The future: a person-specific standardized assessment instrument.

K. Steel,S. Sherwood,M. Ribbe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/AGEING/26.SUPPL_2.83

Age and Ageing

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: final overall survival analysis

Paul G. Richardson,Aurore Perrot,Jesus San Miguel,Meral Beksac,Ivan Spicka,Xavier Leleu,Fredrik Schjesvold,Philippe Moreau,Meletios A. Dimopoulos,Shang-Yi Huang,Jiri Minarik,Michele Cavo,H. Miles Prince,Sandrine Macé,Rick Zhang,Franck Dubin,Mony Chenda Morisse,Kenneth C. Anderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2023.284325

2024-02-02

Haematologica

Abstract:The primary and pre-specified updated analyses of ICARIA-MM (NCT02990338) demonstrated improved progression-free survival and a benefit in overall survival (OS) was reported with the addition of isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, to pomalidomide–dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report the final OS analysis. This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study included patients who had received and failed ≥2 previous therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Between January 10, 2017, and February 2, 2018, 307 patients were randomized (1:1) to isatuximab–pomalidomide– dexamethasone (Isa-Pd; n = 154) or Pd (n = 153), stratified based on age (3). At data cutoff for the final OS analysis after 220 OS events (January 27, 2022), median follow-up duration was 52.4 months. Median OS (95% confidence interval) was 24.6 months (20.3–31.3 months) with Isa-Pd and 17.7 months (14.4–26.2 months) with Pd (hazard ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.59–1.02; 1-sided P = 0.0319). Despite subsequent daratumumab use in the Pd group and its potential benefit on PFS in the first subsequent therapy line, median PFS2 was significantly longer with Isa-Pd vs. Pd (17.5 vs. 12.9 months; log-rank 1-sided P = 0.0091). In this analysis, Isa-Pd continued to be efficacious and well tolerated after follow-up of approximately 52 months, contributing to a clinically meaningful, 6.9-month improvement in median overall survival in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

hematology
Visual discriminations in the harbour seal Phoca vitulina, above and below water.

G. Jamieson,H. Fisher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(70)90035-0

IF: 1.8

1970-11-01

Vision Research

Abstract:
Isatuximab plus carfilzomib–dexamethasone versus carfilzomib–dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (IKEMA): overall survival analysis of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

Kwee Yong,Thomas Martin,Meletios-Athanasios Dimopoulos,Joseph Mikhael,Marcelo Capra,Thierry Facon,Roman Hajek,Ivan Špička,Ross Baker,Kihyun Kim,Gracia Martinez,Chang-Ki Min,Ludek Pour,Xavier Leleu,Albert Oriol,Youngil Koh,Kenshi Suzuki,France Casca,Sandrine Macé,Marie-Laure Risse,Philippe Moreau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-3026(24)00148-0

IF: 30.153

2024-07-26

The Lancet Haematology

Abstract:Summary Background Isatuximab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Previous analyses of the IKEMA trial showed prolonged progression-free survival in patients with this disease who received isatuximab in combination with carfilzomib–dexamethasone as compared with those who received carfilzomib–dexamethasone alone. Herein, we report the analysis of overall survival from the IKEMA trial. Methods This prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, phase 3 study included patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma aged 18 years or older, who had received one to three previous lines of treatment from 69 study centres in 16 countries across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were randomly allocated (3:2) to treatment with either isatuximab plus carfilzomib–dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or carfilzomib–dexamethasone (control group). In the isatuximab group, patients received intravenous isatuximab (10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first 28-day cycle, and days 1 and 15 of subsequent 28-day cycles). In both treatment groups, intravenous carfilzomib (20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 2 of the first cycle; and 56 mg/m 2 on days 8, 9, 15, and 16 of the first cycle, and days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of subsequent cycles) and intravenous or oral dexamethasone (20 mg on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23) were administered. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, which was reported previously. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient request to discontine. The overall survival analysis reported here was planned to be conducted 3 years after the primary progression-free survival analysis in the intention-to-treat population. Additional analyses were conducted on the secondary endpoints of time to next treatment and second-progression-free survival. Reported p values are non-inferential due to hierarchical testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03275285 ). Findings Between Nov 15, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 302 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated: 179 (59%) to the isatuximab group and 123 (41%) to the control group. 169 (56%) patients were male, 133 (44%) were female, 214 (71%) were White, 50 (17%) were Asian, nine (3%) were Black or African American, and three (1%) were multiracial. At data cutoff for this overall survival analysis (Feb 7, 2023), 79 (44%) overall survival events in the isatuximab group and 59 (48%) in the control group had occurred (median follow-up 56·61 months [IQR 54·90–58·02]). Median overall survival (in months) was not reached (NR; 95% CI 52·17–NR) in the isatuximab group and was 50·60 months (38·93–NR) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·855 [95% CI 0·608–1·202], nominal one-sided p=0·18). Survival probability at 48 months was 59·7% (95% CI 52·0–66·7) in the isatuximab group and 52·2% (95% CI 42·7–60·8) in the control group (based on Kaplan–Meier analysis). Improvements in time to next treatment (HR 0·583 [95% CI 0·429–0·792], nominal one-sided p=0·0002) and second-progression-free survival (0·663 [0·491–0·895], nominal one-sided p=0·0035) were observed in the isatuximab group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were infusion reactions (82 [46%] patients in the isatuximab group and four [3%] in the control group) and upper respiratory tract infections (71 [40%] and 34 [28%], respectively). Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatment groups (24 [14%] in the isatuximab group and 22 [18%] in the control group), despite an additional 30 weeks of exposure in the isatuximab group. 12 (7%) patients in the isatuximab group and six (5%) patients in the control group had a treatment-related adverse event with a fatal outcome during study treatment. Interpretation At the time of the current analysis, a difference in overall survival could not be detected between the treatment groups, and no new safety signals were observed. Collectively, the evidence suggests that isatuximab plus carfilzomib–dexamethasone is a key treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Funding Sanofi.

hematology
Isatuximab for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: review of key subgroup analyses from the Phase III ICARIA-MM study

Paul G Richardson,Simon J Harrison,Sara Bringhen,Fredrik Schjesvold,Kwee Yong,Frank Campana,Solenn Le-Guennec,Sandrine Macé,Meletios A Dimopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2021-0568

Abstract:In the Phase III ICARIA-MM study (NCT02990338), the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone led to increased progression-free survival and improved response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. There is an unmet treatment need, particularly among patients with poor prognoses, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, those who have renal impairment, those who are elderly and those who are refractory to prior lines of treatment. In this review, the subgroup analyses from the ICARIA-MM study, representing subpopulations with poor prognostic factors, are discussed. Overall, the addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone improved progression-free survival and disease response rates across different subgroups, regardless of prognostic factor.
Updates from ICARIA-MM, a phase 3 study of isatuximab (Isa) plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pd) versus Pd in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

Paul G. Richardson,Aurore Perrot,Jesús F. San-Miguel,Meral Beksac,Ivan Spicka,Xavier Leleu,Fredrik Schjesvold,Philippe Moreau,Meletios A. Dimopoulos,Jeffrey SY. Huang,Jiri Minarik,Michele Cavo,H. Miles Prince,Cheng Zheng,Franck Dubin,Helgi Van De Velde,Kenneth Carl Anderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.8017

IF: 45.3

2021-05-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:8017 Background: Isa is an approved monoclonal antibody that binds to a specific epitope on the CD38 receptor. The Phase 3 ICARIA-MM study (NCT02990338) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with Isa-Pd vs Pd ( P= 0.001) and a manageable safety profile (Attal M, et al. Lancet 2019;394:2096-2107). Here we report updated ICARIA results. Methods: Pts with RRMM (N = 307) who have received ≥2 prior therapies, including lenalidomide (Len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), were randomized to Isa-Pd (n = 154) or Pd (n = 153). Isa was administered intravenously at 10 mg/kg weekly for 4 weeks, and every other week thereafter. This preplanned second interim analysis assessed longer term outcomes, including time to next treatment (TTNT), overall survival (OS), time from randomization to disease progression on first subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and safety. Results: Pts had a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (IQR 2–4; table). As of Oct 1, 2020 (median follow-up, 35.3 months [mo]), 27 Isa-Pd pts (18%) vs 12 Pd pts (8%) were still on treatment; 60% vs 72% had proceeded to subsequent therapy. Median TTNT was 15.5 mo with Isa-Pd vs 8.9 mo with Pd (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42–0.74; P< 0.0001); 24% vs 58% of pts with subsequent therapy received daratumumab (dara). Overall response rate (ORR) in subsequent treatment with dara monotherapy was higher after Pd (38%) than Isa-Pd (14%), but was similar (32% vs 31%) with dara combination therapy (table). Median PFS2 in the intent-to-treat population was 17.5 mo with Isa-Pd vs 12.9 mo with Pd (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.58–0.99; P= 0.0202). Median OS was 24.6 mo with Isa-Pd vs 17.7 mo with Pd (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.58–1.01; one-sided P= 0.0280). Median treatment duration was 47.6 weeks (range 1.3–171.6) with Isa-Pd vs 24.0 weeks (range 1.0–168.6) with Pd. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAEs) were seen in 73% of Isa-Pd pts vs 60% of Pd pts. Most frequent non-hematologic TEAEs (any grade) with Isa-Pd were infusion reaction (38%), upper respiratory tract infection (34%), and diarrhea (30%). Grade 3–4 neutropenia (85% vs 71%) and thrombocytopenia (34% vs 25%) were more frequent with Isa-Pd than with Pd. Conclusions: Isa-Pd demonstrates a significant improvement in TTNT and PFS2 compared with Pd. A strong trend in OS benefit was also seen in the Isa-Pd arm, with approximately 7 mo improvement in median OS. The overall safety profile remains unchanged from prior analyses. Funding: Sanofi. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338. [Table: see text]

oncology
Subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics

Simon J Harrison,Aurore Perrot,Adrian Alegre,David Simpson,Ming Chung Wang,Andrew Spencer,Sosana Delimpasi,Cyrille Hulin,Kazutaka Sunami,Thierry Facon,Philip Vlummens,Kwee Yong,Frank Campana,Marlène Inchauspé,Sandrine Macé,Marie-Laure Risse,Helgi van de Velde,Paul Richardson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.17499

Abstract:Treatment benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) patients with high-risk cytogenetics remains suboptimal. The phase 3 ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338) showed that isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone prolongs median progression-free survival (mPFS) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). This subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM compared the benefit of isatuximab in high-risk [defined by the presence of del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)] versus standard-risk patients. The efficacy of isatuximab in patients with gain(1q21) abnormality was also assessed in a retrospective subgroup analysis. In ICARIA-MM, 307 patients received isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 154) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 153). Isatuximab (10 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly in the first 28-day cycle, and every other week thereafter. Standard pomalidomide-dexamethasone doses were given. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone improved mPFS (7·5 vs 3·7 months; HR, 0·66; 95% CI, 0·33-1·28) and overall response rate (ORR, 50·0% vs 16·7%) in high-risk patients. In patients with isolated gain(1q21), isatuximab addition improved mPFS (11·2 vs 4·6 months; HR, 0·50; 95% CI, 0·28-0·88) and ORR (53·6% vs 27·6%). More grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in high-risk patients receiving isatuximab (95·7%) versus the control group (67·6%); however, isatuximab did not increase events leading to discontinuation or treatment-related mortality. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone provides a consistent benefit over pomalidomide-dexamethasone treatment in RRMM patients regardless of cytogenetic risk.
Improved Pfs and Os with Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (ird) Vs Placebo-Rd in Patients (pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (rrmm): Final Data from the Phase 3 China Continuation of Tourmaline-Mm1

Jian Hou,Jie Jin,Yan Xu,Depei Wu,Xiaoyan Ke,Zhou Daobin,Jin Lu,Xin Du,Xiequn Chen,Junmin Li,Jing Liu,Neeraj Gupta,Michael Hanley,Hongmei Li,Zhaowei Hua,Bingxia Wang,Xiaoquan Zhang,Hui Wang,Helgi van de Velde,Paul Richardson,Philippe Moreau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2017.03.121

IF: 2.822

2017-01-01

Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma & Leukemia

Abstract:The global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TOURMALINE-MM1 study (NCT01564537) demonstrated a 35% improvement in PFS (HR 0.74, p=0.012) with IRd vs placebo-Rd in MM pts with 1–3 prior therapies (Moreau et al NEJM 2016). The phase 3 continuation study reported here assessed the efficacy and safety of IRd vs placebo-Rd in pts with RRMM in China as a separate regional expansion of the global study. Eligibility criteria and study design were as in TOURMALINE-MM1. The primary endpoint was PFS, assessed by the same independent review committee as in TOURMALINE-MM1. Pts were analyzed separately from the global study. Sample size was based on Chinese regulatory requirements. 115 pts were randomized (57 IRd, 58 placebo-Rd; stratification was as in the global study). Compared to the global study, pts had more advanced disease at diagnosis (63% ISS stage II/III vs 46% in the global study), were more heavily pretreated (60% vs 41% had 2/3 prior therapies), and more frequently had refractory MM (43% vs 11%). At the preplanned final analysis for PFS (median follow-up 7.4 vs 6.9 mos), there was a significant 67% improvement in PFS with IRd vs placebo-Rd: HR 0.598; p=0.035; median PFS 6.7 vs 4.0 mos. This benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups. Median time to progression was 7.3 vs 4.1 mos with IRd vs placebo-Rd; HR=0.583, p=0.032. Overall response rates were 56% vs 31% with IRd vs placebo-Rd, including 25% vs 12% VGPR. At the final PFS analysis, OS data were not mature and the study continued blinded until a subsequent preplanned final analysis for OS. At the final OS analysis (median follow-up 20.2 vs 19.1 mos), there was a significant 139% improvement in OS with IRd vs placebo-Rd (HR 0.419, p=0.001), and a 10-month improvement in median OS (25.8 vs 15.8 mos). This OS benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups defined by age, disease status and prior therapy exposure. Results from sensitivity analyses of OS adjusting for potential confounding effects of subsequent therapies were consistent with a significant OS improvement in the IRd arm. Based on the OS findings, following unblinding of the study, pts in the placebo-Rd arm have the option to cross-over and receive IRd. At data cut-off for the final OS analysis, pts had received a median of 9.0 and 6.5 cycles of IRd and placebo-Rd; 67% vs 74% had grade ≥3 AEs (all-cause), 33% vs 31% had serious AEs, 9% vs 10% discontinued treatment due to AEs, and 7% vs 9% died on treatment. Common grade ≥3 AEs with IRd vs placebo-Rd included thrombocytopenia (25% vs 19%), neutropenia (25% vs 21%), anemia (12% vs 28%), and pneumonia (19% vs 17%). 18% vs 21% of pts had rash (no grade ≥3 events); 7% vs 10% of pts had peripheral neuropathy (no grade ≥3 events). In Chinese pts with RRMM, the addition of ixazomib to Rd was associated with a significant improvement in both PFS and OS, with limited additional toxicity.
The opposing physiological effects of high pressures and inert gases.

K. Miller

1977-04-01

Abstract:The physiological effects on mammals of elevated pressures (approximately 100 atmospheres) must be considered in the context of the inert gases breathed. The most striking effect of pressure per se is a central hyperexcitability manifest at first by trembling of the entremities and finally by convulsions. Paralysis and death occur at higher pressures. The primary effects of the inert gases breathed are inert gas narcosis and general anesthesia. The exciting effects of pressure per se and the depressive effects of the inert gases tend to oppose each other. Thus consciousness may be restored to anesthetized mice by raising the pressure, and conversely the threshold pressure that causes convulsions is elevated in the presence of anesthetics. These mutually antagonistic effects can be rationalized in terms of model which proposes that both anesthetics and pressure non-specifically perturb thelipid bilayer regions of neutral membranes. This model is termed the critical volume hypothesis. Anthesthetics dissolve in and expand these lipid bilayer regions, while pressure causes mechanical compression. Expansion leads to anesthesia and compression to convulsions if a critical degree of change is achieved. At elevated partial pressures of inert gas the gas-induced expansion is opposed by the compression of pressure per se. With very insoluble gases, such as helium, this expansion is so small that net compression results and the effects of helium differ little from those of pressure per se. With more soluble gases, such as nitrogen, net expansion results in inert gas narcosis and anesthesia. The critical volume hypothesis enables "safe" mixtures of "expanding" and "compressing" gases to be defined. These enable higher pressures to be better tolerated by mammals.
Ixazomib plus daratumumab and dexamethasone: Final analysis of a phase 2 study among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Sosana Delimpasi,Meletios A. Dimopoulos,Jan Straub,Argiris Symeonidis,Luděk Pour,Roman Hájek,Cyrille Touzeau,Viralkumar K. Bhanderi,Jesus G. Berdeja,Petr Pavlíček,Jeffrey V. Matous,Pawel J. Robak,Kaveri Suryanarayan,Alison Miller,Miguel Villarreal,Dasha Cherepanov,Jaydeep K. Srimani,Huilan Yao,Richard Labotka,Robert Z. Orlowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27382

IF: 13.265

2024-06-11

American Journal of Hematology

Abstract:Novel therapies have improved outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, but most ultimately relapse, making treatment decisions for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients increasingly challenging. We report the final analysis of a single‐arm, phase 2 study evaluating the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib combined with daratumumab and dexamethasone (IDd; NCT03439293). Sixty‐one RRMM patients (ixazomib/daratumumab‐naïve; 1–3 prior therapies) were enrolled to receive IDd (28‐day cycles) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Median age was 69 years; 14.8% of patients had International Staging System stage III disease; 14.8% had received three prior therapies. Patients received a median of 16 cycles of IDd. In 59 response‐evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 64.4%; the confirmed ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (primary endpoint) was 30.5%. Rates of ≥VGPR in patient subgroups were: high‐risk cytogenetics (n = 15, 26.7%), expanded high‐risk cytogenetics (n = 24, 29.2%), aged ≥75 years (n = 12, 16.7%), lenalidomide‐refractory (n = 21, 28.6%), and prior PI/IMiD therapy (n = 58, 31.0%). With a median follow‐up of 31.6 months, median progression‐free survival was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval: 10.1–23.7). Grade ≥3 treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 54.1% of patients; 44.3% had serious TEAEs; TEAEs led to dose modifications/reductions/discontinuations in 62.3%/36.1%/16.4%. There were five on‐study deaths. Any‐grade and grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 18.0% and 1.6% of patients. Quality of life was generally maintained throughout treatment. IDd showed a positive risk‐benefit profile in RRMM patients and was active in clinically relevant subgroups with no new safety signals.

hematology
[Favorable action of cortisone in two cases of staphylococcic septicemia].

T. Bertrand-Fontaine,J. Schneider,J. Lubetzki

Abstract:
Pharmacologic therapy of tics in childhood.

G. Erenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-19880701-06

Pediatric Annals

Abstract:
Addition of isatuximab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as induction therapy for newly diagnosed, transplantation-eligible patients with multiple myeloma (GMMG-HD7): part 1 of an open-label, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Hartmut Goldschmidt,Elias K Mai,Uta Bertsch,Roland Fenk,Eva Nievergall,Diana Tichy,Britta Besemer,Jan Dürig,Roland Schroers,Ivana von Metzler,Mathias Hänel,Christoph Mann,Anne M Asemissen,Bernhard Heilmeier,Niels Weinhold,Stefanie Huhn,Katharina Kriegsmann,Steffen P Luntz,Tobias A W Holderried,Karolin Trautmann-Grill,Deniz Gezer,Maika Klaiber-Hakimi,Martin Müller,Cyrus Khandanpour,Wolfgang Knauf,Christof Scheid,Markus Munder,Thomas Geer,Hendrik Riesenberg,Jörg Thomalla,Martin Hoffmann,Marc S Raab,Hans J Salwender,Katja C Weisel,German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG) HD7 investigators,Joachim Behringer,Helga Bernhard,Christiane Bernhardt,Igor W Blau,Claus Bolling,Daniel Debatin,Gerrit Dingeldein,Barbara Ferstl,Claudia Fest,Stefan Fronhoffs,Stephan Fuhrmann,Tobias Gaska,Martin Görner,Ullrich Graeven,Jochen Grassinger,Michael Heinsch,Gerhard Held,Olaf Hopfer,Peter Immenschuh,Dominic Kaddu-Mulindwa,Martine Klausmann,Stefan Klein,Yon-Dschun Ko,Georg Köchling,Michael Koenigsmann,Philippe Kostrewa,Doris Maria Kraemer,Stephan Kremers,Martin Kropff,Paul La Rosée,Rolf Mahlberg,Uwe Martens,Michael Neise,Holger Nückel,Wolfram Pönisch,Maria Procaccianti,Mohammed R Rafiyan,Peter Reimer,Armin Riecke,Mathias Rummel,Volker Runde,Markus Schaich,Christoph Scheid,Martin Schmidt-Hieber,Stefan Schmitt,Daniel Schöndube,Andreas Schwarzer,Peter Staib,Heike Steiniger,Dirk Sturmberg,Hans-Joachim Tischler,Arne Trummer,Barbara Tschechne,Walter Verbeek,Bettina Whitlock,Maike de Wit,Matthias Zaiß,Carsten Ziske

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(22)00263-0

Abstract:Background: Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies have consistently shown increased efficacy when added to standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy of isatuximab in addition to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed transplantation-eligible multiple myeloma. Methods: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 67 academic and oncology practice centres in Germany. This study is ongoing and divided into two parts; herein, we report results from part 1. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years; had a confirmed diagnosis of untreated multiple myeloma requiring systemic treatment and a WHO performance status of 0-2; and were eligible for induction therapy, high-dose melphalan and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, and maintenance treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three 42-day cycles of induction therapy either with isatuximab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone alone (control group) using a web-based system and permuted blocks. Patients in both groups received lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-14 and 22-35), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15, 22-23, 25-26, 29-30, and 32-33). Isatuximab was given as 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29 of cycle 1 and on days 1, 15, and 29 of cycles 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity assessed by flow cytometry, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03617731. Findings: Between Oct 23, 2018, and Sep 22, 2020, 660 patients were included in the ITT analysis (331 in the isatuximab group and 329 in the control group). 654 (99%) patients were White, two were African, one was Arabic, and three were Asian. 250 (38%) were women and 410 (62%) were men. The median age was 59 years (IQR 54-64). MRD negativity after induction therapy was reached in 166 (50%) patients in the isatuximab group versus 117 (36%) in the control group (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·33-2·48]; p=0·00017). Median follow-up time from start to end of induction therapy was 125 days (IQR 125-131) versus 125 days (125-132). At least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event occurred in 208 (63%) of 330 patients versus 199 (61%) of 328 patients. Neutropenia of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 77 (23%) versus 23 (7%) patients and infections of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 40 (12%) versus 32 (10%) patients. Among 12 deaths during induction therapy, one death due to septic shock in the isatuximab group and four deaths (one cardiac decompensation, one hepatic and renal failure, one cardiac arrest, and one drug-induced enteritis) in the control group were considered treatment-related. Interpretation: Addition of isatuximab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for induction therapy improved rates of MRD negativity with no new safety signals in patients with newly diagnosed transplantation-eligible multiple myeloma. Funding: Sanofi and Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene).
Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and followed by daratumumab maintenance or observation in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the CASSIOPEIA randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Philippe Moreau,Cyrille Hulin,Aurore Perrot,Bertrand Arnulf,Karim Belhadj,Lotfi Benboubker,Sonja Zweegman,Hélène Caillon,Denis Caillot,Hervé Avet-Loiseau,Michel Delforge,Thomas Dejoie,Thierry Facon,Cécile Sonntag,Jean Fontan,Mohamad Mohty,Kon-Siong Jie,Lionel Karlin,Frédérique Kuhnowski,Jérôme Lambert,Xavier Leleu,Margaret Macro,Frédérique Orsini-Piocelle,Murielle Roussel,Jean Marc Schiano de Colella,Niels Wcj van de Donk,Soraya Wuillème,Annemiek Broijl,Cyrille Touzeau,Mourad Tiab,Jean-Pierre Marolleau,Nathalie Meuleman,Marie-Christiane Vekemans,Matthijs Westerman,Saskia K Klein,Mark-David Levin,Fritz Offner,Martine Escoffre-Barbe,Jean-Richard Eveillard,Réda Garidi,Winnie Hua,Jianping Wang,Alba Tuozzo,Carla de Boer,Melissa Rowe,Veronique Vanquickelberghe,Robin Carson,Jessica Vermeulen,Jill Corre,Pieter Sonneveld,Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology and the CASSIOPEIA Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00282-1

Abstract:Background: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA. Methods: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Findings: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001). Interpretation: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Funding: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development.
Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in real‐world: The retrospective IMAGE study

Olivier Decaux,Jean Fontan,Aurore Perrot,Lionel Karlin,Cyrille Touzeau,Samantha Schulmann,Salomon Manier,Karim Belhadj,Adrien Trebouet,Patricia Zunic,Jean‐Marc Schiano De Colella,Brice Castel,Zoé Van De Wyngaert,Gian Matteo Pica,Mourad Tiab,Frédérique Kuhnowski,Malek Bouketouche,Sophia Rigaudeau,Riad Benramdane,Christina Tekle,Radhia Lafore,Marianne Gaucher,Jill Corre,Xavier Leleu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.14225

2024-05-08

European Journal Of Haematology

Abstract:Background IMAGE is a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in early access programs (EAPs) in France with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) receiving isatuximab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Isa‐Pd). Methods Patients aged ≥18 years with RRMM who received ≥1 dose of Isa under the EAPs between July 29, 2019 and August 30, 2020 were included. Effectiveness endpoints included progression‐free survival (PFS) and response rates. Verbatim terms for adverse events (AEs) were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities and not graded for severity. Results A total of 294 and 299 patients were included in the effectiveness and safety populations, respectively. IMAGE included patients who received one prior line of treatment (10.2%) and were daratumumab‐refractory (19.1%). At median follow‐up of 14.2 months, median PFS in the effectiveness population was 12.4 months (95% CI 9.0–15.0). Overall response and very good partial response rates were 46.3% and 27.9%, respectively. Subgroup analyses reflected similar results. In the safety population, 26.4% of patients reported at least one AE; the most common any‐grade AE was neutropenia (9.4%). Conclusion IMAGE demonstrated Isa‐Pd had meaningful effectiveness in median PFS and depth of response and no new safety signals in a real‐world context, consistent with clinical trial results.

hematology
Subcutaneous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (APOLLO): extended follow up of an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Meletios A Dimopoulos,Evangelos Terpos,Mario Boccadoro,Sosana Delimpasi,Meral Beksac,Eirini Katodritou,Philippe Moreau,Luca Baldini,Argiris Symeonidis,Jelena Bila,Albert Oriol,Maria-Victoria Mateos,Hermann Einsele,Ioannis Orfanidis,Tobias Kampfenkel,Weiping Liu,Jianping Wang,Michele Kosh,NamPhuong Tran,Robin Carson,Pieter Sonneveld

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00218-1

Abstract:Background: The primary analysis of the APOLLO trial, done after a median follow-up of 16·9 months, showed that daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Here, we report the final overall survival and updated safety results from APOLLO. Methods: APOLLO was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 countries in Europe, that included adults aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had an ECOG performance status score of 0-2, had received at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if they had received only one previous line of therapy. An interactive web-response system was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) to receive daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone or pomalidomide and dexamethasone; patients were stratified by the number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. Oral pomalidomide (4 mg once daily; days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg once daily; days 1, 8, 15, and 22) were given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) was administered weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival, which has previously been reported, and the pre-planned secondary endpoint of overall survival were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03180736) and is no longer enrolling patients. Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients were randomly assigned: 151 to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and 153 to the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. The median age was 67 years (IQR 60-72); 143 (47%) patients were female and 161 (53%) were male, and 272 (89%) were White. At a median follow-up of 39·6 months (IQR 37·1-43·7), median overall survival was 34·4 months (95% CI 23·7-40·3) in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 23·7 months (19·6-29·4) in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·61-1·11]; p=0·20). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (103 [69%] of 149 with daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone vs 76 [51%] of 150 with pomalidomide and dexamethasone), anaemia (27 [18%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (27 [18%] vs 28 [19%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 80 (54%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and in 60 (40%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group, the most common of which was pneumonia (23 [15%] of 149 vs 13 [9%] of 150). Treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in death occurred in 13 (9%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group and in 13 (9%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group, with 4 (3%) of 151 adverse events leading to death within 30 days of the last treatment dose thought to be related to study treatment in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (septic shock [n=1]; sepsis [n=1]; bone marrow failure, campylobacter infection, and liver disorder [n=1]; and pneumonia [n=1]) and none in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Interpretation: Although the difference in overall survival observed between treatment groups was not significant, the safety profile results with long-term follow-up reported here continue to support the use of daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Funding: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research & Development.
Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with early versus late relapsed multiple myeloma: IKEMA subgroup analysis

Thierry Facon,Philippe Moreau,Ross Baker,Chang-Ki Min,Xavier Leleu,Mohamad Mohty,Lionel Karlin,Nicole M Armstrong,Christina Tekle,Sandrine Schwab,Marie-Laure Risse,Thomas Martin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2023.283073

2024-02-01

Haematologica

Abstract:Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who experience early relapse within 12 months of therapy initiation are considered functional high-risk and represent an unmet need, needing better therapies to improve outcomes. The final IKEMA (clinicaltrials gov. identifier: NCT03275285) progression-free survival (PFS) analysis confirmed the significant PFS improvement reported at interim analysis with isatuximab (Isa) plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd; Isa-Kd) versus Kd in patients with relapsed MM (updated median PFS: 35.7 vs. 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] =0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42- 0.79). This IKEMA subgroup analysis examined efficacy and safety of Isa-Kd versus Kd in patients who experienced early (n=61 [Isa-Kd], n=46 [Kd]) vs. late relapse (n=104 [Isa-Kd], n=72 [Kd]). As expected, more aggressive features in baseline characteristics were observed in early relapse patients. Consistent with IKEMA overall population results, median PFS (early relapse: 24.7 vs. 17.2 months, HR=0.662, 95% CI: 0.407-1.077; late relapse: 42.7 vs. 21.9 months, HR=0.542, 95% CI: 0.355- 0.826), minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-) (early relapse: 24.6% vs. 15.2%; late relapse: 37.5% vs. 16.7%), and MRD- complete response (≥CR) rates (early relapse: 18.0% vs. 10.9%; late relapse: 30.8% vs. 13.9%) were higher with Isa-Kd versus Kd, respectively, in both early and late relapse patients. Grade ≥3, serious treatment-emergent adverse events, and death rates were higher in the late relapse Isa-Kd arm. However, the numbers of deaths were low and treatment exposure was significantly longer in Isa-Kd versus Kd late relapse patients. These results support the addition of Isa to Kd as standardof- care therapy for relapsed and/or refractory MM regardless of relapse timing.
Extended follow-up from JAVELIN Renal 101: subgroup analysis of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

J.B.A.G. Haanen,J. Larkin,T.K. Choueiri,L. Albiges,B.I. Rini,M.B. Atkins,M. Schmidinger,K. Penkov,E. Michelon,J. Wang,M. Mariani,A. di Pietro,R.J. Motzer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101210

IF: 6.883

2023-04-27

ESMO Open

Abstract:Immunotherapy-based regimens can have varying efficacy benefits in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patient outcomes can vary based on IMDC risk. Follow-up from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial confirms the efficacy and safety of first-line avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib. Avelumab + axitinib had a positive benefit-to-risk ratio versus sunitinib across all IMDC risk groups. Long-term treatment with avelumab + axitinib did not result in new safety signals, and AEs decreased over time. We report updated data for avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the third interim analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response per investigator assessment (RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the overall population and in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups; safety was also assessed. Overall, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was not reached [42.2 months-not estimable (NE)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus 37.8 months (31.4-NE) with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.643-0.969; one-sided P = 0.0116], and median PFS (95% CI) was 13.9 months (11.1-16.6 months) versus 8.5 months (8.2-9.7 months), respectively (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.568-0.785; one-sided P < 0.0001). In patients with IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, poor-, or intermediate plus poor-risk disease, respectively, HRs (95% CI) for OS with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.66 (0.356-1.223), 0.84 (0.649-1.084), 0.60 (0.399-0.912), and 0.79 (0.636-0.983), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.71 (0.490-1.016), 0.71 (0.578-0.866), 0.45 (0.304-0.678), and 0.66 (0.550-0.787), respectively. ORRs, complete response rates, and durations of response favored avelumab plus axitinib overall and across all risk groups. In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, 81.1% had a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and incidences of TEAEs and immune-related AEs were highest <6 months after randomization. Avelumab plus axitinib continues to show improved efficacy versus sunitinib and a tolerable safety profile overall and across IMDC risk groups. The OS trend favors avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib, but data remain immature; follow-up is ongoing. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02684006 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02684006

oncology
Isatuximab in the treatment of refractory and relapsed multiple myeloma: literature review and case report

Yu. E. Ryabukhina,P. A. Zeynalova,F. M. Abbasbeyli,O. L. Timofeeva,T. T. Valiev,N. A. Kupryshina,A. G. Zhukov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17650/1818-8346-2023-18-4-90-103

2023-12-08

Oncohematology

Abstract:Multiple myeloma is a malignant tumor characterized by the proliferation of clonal plasma cells and currently remains an incurable disease, despite advances in therapy. Resistance and development of double refractoriness represent a significant problem, worsening the prognosis. To overcome double refractoriness, new proteasome inhibitors carfilzomib and ixazomib, the 3rd generation immunomodulator pomalidomide and monoclonal antibodies daratumumab, elotuzumab and isatuximab are used. Based on randomized phase III ICARIA-MM and IKEMA studies results, which demonstrated, along with a manageable safety profile, advantages in increasing the antitumor response depth, the rate of achieving negative minimal residual disease status and survival in all subgroups of patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma, isatuximab is used in IsaPd (isatuximab, pomalidomide, dexamethasone) and IsaKd (isatuximab, carfilzomib, dexamethasone) combination. This article discusses the clinical pharmacology of isatuximab. The results of studies demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of antitumor therapy regimens including isatuximab, which made it possible to use it in clinical practice, are presented. We present a case report of a patient with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who received 3 lines of antitumor treatment, including class 2 proteasome inhibitors, lenalidomide and the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab. After 3 cycles of IsaPd (8 injections of isatuximab), partial remission and pain relief were recorded. The achieved antitumor effect, along with the absence of significant adverse events, facilitated the continuation of therapy at recommended doses.
Pomalidomide/Daratumumab/Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Final Overall Survival From MM-014

Nizar J Bahlis,Christy Samaras,Donna Reece,Michael Sebag,Jeffrey Matous,Jesús G Berdeja,Jesse Shustik,Gary J Schiller,Siddhartha Ganguly,Kevin Song,Christopher S Seet,Mirelis Acosta-Rivera,Michael Bar,Donald Quick,Gustavo Fonseca,Hongjuan Liu,Christian Gentili,Pavit Singh,David Siegel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2024.07.014

2024-08-08

Abstract:Background: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have exhausted lenalidomide benefits require improved therapies. The 3-cohort phase 2 MM-014 trial (NCT01946477) explored pomalidomide in early lines of treatment for lenalidomide-exposed RRMM. In cohort B, pomalidomide plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (DPd) showed promising efficacy (median follow-up 28.4 months), as previously reported. Here, we report final overall survival (OS) in cohort B. Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years were treated in 28-day cycles: pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily from days 1 to 21; daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (cycles 1-2), days 1 and 15 (cycles 3-6), and day 1 (cycle ≥ 7); and dexamethasone 40 mg (age ≤ 75 years) or 20 mg (age > 75 years) orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. The primary endpoint was ORR. OS and safety were secondary endpoints. Results: Among 112 patients enrolled, 85 (75.9%) had lenalidomide-refractory disease and 27 (24.1%) had lenalidomide-relapsed disease. At a median follow-up of 41.9 months (range, 0.4-73.1), median OS was 56.7 months (95% confidence interval, 46.5-not reached). Treatment-emergent adverse events related to, and leading to discontinuation of, pomalidomide, dexamethasone, or daratumumab occurred in 7 (6.3%), 9 (8.0%), and 6 (5.4%) patients, respectively. Conclusion: With long-term follow-up, our results show favorable OS with DPd. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals identified. IMiD agent-based therapy can still be considered in patients with RRMM who experience progressive disease on or after lenalidomide.
Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics: IKEMA subgroup analysis

Ivan Spicka,Philippe Moreau,Thomas G Martin,Thierry Facon,Gracia Martinez,Albert Oriol,Youngil Koh,Andrew Lim,Gabor Mikala,Laura Rosiñol,Münci Yağci,Michele Cavo,Marie-Laure Risse,Gaëlle Asset,Sandrine Macé,Helgi van de Velde,Kwee Yong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13835

Abstract:Introduction: The presence of high-risk chromosomal abnormalities [t(4;14), del(17p), and t(14;16)] has been linked with inferior outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). A prespecified interim analysis of the Phase 3 IKEMA study (NCT03275285) demonstrated that isatuximab (Isa) + carfilzomib (K) and dexamethasone (d; Isa-Kd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus Kd in patients with relapsed MM. This prespecified subgroup analysis of IKEMA examined efficacy and safety in patients with high-risk cytogenetics. Methods: High-risk cytogenetics was assessed by central laboratory and patients were classified as high risk if abnormalities were present in ≥1 of the following: del(17p): 50% cutoff; t(4;14), and/or t(14;16): 30% cutoff. Results: Of the randomized patients, 23.5% (Isa-Kd) and 25.2% (Kd) had ≥1 high-risk chromosomal abnormality. A PFS benefit was seen in favor of Isa-Kd for patients with standard-risk (HR 0.440; 95% CI 0.266-0.728) and high-risk cytogenetics (HR 0.724; 95% CI 0.361-1.451). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more common with Isa-Kd (85.7%) versus Kd (63.3%) in patients with high-risk cytogenetics; however, the incidence of serious TEAEs (64.3% vs. 66.7%) was similar. Conclusions: Isa-Kd is a new treatment option for the difficult-to-treat subgroup of patients with relapsed MM and high-risk cytogenetics.

The future: a person-specific standardized assessment instrument.

Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: final overall survival analysis

Visual discriminations in the harbour seal Phoca vitulina, above and below water.

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib–dexamethasone versus carfilzomib–dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (IKEMA): overall survival analysis of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

Isatuximab for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: review of key subgroup analyses from the Phase III ICARIA-MM study

Updates from ICARIA-MM, a phase 3 study of isatuximab (Isa) plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pd) versus Pd in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

Subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics

Improved Pfs and Os with Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (ird) Vs Placebo-Rd in Patients (pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (rrmm): Final Data from the Phase 3 China Continuation of Tourmaline-Mm1

The opposing physiological effects of high pressures and inert gases.

Ixazomib plus daratumumab and dexamethasone: Final analysis of a phase 2 study among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

[Favorable action of cortisone in two cases of staphylococcic septicemia].

Pharmacologic therapy of tics in childhood.

Addition of isatuximab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as induction therapy for newly diagnosed, transplantation-eligible patients with multiple myeloma (GMMG-HD7): part 1 of an open-label, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and followed by daratumumab maintenance or observation in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the CASSIOPEIA randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in real‐world: The retrospective IMAGE study

Subcutaneous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (APOLLO): extended follow up of an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with early versus late relapsed multiple myeloma: IKEMA subgroup analysis

Extended follow-up from JAVELIN Renal 101: subgroup analysis of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

Isatuximab in the treatment of refractory and relapsed multiple myeloma: literature review and case report

Pomalidomide/Daratumumab/Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Final Overall Survival From MM-014

Isatuximab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma patients with high-risk cytogenetics: IKEMA subgroup analysis