AML-063: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Venetoclax with Azacitidine Versus Azacitidine in Treatment-Naïve Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Ineligible for Intensive Therapy-Viale-A
Courtney D. DiNardo,Brian A. Jonas,Vinod Pullarkat,Michael J. Thirman,Jacqueline S. Garcia,Andrew H. Wei,Hartmut Doehner,Pierre Fenaux,Christian Recher,Marina Konopleva,Walter Fiedler,Elisabeth Koller,Violaine Havelange,Andre C. Schuh,Jordi Esteve,Jianxiang Wang,Radovan Vrhovac,Roman Hajek,Kimmo Porkka,Arpad Illes,Ofir Wolach,Attilio Olivieri,Kazuhito Yamamoto,Jun-Ho Jang,Gunnar Juliusson,Vladimir Vorobyev,Su-Peng Yeh,Muhit Ozcan,Wan-Jen Hong,Ying Zhou,Jalaja Potluri,Keith W. Pratz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2152-2650(20)30711-4
2020-01-01
Abstract:Aims We evaluated efficacy of Azacitidine (AZA)+Venetoclax (VEN) combination vs. AZA+Placebo (PBO) in treatment-naïve patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive therapy. Methods This phase 3, randomized, double-blinded, multicenter, placebo-controlled study included AML patients ineligible for intensive induction therapy due to medical comorbidities and/or age > 75 years. Patients were randomized 2:1 to either AZA+VEN(AZA: 75 mg/m2 subcutaneous or intravenous, days [d] 1-7 per 28-day cycle; VEN: 400 mg orally QD, d1-28 with 3-day ramp up in cycle 1) or AZA+PBO (PBO: orally QD, d1–28). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were rates of: composite complete remission [complete remission (CR) + CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi)], CR+CRi by initiation of cycle 2, CR, transfusion independence, CR+CRi and OS by molecular subgroups, and event-free survival (EFS). A sample size of 400 was estimated to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.7 in OS with 2-sided alpha of 4% and power of 87%. OS and EFS were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between arms using the log-rank test stratified by age (18 to <75 vs ≥75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate vs poor). Results As of 01/04/2020, 431 patients (median age 76 years, range 49-91) were randomized to AZA+VEN (n=286) or AZA+PBO (n=145). With median follow-up of 20.5 months (mos), median OS was 14.7 mos in AZA+VEN and 9.6 in AZA+PBO (HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52–0.85, p<0.001) respectively. Patients received a median number of 7.0 and 4.5 cycles of study drug in AZA+VEN and AZA+PBO. CR+CRi rates in AZA+VEN/AZA+PBO were 66%/28% (p<0.001) respectively. Median time (95% CI) to first CR or CRi response was 1.3 (0.6-9.9)/2.8 (0.8-13.2) mos and duration of CR+CRi was 17.5/13.4 mos, respectively. Response rates in patients with poor and intermediate cytogenetic risk was 53%/23% and 74%/32%, respectively. Response rates in patients with de novo and secondary AML were 66%/30% and 67%/23%, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) included (AZA+VEN/AZA+PBO) thrombocytopenia (45%/38%), neutropenia (42%/29%), febrile neutropenia (42%/19%), anemia (26%/20%), and leukopenia (21%/12%). Serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (30%/10%) and pneumonia (16%/22%). The 30-day mortality rates were 7% (n=21)/6% (n=9), respectively. Conclusions Among treatment-naïve predominantly elderly patients with AML ineligible for intensive therapy, combination AZA+VEN showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in response rates and OS vs AZA, with a manageable safety profile. Abstract was previously published at EHA25. We evaluated efficacy of Azacitidine (AZA)+Venetoclax (VEN) combination vs. AZA+Placebo (PBO) in treatment-naïve patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive therapy. This phase 3, randomized, double-blinded, multicenter, placebo-controlled study included AML patients ineligible for intensive induction therapy due to medical comorbidities and/or age > 75 years. Patients were randomized 2:1 to either AZA+VEN(AZA: 75 mg/m2 subcutaneous or intravenous, days [d] 1-7 per 28-day cycle; VEN: 400 mg orally QD, d1-28 with 3-day ramp up in cycle 1) or AZA+PBO (PBO: orally QD, d1–28). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were rates of: composite complete remission [complete remission (CR) + CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi)], CR+CRi by initiation of cycle 2, CR, transfusion independence, CR+CRi and OS by molecular subgroups, and event-free survival (EFS). A sample size of 400 was estimated to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.7 in OS with 2-sided alpha of 4% and power of 87%. OS and EFS were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between arms using the log-rank test stratified by age (18 to <75 vs ≥75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate vs poor). As of 01/04/2020, 431 patients (median age 76 years, range 49-91) were randomized to AZA+VEN (n=286) or AZA+PBO (n=145). With median follow-up of 20.5 months (mos), median OS was 14.7 mos in AZA+VEN and 9.6 in AZA+PBO (HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52–0.85, p<0.001) respectively. Patients received a median number of 7.0 and 4.5 cycles of study drug in AZA+VEN and AZA+PBO. CR+CRi rates in AZA+VEN/AZA+PBO were 66%/28% (p<0.001) respectively. Median time (95% CI) to first CR or CRi response was 1.3 (0.6-9.9)/2.8 (0.8-13.2) mos and duration of CR+CRi was 17.5/13.4 mos, respectively. Response rates in patients with poor and intermediate cytogenetic risk was 53%/23% and 74%/32%, respectively. Response rates in patients with de novo and secondary AML were 66%/30% and 67%/23%, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) included (AZA+VEN/AZA+PBO) thrombocytopenia (45%/38%), neutropenia (42%/29%), febrile neutropenia (42%/19%), anemia (26%/20%), and leukopenia (21%/12%). Serious AEs were febrile neutropenia (30%/10%) and pneumonia (16%/22%). The 30-day mortality rates were 7% (n=21)/6% (n=9), respectively. Among treatment-naïve predominantly elderly patients with AML ineligible for intensive therapy, combination AZA+VEN showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in response rates and OS vs AZA, with a manageable safety profile. Abstract was previously published at EHA25.