Phase III Trials for Multiple Myeloma in Northern Europe

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. S39
Author(s):  
Pieter Sonneveld
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 3924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanley Abramson

The past two decades have seen a revolution in multiple myeloma (MM) therapy with the introduction of several small molecules, mostly orally effective, whose mechanisms are based on proteasome inhibition, histone deacetylase (HDAC) blockade, and immunomodulation. Immunotherapeutic approaches to MM treatment using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), while long in development, began to reap success with the identification of CD38 and SLAMF7 as suitable targets for development, culminating in the 2015 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of daratumumab and elotuzumab, respectively. This review highlights additional mAbs now in the developmental pipeline. Isatuximab, another anti-CD38 mAb, currently is under study in four phase III trials and may offer certain advantages over daratumumab. Several antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the early stages of development are described, including JNJ-63723283, which has attained FDA breakthrough status for MM. Other mAbs described in this review include denosumab, recently approved for myeloma-associated bone loss, and checkpoint inhibitors, although the future status of the latter combined with immunomodulators has been clouded by unacceptably high death rates that caused the FDA to issue clinical holds on several of these trials. Also highlighted are the therapies based on the B Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA), another very promising target for anti-myeloma development.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204062071988811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cinnie Y. Soekojo ◽  
Shaji K. Kumar

High-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) has historically been an essential part of multiple myeloma (MM) management since early studies demonstrated its efficacy in relapsed disease, and subsequent phase III trials demonstrated better responses and improved survival with this modality compared with standard chemotherapy. With further advances in the MM treatment landscape, including the development of potent novel agents, there has been an increasing debate around various aspects of ASCT, including the optimal timing, role of single versus tandem ASCT, and the practice of consolidation and maintenance therapy post-ASCT. Routine incorporation of the novel agents at each of the treatment phases, induction, consolidation when used, and maintenance has led to better responses as reflected by increasing rates of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, longer progression-free survival (PFS) with improvement in overall survival (OS) and in some of the trials. The phase III trials over the last decade have provided significant clarity on the current approach, and have raised important questions regarding the applicability of this modality in all patients. This review aims to summarize the latest literature in the field and discusses how these findings impact the practice of ASCT today.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 426
Author(s):  
Sonia Morè ◽  
Maria Petrucci ◽  
Laura Corvatta ◽  
Francesca Fazio ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
...  

Multiple myeloma is a complex hematologic malignancy, and despite a survival improvement related to the growing number of available therapeutic options since 2000s, it remains an incurable disease with most patients experiencing relapse. However, therapeutic options for this disease are constantly evolving and immunotherapy is becoming the mainstay of the therapeutic armamentarium of Multiple Myeloma (MM), starting with monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) as elotuzumab, daratumumab and isatuximab. Elotuzumab, the first in class targeting SLAMF7, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone and daratumumab, directed against CD38, in combination with Rd and with bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), have been approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) after they demonstrated excellent efficacy. More recently, another anti-CD38 MoAb named isatuximab was approved by FDA in combination with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) in the same setting. Many phase II and III trials with regimens containing these MoAbs are ongoing, and when available, preliminary data are very encouraging. In this review we will describe the results of major clinical studies that have been conducted with elotuzumab, daratumumab and isatuximab in RRMM, focusing on phase III trials. Moreover, we will summarized the emerging MoAbs-based combinations in the RRMM landscape.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelos Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou ◽  
Nikolaos Kanellias ◽  
Efstathios Kastritis ◽  
Maria Gavriatopoulou ◽  
Evangelos Terpos ◽  
...  

Panobinostat represents a potent oral nonselective pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDAC) with activity in myeloma patients. It has been approved by the FDA and EMA in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myeloma, in patients who have received at least two prior regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent. In order to further explore its clinical potential, it is evaluated in different combinations in relapsed/refractory and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. This review focuses on available data about panobinostat’s pharmacology and its role in clinical practice. This review will reveal panobinostat’s efficacy as antimyeloma treatment, describing drug evolution from preclinical experimental administration to administration in phase III trials, which established its role in current clinical practice. Based on the latest data, we will present its mechanism of action, its efficacy, and most important issues regarding its toxicity profile. We will further try to shed light on its role in current and future therapeutic landscape of myeloma patients. Panobinostat retains its role in therapy of multiple myeloma because of its manageable toxicity profile and its efficacy, mainly in heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patients. These characteristics make it valuable also for novel regimens in combination with second-generation proteasome inhibitors, IMiDs, and monoclonal antibodies. Results of ongoing trials are expected to shed light on drug introduction in different therapeutic combinations or even at an earlier level of disease course.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cyrille Touzeau ◽  
Chloé Antier ◽  
Philippe Moreau

The therapeutic landscape of relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) is constantly evolving. To date, a large proportion of patients present with lenalidomide refractory disease at time of first or second relapse. In this context, few efficient options are currently available. Carfilzomib and daratumumab are approved in the relapse setting. Recently, Phase Ib and Phase III trials evaluated the triplet drug combination daratumumab–carfilzomib–dexamethasone in the relapse setting and demonstrated strong clinical efficacy, especially in lenalidomide refractory patients. Based on these results, this combination has been approved by the US FDA for relapsed MM patients. The present review discusses the safety and efficacy of daratumumab–carfilzomib–dexamethasone in MM.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17501-17501
Author(s):  
L. Antràs ◽  
M. Smith ◽  
M. Neary ◽  
J. Green ◽  
N. Wintfeld ◽  
...  

17501 Background: Although bisphosphonates prevent skeletal complications, agents differ with respect to renal safety. Ibandronate (IB) is a single-nitrogen, noncyclic bisphosphonate that has shown a renal safety profile comparable to placebo in phase III trials. This retrospective study aimed to compare renal impairment rates in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated with IB or zoledronic acid (ZO). Methods: Medical records in a German oncology clinic (Praxisklinik für Hämatologie und Onkologie Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany) from May 2001 to December 2005 were retrospectively reviewed. Creatinine measurements were analyzed from baseline (before ZO or IB treatment) to last evaluation for each patient. Renal impairment was defined as (1) a serum creatinine (SCr) increase of ≥0.5 mg/dL or ≥1.0 mg/dL from baseline values of <1.4 mg/dL or ≥1.4 mg/dL, respectively, or (2) a ≥25% decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR; abbreviated MDRD formula) from baseline. Patients treated sequentially with both ZO and IB were included as separate observations. Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox model was used for multiple-event analysis. Results: In 84 MM patients, 69 received ZO and 40 received IB, with 25 patients receiving both drugs. Compared with IB, the ZO group had a significantly better baseline renal function (mean SCr 1.01 vs 1.34, p = 0.007; mean GFR 75.9 vs 57.3, p = 0.0002). Data analysis showed that ZO treatment increased the relative risk (RR) of renal impairment by ∼3-fold compared with IB (renal impairment rates: ZO 39.1% vs IB 10.8%, RR = 3.6, p = 0.002 [SCr]; 62.3% vs 24.3%, RR = 2.6, p = 0.0002 [GFR]). The incidence rate of renal impairment was higher for ZO than IB (SCr: 1.14 vs 0.48 events per person-year, p = 0.169; GFR: 2.65 vs 0.87 events per person-year, p = 0.007). Multiple-event analysis found significantly higher hazards ratios for ZO over IB (SCr = 5.3; GFR = 2.7; both p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In this retrospective review, MM patients were significantly more likely to experience renal impairment with ZO than with IB. A prospective randomized study is warranted for further validation. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 3553-3553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wang ◽  
Robert Knight ◽  
Melitios Dimopoulos ◽  
David Siegel ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
...  

Abstract Lenalidomide (Len), an analog of thalidomide (thal) is a novel, oral, immunomodulatory agent that is effective against multiple myeloma (MM). In 2 prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trials. Len with dexamethasone (Dex) induced a significantly higher overall response rate (OR) and complete remission rate (CR), as well as longer time-to-progression (TTP) in comparison with Dex alone. This prospective analysis assessed whether prior thalidomide exposure might induce subsequent resistance to Len/Dex. We evaluated 704 patients (pts) from both trials (MM009, MM010) who had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, had not been resistant to Dex and were randomized to receive either oral Len (25 mg daily for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) plus Dex (40 mg on days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 every 4 weeks for 4 cycles) or placebo plus Dex. Two hundred seventy four pts (39%) received prior thal, while 430 (61%) had not. The prior thal exposed pts and thal-naive pts were similar in regard to age, Beta-2-microglobulin, hemoglobin, serum M protein, albumin and history of previous transplantation. The frequency of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE) with prior thal exposure was higher at 14% with Len/Dex than 4% with Dex alone (p < 0.01). However, the frequency of DVT/PE with no prior thal exposure was similar at 8% with Len/Dex to 6% with Dex alone (p = 0.49). In the prior thal pts, severe neuropathy occurred in 4% with Len/Dex, not significantly different from the 1% with Dex alone (p=0.2). The pooled data from all 704 pts showed that pts treated with Len/Dex, compared with those treated with Dex alone, had superior median Time-To-Progression (TTP) (48 vs 20 weeks) and OR (60% vs 22%, p <0.001). Similarly, among the subgroups exposed or not exposed to thal, Len/Dex was superior to Dex alone in OR and TTP. For the 126 patients who received prior thal, the OR with Len/Dex was significantly less (43%) among 54 Pts resistant to thal than that observed for 72 Pts who had been sensitive to thal (63%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis using Cox proportion hazards model indicated that after controlling for treatment (Len/Dex vs Dex) and baseline disease characteristics, independent and significant predictors of shorter TTP included prior thal exposure, duration of myeloma and number of prior therapies. Len in combination with Dex was more effective than Dex in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma despite prior thal exposure. Results with Len/Dex were superior for those not exposed to thal, suggesting some, but not complete, cross resistance between Len and thal. Len/Dex vs Dex with or without Prior Thal Thal (N=274) No Thal (N=430) LD D p LD D p Intent-to-Treat (n) 126 148 227 203 TTP (med. weeks) 36.9 19.9 <.001 61.3 20.4 <.001 OR (%) 54.0 14.9 <.001 63.4 27.6 <.001 PR (%) 42.1 12.8 <.001 32.2 23.2 <.05 NCR (%) 4.0 0.7 <.001 13.2 2.0 <.001 CR (%) 7.9 1.4 <.01 18.1 2.5 <.001


Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 4839-4839 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Foa ◽  
Donna Weber ◽  
Meletios Dimopoulos ◽  
Marta Olesnyckyj ◽  
Zhinuan Yu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Historically, patients with IgA multiple myeloma (MM) respond poorly to treatment. In 2 recent phase III trials, Lenalidomide (Len) in combination with Dexamethasone (Dex) led to an overall response (OR) rate of approximately 60% (61% in MM-009 and 60% in MM-010), a complete response (CR) rate of about 15% (14% and 16%, respectively), an overall survival (OS) of at least 29.5 months (29.5 and not yet reached), and a median time to progression (TTP) of at least 11.1 months (11.1 months and 11.3 months, respectively) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. In both studies, OR, CR, OS and TTP were significantly better with Len/Dex than with Dex alone. Here, we assess the impact of IgA disease on the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with Len/Dex versus Dex alone. Methods: Data were pooled from the MM-009 and MM-010 studies. Patients were randomized to receive Len (25 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle) or placebo. Both groups received Dex 40mg PO q.d. on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (for the first four cycles). After four cycles, Dex 40 mg/day was administered only on days 1–4. Response to therapy, TTP, OS, and adverse events were assessed. Response rate and TTP were based on data obtained before unblinding (June 2005 [MM-009] and August 2005 [MM-010]). Results: Of 154 patients with IgA at baseline, 72 were treated with Len/Dex and 82 with Dex alone. Among those without IgA, 281 received Len/Dex and 269 received Dex alone. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Len/Dex was associated with a significantly higher OR and longer median TTP than Dex alone in patients with and without IgA (Table). In the non-IgA group, patients treated with Len/Dex had a significantly longer OS than those treated with Dex alone. Response, TTP and OS were comparable between IgA and non-IgA patient groups. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between patients with and without IgA. Among those with IgA, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events with Len/Dex and Dex alone were neutropenia (37.5% and 2.4%), thrombocytopenia (16.7% and 8.5%), and anemia (11.1% and 7.3%). The respective rates for patients without IgA were 46.5% and 14.5%, 12.1% and 5.7%, and 11.0% and 5.7%. Conclusion: In patients with and in those without IgA MM, Len/Dex treatment induces a high response rate and a prolonged TTP compared with Dex. IgA non-IgA Clinical response, % Len/Dex (n=72) Dex alone (n=82) P Len/Dex (n=281) Dex alone (n=269) P OR 68.1 18.3 <0.001 57.7 23.0 <0.001 CR 18.1 0 NS 14.2 2.6 NS PR 38.9 15.9 NS 35.6 19.3 NS Median TTP, wks 44.3 16.4 <0.001 52.1 20.1 <0.001 Median OS, wks 130.4 102.4 NS 156.0 136.1 <0.05


Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 412-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Weber ◽  
Robert Knight ◽  
Christine Chen ◽  
Andrew Spencer ◽  
Zhinuan Yu ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide (Len), an analog of thalidomide (Thal) is a novel, oral, immunomodulatory agent that is effective against multiple myeloma (MM). In 2 prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trials, Len with dexamethasone (Dex) induced a significantly higher overall response (OR) rate and complete remission (CR) rate, as well as longer time-to-progression (TTP) in comparison with Dex alone. Here, we investigate the long-term overall survival (OS) with Len/Dex. Methods: We evaluated the pooled results from both randomized trials (MM-009, MM-010) of 704 patients who had relapsed or refractory MM, without prior resistance to Dex, who received either Len (25 mg daily for 3 weeks every 4 weeks), or placebo. Dex was given at 40 mg on days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20 every 4 weeks for 4 cycles. From cycle 5 onwards, Dex was given at 40 mg on days 1–4 only. Response rate and TTP are based on data obtained before unblinding (June 2005 [MM-009] and August 2005 [MM-010]). Follow-up data on OS were obtained up to January 2007. Forty-seven percent of patients who received placebo/Dex crossed over to receive Len +/− Dex. Results: Of 704 patients, 353 were treated with Len/Dex and 351 with Dex alone. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between patients receiving Len/Dex and those receiving Dex alone. Median TTP, OR, and CR were significantly improved in patients treated with Len/Dex compared with Dex alone (Table). Of patients who progressed on Dex alone prior to unblinding, or were found to be receiving Dex alone after unblinding, 47% crossed over to Len +/− Dex. Despite these patients crossing over to Len +/− Dex at progression or at the time of unblinding, the OS was significantly improved in patients treated with Len/Dex compared with Dex alone (hazard ratio 1.295; 95% confidence interval 1.040–1.614; p=0.02). Median OS in the Len/Dex group was 35 months and 31 in the Dex alone group (p<0.05). Median OS was also significantly longer with Len/Dex compared with Dex alone in patients with more than 1 prior therapy (32.4 months versus 27.3 months, p<0.05). Similar median OS was observed with Len/Dex and Dex alone in patients with 1 prior therapy (median OS not yet reached and 35.3 months, p=0.24). Conclusion: With increased follow-up and despite cross-over, patients treated first with Len/Dex had significantly improved OS compared with those treated with Dex alone. Len/Dex (n=353) Dex alone (n=351) P value OR, % 60.6 21.9 <0.001 CR, % 15.0 2.0 <0.001 Median TTP, months 11.2 4.7 <0.001 Median OS, months 35.0 31.0 <0.05 Median OS in patients with 1 prior treatment, months not yet reached 35.3 0.24 Median OS in patients with >1 prior treatment, months 32.4 27.3 <0.05


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document