switched to 70/30 human insulin. Insulin dosages were progressively increased to 220 U a day with no change in glycemia. Liraglutide was tried but not continued due to cost, and quetiapine was switched to trazodone without improvement in A1C. LFTs, CBC, HIV, Hepatitis C and B have been negative. The patient has had multiple visits for education with documented adequate disease understanding and performance of injections. Nonadherence was suspected; for its evaluation, the patient was observed in clinic self-injecting 30 U of regular insulin (brought from home); fasting was confirmed for 3hrs post-injection. BG was 327mg/dL pre-injection and 326mg/dL 3hrs post-injection. Insulin antibodies were requested but not obtained due to cost. Insulin receptor antibodies are not commercially available in the US. Potential empiric strategies, e.g. the NIH protocol for insulin type B resistance (rituximab + dexamethasone + cyclophosphamide) was considered but cost is a limitation. We discussed steroids or methotrexate for possible antibody mediated insulin resistance versus a trial of thiazolidinedione, which has been reported to decrease severe insulin resistance in patients with lipodystrophy. The patient opted to initially try a thiazolidinedione. Conclusion:Although poor adherence has not been excluded, the patient appears to have no response to high doses of injected human insulin, suggesting extreme insulin resistance. Cost limitations preclude optimal diagnostic evaluation. Empiric treatment with low cost options potentially may provide diagnostic information as well as efficacious treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.