The phase 3 CLARION study compared carfilzomib-melphalan-prednisone (KMP) with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Patients were randomized 1:1 to KMP or VMP for nine 42-day cycles (C). Patients received carfilzomib on days (D) 1, 2, 8, 9, 22, 23, 29, 30 (20 mg/m2: C1D1, C1D2; 36 mg/m2 thereafter) or bortezomib on D1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, 32 (1.3 mg/m2; D4, 11, 25, 32 omitted for C5-9). Melphalan (9 mg/m2) and prednisone (60 mg/m2) were administered on D1-4. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Nine hundred fifty-five patients were randomized (intention-to-treat population: KMP, n = 478; VMP, n = 477). Median PFS was 22.3 months with KMP vs 22.1 months with VMP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.906; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.746-1.101; P = .159). Median overall survival was similar and not reached in either group (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.82-1.43). Overall response rate was 84.3% for KMP and 78.8% for VMP. Complete response rate was 25.9% for KMP and 23.1% for VMP. Minimal residual disease–negative rates were 15.7% (KMP) and 15.5% (VMP). Adverse events (AEs) of interest (any grade) occurring with a ≥5% higher patient incidence in the KMP arm were acute renal failure (13.9% [KMP] vs 6.2% [VMP]) and cardiac failure (10.8% vs 4.3%). Grade ≥3 AE rates were 74.7% (KMP) and 76.2% (VMP). Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy was lower for KMP vs VMP (2.5% vs 35.1%). Treatment with KMP in CLARION did not yield a statistically significant difference in PFS vs VMP. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01818752.
Introduction: The use of lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BTZ) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients (pts), along with continuous or maintenance therapy paradigm have improved survival outcomes. However, many pts progress while on these agents or discontinue them due to toxicity. There is a need for novel, efficacious, and tolerable regimens that can treat MM pts who are exposed or refractory to LEN or BTZ. The proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib and the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab have both been approved as single agents or as components of combination regimens for the treatment of RRMM. The combination of carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab has been shown to be efficacious and safe in RRMM in the phase 1 study MMY1001 (Chari, Blood 2019). We present results from the primary analysis of CANDOR, a multicenter, phase 3, randomized study comparing carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD) vs carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in RRMM pts. Methods: RRMM pts with measurable disease who had received 1-3 prior lines of therapy, with partial response or better to ≥1 line of therapy were eligible. Pts were randomized 2:1 to KdD or Kd. All pts received carfilzomib (K) as a 30-min intravenous (IV) infusion on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of each 28-day cycle (20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 during cycle 1 and 56 mg/m2 thereafter). Daratumumab (8 mg/kg) was administered IV on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1 and at 16 mg/kg once weekly for the remaining doses of the first 2 cycles, then every 2 wks for 4 cycles (cycles 3 to 6), and every 4 wks thereafter. All pts received 40 mg dexamethasone oral or IV weekly (20 mg for pts >75 years). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negative-complete response at 12 months (threshold, 10-5 cells), overall survival (OS), time to response, and safety. Results: 466 pts (KdD: 312; Kd: 154) from 102 sites worldwide were randomized. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms. Median age was 64 years. Of the randomized pts, 42.3% and 90.3% received previous LEN- and BTZ-containing regimens, respectively. 33% of pts were LEN-refractory. The primary endpoint of PFS was met after a median follow-up of 16.9 mo and 16.3 mo for the KdD and Kd arms, respectively. Median PFS was not reached for the KdD arm vs 15.8 mo for the Kd arm (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.85; P=0.0014; Figure). PFS HRs favored KdD vs Kd across prespecified subgroups. Importantly, median PFS (KdD vs Kd) was not reached vs 12.1 mo in the LEN-exposed group (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34-0.80), and was not reached vs 11.1 mo in the LEN-refractory group (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.74). Median time to first response was 1 mo in the KdD and Kd arms. ORR was 84.3% vs 74.7% (P=0.0040), and the rate of complete response or better was 28.5% vs 10.4%. MRD-negative complete response rate at 12 mo was 12.5% for KdD vs 1.3% for Kd (P<0.0001). Median OS was not reached in either arm at a median follow-up time of 17 mo (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.49-1.13; P=0.08). Median treatment duration was longer in the KdD than Kd arm (70.1 vs 40.3 wks). The incidence of grade ≥3 AEs was 82.1% and 73.9% in the KdD and Kd arms, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 56.2% (KdD) and 45.8% (Kd). The rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs was similar in both arms (KdD, 22.4%; Kd, 24.8%). The frequency of grade ≥3 cardiac failure was 3.9% (KdD) and 8.5% (Kd); rate of cardiac failure event leading to K discontinuation was similar in the arms (3.9% and 4.6%). 5 deaths were reported as treatment-related, all in the KdD arm (pneumonia, sepsis, septic shock, acinetobacter infection, and cardio-respiratory arrest [n=1 each]). Additional efficacy endpoints, including key subgroup analyses will be presented. Conclusion: KdD resulted in a significant PFS benefit over Kd, with a 37% reduction in the risk of progression or death. Pts treated with KdD achieved deeper responses, with a nearly 10-times higher MRD negative-complete response rate vs Kd-treated pts. The PFS benefit of KdD was maintained across prespecified clinically important subgroups, particularly among LEN-exposed and LEN-refractory pts. AEs were generally manageable and the incidence of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation was similar in the arms. Overall, KdD was associated with a favorable benefit-risk profile and represents an efficacious new regimen for RRMM, including for LEN-exposed and/or LEN-refractory pts. Figure Disclosures Usmani: AbbVie: Other: Personal fees; SkylineDx: Consultancy, Other: Grant, Personal fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Grant, Personal fees, Research Funding; MundiPharma: Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Grant, Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other: Grant, Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Other: Grant, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Grant, Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Grant, Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Grant, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Grant, Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Grant, Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Quach:Celgene Corp: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator initiated clinical study; Grant, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator initiated clinical study; Grant, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Other: Free drug for investigator-initiated study, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mateos:Glicomimetics: Other: Personal fees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Adaptive: Honoraria; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Landgren:Takeda: Other: Grants, Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC); Rising Tides Foundation: Other: Grants; Amgen: Other: Grant, Personal fees; Seattle Genetics: Other: Grants; NIH: Other: Grants; FDA: Other: Personal fees; Glenmark: Other: Grants; MMRF: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC); IMF: Other: Grants; LLS: Other: Grants; Perelman Family Foundation: Other: Grants; Karyopharm: Other: Grants; Adaptive: Other: Personal fees; Binding Site: Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Other: Grant, Personal fees; BMS: Other: Personal fees; Cellectis: Other: Personal fees; Juno: Other: Personal fees; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees; Merck: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC); Janssen: Other: Grants, Personal fees, Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC). Leleu:Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Siegel:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy; GSK: Honoraria. Yang:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Klippel:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zahlten-Kumeli:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: carfilzomib dexamethasone, and daratumumab triplet for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma
Purpose Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN ® ) is the originator recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor widely used for preventing neutropenia-related infections and mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells. This report presents findings of a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of originator filgrastim to update previous reports. Methods A literature search of electronic databases, congress abstracts, and bibliographies of recent reviews was conducted to identify English-language reports of clinical trials and observational studies evaluating filgrastim in its US-approved indications up to February 2015. Two independent reviewers assessed titles/abstracts and full texts of publications, and extracted data from studies that compared originator filgrastim vs placebo or no treatment. For outcomes with sufficient homogeneous data reported across studies, meta-analysis was performed and relative risk (RR) determined. Data were summarized descriptively for all other evaluated outcomes. Results A total of 1194 unique articles evaluating originator filgrastim were identified, with 25 meeting eligibility criteria for data extraction: 18 randomized controlled trials, 2 nonrandomized clinical trials, and 5 observational studies. In chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN), filgrastim vs placebo or no treatment significantly reduced febrile neutropenia incidence (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53-0.75) and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia incidence (RR 0.50,. The most commonly reported adverse event (AE) with filgrastim was bone pain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.29-5.27 in CIN). Additional efficacy and safety outcomes are described within indications. Conclusions This systematic literature review and metaanalysis confirms and updates previous reports on the efficacy and safety of originator filgrastim. Bone pain was the commonly reported AE associated with filgrastim use.
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.