No abstract

No abstract

The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.

The treatment of patients with multiple myeloma usually includes many drugs including thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib. Lovastatin and other inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase demonstrated to exhibit antineoplasmatic and proapoptotic properties in numerous in vitro studies involving myeloma cell lines. We treated 91 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with thalidomide, dexamethasone and lovastatin (TDL group, 49 patients) or thalidomide and dexamethasone (TD group, 42 patients). A clinical response defined of at least 50% reduction of monoclonal band has been observed in 32% of TD patients and 44% of TDL patients. Prolongation of overall survival and progression-free survival in the TDL group as compared with the TD group has been documented. The TDL regimen was safe and well tolerated. The incidence of side effects was comparable in both groups. Plasma cells have been cultured in vitro with thalidomide and lovastatin to assess the impact of both drugs on the apoptosis rate of plasma cells. In vitro experiments revealed that the combination of thalidomide and lovastatin induced higher apoptosis rate than apoptosis induced by each drug alone. Our results suggest that the addition of lovastatin to the TD regimen may improve the response rate in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma.

Background Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. MethodsIn this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. Findings Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6•8 months (95% CI 5•0-8•5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4•9 months (4•2-5•7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0•79, [95% CI 0•64-0•98]; p=0•032), at a median follow-up of 15•5 months (IQR 9•4-22•8) in the melflufen group and 16•3 months (10•1-23•2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19•8 months (95% CI 15•1-25•6) at a median follow-up of 19•8 months (IQR 12•0-25•0) in the melflufen group and 25•0 months (95% CI 18•1-31•9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18•6 months (IQR 11•8-23•7; HR 1•10 [95% CI 0•85-1•44]; p=0•47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs...

In the primary analysis of the phase 3 COLUMBA study, daratumumab by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) demonstrated non-inferiority to intravenous administration (DARA IV) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety from COLUMBA after a median of 29.3 months follow-up (additional 21.8 months after the primary analysis). In total, 522 patients were randomized (DARA SC, n=263; DARA IV, n=259). With longer follow-up, DARA SC and DARA IV continued to show consistent efficacy and maximum trough daratumumab concentration as compared with the primary analysis. The overall response rate was 43.7% for DARA SC and 39.8% for DARA IV. The maximum mean (standard deviation) trough concentration (cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose) of serum DARA was 581(315) μg/mL for DARA SC and 496(231) μg/mL for DARA IV. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for DARA SC and 6.1 months for DARA IV; median overall survival was 28.2 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients in the DARA SC group and 52.7% in the DARA IV group; the most common (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (DARA SC, 14.2%; DARA IV, 13.6%), anemia (13.8%; 15.1%), and neutropenia (13.1%; 7.8%). The safety profile remained consistent with the primary analysis after longer follow-up. In summary, DARA SC and DARA IV continue to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety, with a low rate of infusion-related reactions (12.7% vs 34.5%, respectively) and shorter administration time (3-5 minutes vs 3-7 hours) supporting DARA SC as a preferable therapeutic choice. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03277105.

8005 Background: In a phase 1b trial, a SC formulation of DARA with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20; ENHANZE drug delivery technology, Halozyme, Inc.) had adequate PK, low rates of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and similar efficacy to DARA IV. This phase 3 study compared the efficacy, PK, and safety of DARA SC vs IV in pts with RRMM. Methods: DARA SC (1,800 mg DARA + rHuPH20 [2,000 U/mL]) and DARA IV (16 mg/kg IV) were given weekly for C1-2 (28-day cycles), every 2 weeks for C3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter. DARA SC (15 mL) was given over 3-5 mins at alternating left/right abdominal sites. Pts (≥18 years) must have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOT), including a PI and an IMiD, or were double refractory. Co-primary endpoints were ORR (analyzed by Farrington-Manning test, with non-inferiority = 60% retention of ORR) and pre-dose C3D1 DARA Ctrough (non-inferiority = lower bound of 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means [GM] ≥80%). Results: 522 pts were randomized (n=263 SC; n=259 IV). Median age was 67 yrs. Median baseline body weight was 73 kg. Pts received a median of 4 LOT and 100% had received both PI and IMiD; 17% had high cytogenetic risk at baseline. Median follow-up was 7.5 mos. ORR was 41% for DARA SC and 37% for DARA IV. DARA SC retained at least 89% of the benefit of DARA IV (97.5% confidence). The ratio of GM of Ctrough for DARA SC over DARA IV was 108% (90% CI, 96%-122%). A significantly lower rate of IRRs was observed with DARA SC vs DARA IV (12.7% vs 34.5%; P<0.0001). Median duration of injection was 5 mins for DARA SC and median duration of infusion was 421/255/205 mins for the first/second/subsequent DARA IV infusions. Median PFS was 5.6 mos DARA SC vs 6.1 mos DARA IV (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.26). Most common TEAEs (≥15%) were anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea. Primary reasons for treatment discontinuation included progressive disease (43% SC vs 44% IV) and AEs (7% SC vs 8% IV). Conclusions: Efficacy and PK co-primary endpoints were met, demonstrating non-inferiority of DARA SC to IV. DARA SC significantly decreased IRR rate and administration time, with a comparable safety profile to DARA IV. Clinical trial information: NCT03277105.

No abstract