Efficacy of Pomalidomide, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Post-Lenalidomide: Results from a Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison

Background: The current standard of care in MM, lenalidomide (LEN), is frequently used as part of first-line (1L) treatment (tx) or as maintenance tx following autologous stem cell transplantation; therefore, there is a growing need for appropriate tx options in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) previously treated with LEN. OPTIMISMM is the first and only phase 3 trial in early RRMM (median 1-2 prior lines) to specify prior LEN tx as an inclusion criterion. The trial showed a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with pomalidomide + bortezomib (BORT) + dexamethasone (DEX) (PVd) vs BORT + DEX (Vd) (median PFS 11.2 months (mo) [95% confidence interval (CI): 9.66-13.73] vs 7.1 mo [5.88-8.48]; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49-0.77; P < 0.0001). How the PVd results from the OPTIMISMM trial compare with results achieved with other tx options for LEN-exposed pts with RRMM has not been established. Aim: This analysis aimed to put the phase 3 OPTIMISMM (PVd) trial results into perspective by comparing with results achieved for other tx options post LEN. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in May 2018 and updated in Dec 2018, in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Cochrane guidelines, to identify randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on efficacy outcomes in LEN-exposed pts with early RRMM. Electronic database searches were performed in Embase®, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library, and study eligibility criteria were defined using the PICOS framework. Searches were restricted to Jan 2004 onward. Descriptive statistics were used to assess between-trial heterogeneity in study design, baseline demographics, and clinical characteristics. Where the evidence network and heterogeneity assessment suggested an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was feasible, the analysis was conducted in the Bayesian framework, according to the NICE Decision Support Unit guidelines. Results: ENDEAVOR and CASTOR were the only relevant trials that reported PFS in pts with RRMM previously treated with LEN. Comparator txs included carfilzomib + DEX (Kd) (ENDEAVOR) and daratumumab + BORT + DEX (DVd) (CASTOR). OPTIMISMM was designed to prospectively evaluate pts who had prior LEN, whereas ENDEAVOR and CASTOR reported only pt subgroups with prior LEN; all studies reported the number of pts who were refractory to LEN, with values varying from 18% (DVd) in CASTOR to 71% (PVd) in OPTIMISMM (Table). Differences in prognostic baseline characteristics were noted between the overall study populations in OPTIMISMM and ENDEAVOR; as the corresponding data were not available for CASTOR, a full assessment of heterogeneity was not possible. Although Vd initially seemed to link the network of evidence, the comparator arm of the CASTOR trial had a fixed 8-cycle Vd tx duration, whereas pts randomized to the comparator arm in OPTIMISMM and ENDEAVOR received Vd continuously until disease progression. As the Vd arms could not be considered comparable, DVd was excluded from the ITC. Based on data from ENDEAVOR and OPTIMISMM, PVd could only be compared with Kd and Vd. Based on the ITC, Vd was associated with a statistically significant shorter PFS vs PVd (HR PVd vs Vd = 0.62, 95% credible interval [Crl]: 0.50-0.76) in the prior-LEN RRMM population. No statistically significant difference was observed in PFS for Kd vs PVd (HR PVd vs Kd = 0.90, 95% Crl: 0.62-1.28). It is important to note that pt characteristics vary between these trials, particularly regarding prior LEN. Discussion: Due to increasing use of LEN in the 1L setting and as maintenance tx, a growing population of pts with early RRMM are treated with LEN. This SLR found that OPTIMISMM is the only study to date to prospectively investigate the efficacy of regimens in this population. Only 2 other RCTs were identified that reported data for pts with prior LEN, and in both cases, these were subgroups of the overall trial population, thus limiting the robustness of the comparator data. HRs for PFS from the ITC aligned with those from OPTIMISMM, confirming the superiority of PVd over Vd. The ITC between PVd and Kd found no statistically significant difference between these regimens. Comparison with DVd was not possible given the differences in design between CASTOR and OPTIMISMM. Further studies in pts previously treated with LEN are warranted, given the impact of prior tx on outcomes for pts with early RRMM. Disclosures Weisel: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy. Dhanasiri:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gauthier:Amaris Consulting: Employment, Equity Ownership; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Padhiar:Amaris Consulting: Employment. Casal:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Richardson:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Final Analysis of Overall Survival from the Phase 3 Panorama 1 Trial of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Versus Placebo Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3026.3026 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3026-3026 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Jesús F. San-Miguel ◽

Vania T.M. Hungria ◽

Sung-Soo Yoon ◽

Meral Beksac ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Study Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Panobinostat is a potent pan-deacetylase inhibitor (pan-DACi) that targets key aberrations in multiple myeloma (MM) cell biology, including epigenetics and protein metabolism. In the phase 3 clinical trial PANORAMA 1, panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (PAN-BTZ-Dex) led to a statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in progression-free survival of approximately 4 months compared with that with placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Pbo-BTZ-Dex). Further analyses of patient outcomes by prior treatment demonstrated that the magnitude of PFS benefit was greatest among patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD; PAN-BTZ-Dex [n = 73]: 12.5 months [95% CI, 7.3-14.0 months]; Pbo-BTZ-Dex [n = 74]: 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.7-6.1 mo; HR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.32-0.72]). These data supported the regulatory approvals of PAN-BTZ-Dex for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. Here we present the final analysis of overall survival (OS) for the entire patient population and among patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. Methods: The study design for the PANORAMA 1 trial was described previously (San-Miguel. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1195-206). The key secondary endpoint was OS. As of June 29, 2015, the 415 events required to conduct the final analysis of OS had been observed. Kaplan-Meier estimation was utilized for OS analyses for the entire population (N = 768), the pre-specified subgroup of patients who received prior bortezomib and IMiD (n = 193), and patients who received at least 2 prior regimens including bortezomib and an IMiD (n = 147). Results: The median OS of patients who received PAN-BTZ-Dex in the overall population was 40.3 months (95% CI, 35.0-44.8 months) vs 35.8 months (95% CI, 29.0-40.6 months) for the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm with HR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.78-1.14], P = .5435 (Fig 1A). The percentage of patients in each arm who received post-study therapy was 37.7% in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm and 48.8% in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm. The median OS of patients who received at least 2 prior lines, including bortezomib and an IMiD, was 25.5 months (95% CI, 19.6-34.3 months) in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm vs 19.5 months (95% CI, 14.1-32.5 months) in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm (Fig. 1B). The proportion of patients in this subgroup who received post-study therapy was 35.6% in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm and 66.2% in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm. Conclusion: For the overall PANORAMA 1 study population, patients in the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm demonstrated an increase in median OS of 4.5 months vs patients in the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm, but this result was not statistically significant (P = .5435). Median OS was also slightly longer for the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm among the more heavily pretreated subgroup of patients who received at least 2 prior regimens, including bortezomib and an IMiD. A higher percentage of patients on the Pbo-BTZ-Dex arm received post-study therapy vs the PAN-BTZ-Dex arm, which may have confounded the OS results. In summary, PAN-BTZ-Dex demonstrates statistically significant increases in PFS vs Pbo-BTZ-Dex in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory MM; however, this did not translate to a statistically significant increase in OS. Future trials will plan to focus on further optimization of dose and schedule of panobinostat and bortezomib to improve outcome, as well as novel combinations with other agents, including IMiDs and next-generation proteasome inhibitors. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Beksac: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Janssen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Jedrzejczak:Onconova: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siritanaratkul:Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding. Schlossman:Millennium: Consultancy. Hou:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sopala:Novartis Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bengoudifa:Novartis: Employment. Corrado:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Richardson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Defibrotide for the Treatment of Hepatic Veno-Occlusive Disease/Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome with Multi-Organ Dysfunction: Final Results from a Pivotal, Historically Controlled, Phase 3 Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.737.737 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 737-737

Author(s):

Paul G. Richardson ◽

Marcie Riches ◽

Nancy A. Kernan ◽

Joel A. Brochstein ◽

Shin Mineishi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Study Drug ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Occlusive Disease ◽

Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Introduction Hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (VOD/SOS), is a rare and potentially life-threatening complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Severe cases, historically defined by multi-organ dysfunction (MOD), may be associated with mortality rates of >80%. There is no FDA-approved treatment for VOD/SOS. Defibrotide (DF) has a proposed mechanism of action that includes stabilization of endothelial cells and restoration of thrombo-fibrinolytic balance. Earlier analyses of a pivotal phase 3 trial of DF in VOD/SOS plus MOD (Richardson et al. Blood. 2009;114:Abstract 654) underpinned approval of DF in the EU to treat severe hepatic VOD/SOS after HSCT. Additional data were obtained at the request of US health authorities. Here we present the final analysis: day +100 survival (primary endpoint) and complete response (CR; secondary). Methods This was a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 historical control (HC) study assessing DF. Eligible patients met Baltimore VOD/SOS criteria (total bilirubin ≥2.0 mg/dL with ≥2 of: hepatomegaly, ascites, or 5% weight gain) by day +21 post-HSCT, plus MOD (renal [trebling of creatinine levels, reduced creatinine clearance, or dialysis] and/or pulmonary [oxygen saturation ≤90%, need for oxygen supplementation/ventilator dependence]) by day +28 post-HSCT. Exclusion criteria included severe graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) of liver or gut, clinically significant bleeding, or need for ≥2 pressors. HC patients were reviewed for inclusion/exclusion criteria in a sequential review of medical charts starting 6 months prior to use of DF at each site; a blinded medical review committee made the final determination of HCs unequivocally meeting criteria for VOD/SOS with MOD. DF dose was 25 mg/kg/d in 4 divided 2-hour IV infusions q6h; recommended treatment duration was ≥21 days. Primary endpoint was day +100 survival. CR by day +100 was a secondary endpoint. Treatment difference in survival and CR rates and their 95% confidence intervals were estimated using propensity-stratified and weighted (Koch-adjusted) estimates of differences in proportions that account for baseline prognostic factors of survival (ie, ventilator and/or dialysis dependency at entry, age ≤/>16 years, transplant type, and prior HSCT). Analyses included patients treated with DF and HCs. Results There were 102 patients in the DF group and 32 cases selected as HCs. Baseline characteristics were similar in the DF and HC groups: mean age (26 and 25 years; 43% and 44% ≤16 years), allogeneic graft (88% and 84%), prior HSCT (13% and 9%), ventilator- and/or dialysis-dependent at study entry (33% and 22%), myeloablative conditioning (87% and 94%), and the most common underlying diseases (acute leukemias: 45% and 47%), respectively. In the DF-treated group, common GvHD medications included tacrolimus (49%), methotrexate (41%), and cyclosporine (38%); in the HC group, common medications were cyclosporine (72%) and methotrexate (63%). Survival at day +100 in the DF and HC groups was 38% and 25%, respectively. The propensity-stratified difference in survival was 23.0% (95.1% CI, 5.2-40.8, P = .0109). Respective observed CR rates by day +100 were 25.5% and 12.5%, and the propensity-stratified difference in CR was 19.0% (95.1% CI, 3.5-34.6, P = .0160). Comparing the earlier EU and final analyses, the survival rates at day +100 in each group did not vary; however, the propensity adjusted final analysis provided a different level of statistical significance. Day +100 CR rates in the original analysis were slightly lower in both arms at 24% and 9% due to increased data capture to investigate CR; the P value was essentially unchanged. For the DF group, 45% had an adverse event (AE) at least possibly related to study drug, and 21% had a serious AE at least possibly related to study drug. In this very sick population, percentages of patients with ≥1 AE leading to death were similar between DF and HC patients (64% and 69%), as were hemorrhagic AEs (64%, 75%) and hypotension (39%, 50%). Conclusions Based on observed study data and using a propensity-adjusted rate difference estimator, patients treated with DF had a 23% reduction in risk of death by day +100 and 19% improvement in CR rate. Overall incidence of hemorrhage and fatal AEs were similar between groups with AEs consistent with those expected in this critically ill population. Support: Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Disclosures Richardson: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentium S.p.A.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Marizomib, pmalidomide, and low dose dexamethasone in RR MM. Defibrotide is an investigational treatment for hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome in the United States. . Kernan:Gentium S.p.A.: Research Funding. Grupp:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Guinan:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: My institution received fees for research.. Martin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Steinbach:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Krishnan:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy; Millenium: Speakers Bureau. Giralt:SANOFI: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CELGENE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TAKEDA: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Rodriguez:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Doyle:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Antin:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. D'Agostino:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Massaro:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Miloslavsky:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hume:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Iacobelli:Gentium SpA: Employment. Nejadnik:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hannah:Gentium SpA: Other: Personal fees during conduct of the study.. Soiffer:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Imerge: A Study to Evaluate Imetelstat (GRN163L) in Transfusion-Dependent Subjects with IPSS Low or Intermediate-1 Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) That Is Relapsed/Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent (ESA) Treatment

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127435 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4248-4248 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Uwe Platzbecker ◽

David P. Steensma ◽

Koen Van Eygen ◽

Azra Raza ◽

Valeria Santini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Myelodysplastic Syndromes ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

The Impact ◽

Rbc Transfusion

Background: Current treatment options for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent (TD) patients with lower risk (LR) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) relapsed after or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have limited efficacy and durability; new approaches are needed. Imetelstat is a 13-mer lipid-conjugated oligonucleotide that targets the RNA template of human telomerase and is a competitive inhibitor of telomerase enzymatic activity (Asai et al, Cancer Res 2003; Herbert et al, Oncogene 2005). Preclinical, in vivo xenograft models (Dikmen et al, Cancer Res 2005; Hochreiter et al, Clin Cancer Res 2006) and preliminary clinical data from a pilot study conducted at Mayo Clinic (Tefferi et al, Blood Cancer Journal 2016) supported initiation of a study in TD LR MDS patients. A Phase 2 study of imetelstat, IMerge, demonstrated an 8-week RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) rate of 42%, 24-week RBC-TI rate of 29%, and 68% erythroid hematologic improvement (HI-E) rate in 38 heavily TD patients (median prior RBC transfusion burden 8 units / 8 weeks over the 16 weeks pre-study period) with LR MDS. Responses were durable with median duration of 8-week RBC-TI of 85.9 weeks by Kaplan Meier estimates (range 8.0-140.9) (Steensma ASH 2018, Fenaux EHA 2019). These Phase 2 results provided further evidence of potential clinical benefit of imetelstat treatment in TD LR MDS, and supported initiation of a Phase 3 trial. Methods: IMerge is two-part, Phase 2/3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02598661). The Phase 2 portion of the study described above is closed for enrollment. The Phase 3 portion of the study is open for enrollment of adult patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) low or intermediate-1 risk, non-del(5q) MDS, who are TD, are relapsed after or refractory to ESAs, and have not received treatment with lenalidomide or hypomethylating agents. The study is a randomized (2:1) double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare efficacy of imetelstat vs. placebo that will enroll approximately 170 patients and will be conducted at approximately 90 centers in North America, Europe, Asia and Middle East. Imetelstat will be administered as 2-hour IV infusion every 4 weeks at 7.5 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study is to assess the rate of RBC-TI lasting ≥8 weeks. Secondary endpoints include safety, rate of RBC-TI ≥24 weeks, time to RBC-TI start, RBC-TI duration, rate of HI-E, the amount and relative change in RBC transfusions, rate of CR or PR, overall survival, progression of MDS, pharmacokinetics and effect of treatment on quality of life. Biomarkers relevant to the mechanism of action of imetelstat will be assessed to demonstrate target inhibition and their association with clinical responses. Cytogenetics and mutation analyses will be performed to evaluate the impact of imetelstat on reduction/depletion of malignant clones leading to disease modification. Disclosures Platzbecker: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Steensma:Astex: Consultancy; Arrowhead: Equity Ownership; Summer Road: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy; Aprea: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Stemline: Consultancy; H3 Biosciences: Other: Research funding to institution, not investigator.. Santini:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Acceleron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Germing:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Font:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sherman:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dougherty:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Feller:Geron Corporation: Employment. Sun:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wan:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rizo:Geron Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Pacifica: A Randomized, Controlled Phase 3 Study of Pacritinib Vs. Physician's Choice in Patients with Primary Myelofibrosis, Post Polycythemia Vera Myelofibrosis, or Post Essential Thrombocytopenia Myelofibrosis with Severe Thrombocytopenia (Platelet Count <50,000/mL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-129245 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4175-4175 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Claire N Harrison ◽

Aaron T. Gerds ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Konstanze Döhner ◽

Sarah A Buckley ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Severe Thrombocytopenia ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Platelet Counts ◽

Jak2 Inhibitor ◽

Oncology Research ◽

Equity Ownership

Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a life-limiting condition with severe morbidity in advanced stages. Patients with MF and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet counts <50,000/mL) have a particularly poor prognosis, with more frequent anemia and leukopenia, higher rates of hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications, and worse overall survival (~15 months) compared to the overall MF population (Scotch AH, et al, Leuk Res. 2017; Masarova L, et al, Eur J Haematol. 2018). Moreover, effective treatment options are limited in this high-risk population as the currently approved JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib (RUX), is associated with treatment-related thrombocytopenia and often requires dose reductions for patients with platelet counts <100,000/mL, with reduced efficacy compared to patients able to tolerate higher doses. Further, there is no approved dose of RUX for patients with platelet counts <50,000/mL, and NCCN guidelines encourage physicians to consider clinical trials for such patients given the lack of approved therapies. Pacritinib (PAC) is an oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity in MF patients in two prior Phase 3 studies (PERSIST-1, PERSIST-2) as well as a Phase 2 dose-finding study (PAC203), including patients with severe thrombocytopenia. The PACIFICA trial has been designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PAC 200 mg BID vs. physician's choice (P/C) therapy in patients with MF and severe thrombocytopenia. Study Design and Methods: PACIFICA is a randomized, controlled Phase 3 trial of PAC vs. P/C in adult patients with primary or secondary MF who are not candidates for stem cell transplant, with DIPSS intermediate- or high-risk disease, ECOG PS ≤2, and platelet counts <50,000/mL, who have had up to 90 days of prior treatment with a JAK2 inhibitor or are JAK2 inhibitor-naïve. Additional exclusion criteria exist for patients with recent cardiac or hemorrhagic events, ejection fraction <50%, QTc >450 msec, or use of medications that increase the risk of hemorrhage or QT prolongation. On the PAC arm, patients receive continuous PAC 200mg BID. On the P/C arm, one of the following agents is selected prior to randomization: low-dose ruxolitinib (no more than 5 mg BID while platelet counts remain <50,000/mL), thalidomide, lenalidomide, corticosteroids, or hydroxyurea. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of PAC vs. P/C based on the proportion of patients achieving a ≥35% spleen volume response (SVR) at Week 24. Secondary objectives include comparisons of the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS) at Week 24, overall survival, and proportion of patients who self-assess as "very much improved" or "much improved" as measured by the patient global impression of change (PGIC). Tertiary endpoints include alternative methods of evaluating SVR improvement, hematologic improvement (transfusion independence and improvement in anemia and thrombocytopenia), improvement in fatigue as measured by the PROMIS - Fatigue - Short form 7a, and changes in mutated allelic burden and gene expression (including correlation with response data). The study will enroll ~180 patients in a 2:1 ratio (PAC to P/C), which will have >80% power to achieve the primary endpoint. Enrollment is anticipated to begin in Q3 2019, as PACIFICA is expected to open as an amendment to the Phase 2 PAC203 study (NCT03165734) in select sites. Disclosures Harrison: Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; AOP: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria. Gerds:Roche: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding. Döhner:Daiichi: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Buckley:CTI BioPharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:CTI BioPharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Craig:CTI BioPharma: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mascarenhas:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Verstovsek:Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pharma Essentia: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; Protaganist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Idelalisib and Rituximab for Previously Treated Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.lba-6.lba-6 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. LBA-6-LBA-6 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Richard R. Furman ◽

Jeff P. Sharman ◽

Steven E. Coutre ◽

Bruce D. Cheson ◽

John M. Pagel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Odds Ratio ◽

Research Funding ◽

Single Agent ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Previously Treated ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background Idelalisib (IDELA) is a first-in-class, selective, oral inhibitor of PI3Kδ that reduces proliferation, enhances apoptosis, and inhibits homing and retention of malignant B cells in lymphoid tissues. Phase 1 trials demonstrated that IDELA is highly active as a single agent or in combination with rituximab (R) in heavily pretreated patients (pts) with CLL. Pts in these trials experienced reductions in disease-associated chemokines, improvement of organomegaly and cytopenias, profound reductions in lymphadenopathy, and durable clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile (Brown 2013; Barrientos 2013). Patients with early progression and significant co-morbidities have limited treatment options; single-agent rituximab is an option in these pts (NCCN 2013; Zelenetz 2013). Methods This Phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of IDELA + R vs placebo + R in pts with previously treated CLL. Eligibility criteria included the need for treatment per IWCLL guidelines, measurable lymphadenopathy, and CLL progression <24 mos since the completion of last therapy. Pts were considered unfit to receive cytotoxic therapy because of comorbidities (defined as a Cumulative Illness Rating Score [CIRS] > 6), renal dysfunction, or cytopenias due to poor marrow reserve. All pts received R at 375 mg/m2 [1st dose] and then 500 mg/m2q2 wks x 4, followed by q4 wks x 3 [8 doses total]) and were randomized to Arm A (n=110; IDELA 150 mg BID continuously) or Arm B (n=110; placebo BID continuously). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Response and progression in both arms were assessed by an independent review committee using standard criteria (Hallek 2008; Cheson 2012). Results were reviewed by an external Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). Results Results are from a pre-specified interim analysis after ∼50% of the total number of 119 planned events of CLL progression or death from any cause. Data cutoff was 30 Aug 2013. Pt characteristics (n=220) included a median age of 71 yrs (78% ≥ 65 yrs); CIRS > 6 in 85%; median creatinine clearance of 63.6 mL/min; and presence of anemia (73%), thrombocytopenia (61%), neutropenia (34%). Median time since diagnosis was 8.5 yrs, median number of prior therapies was 3 (range: 1-12), 44% had del(17p)/TP53 mutation, and 84% had unmutated IGHV. PFS in the IDELA + R arm was superior to placebo +R (HR [95% CI] = 0.15 [0.08, 0.28]; p = 3.0 x 1011). Median PFS of pts treated with IDELA + R was not reached and for placebo + R was 5.5 mos. At 24 wks, the PFS rate for IDELA +R was 93% compared to 46% for placebo + R. PFS strongly favored IDELA + R in all subgroups, including those with del(17p)/TP53 or unmutated IGHV. Pts treated with IDELA + R and with ≥1 post-baseline assessment also had a superior overall response rate (ORR) relative to those in the control arm (81% vs. 13%; odds ratio 29.9; p = 3.0 x 1019) and a higher lymph node response (LNR) rate (93% vs. 4%; odds ratio 264.5; p = 1.3 x 10-30). Relative to the control group, pts treated with IDELA +R also had a significant improvement in overall survival (OS): HR (95% CI) = 0.28 (0.09, 0.86), p = 0.018. Adverse events (AEs) occurring in ≥20% of pts (any Gr/Gr ≥3) by arm were: pyrexia (IDELA + R 29%/3%; placebo + R 16%/1%), fatigue (IDELA + R 24%/3%; placebo + R 27%/2%), nausea (IDELA + R 24%/0%; placebo + R 22%/0%), chills (IDELA + R 22%/2%; placebo + R 16%/0%), infusion-related reactions (IDELA + R 16%/0%; placebo + R 28%/4%), and cough (IDELA + R 15%/0%; placebo + R 25%/2%). Other selected AEs (any Gr/Gr ≥3) included diarrhea (IDELA + R 19%/4%; placebo + R 14%/0%) and rash (IDELA + R 10%/2%; placebo + R 6%/0%). Select lab abnormalities (any Gr/Gr ≥3) included ALT elevation (IDELA + R 31%/6%; placebo + R 9%/1%), anemia (IDELA + R 26%/6%; placebo + R 30%/14%), neutropenia (IDELA + R 55%/34%; placebo + R 49%/22%), and thrombocytopenia (IDELA + R 17%/10%; placebo + R 26%/16%). The most common SAEs were pneumonia (6.4%), pyrexia (6.4%), and febrile neutropenia (4.5%) in IDELA + R, and pneumonia (8.4%), febrile neutropenia (5.6%), and dyspnea (3.7%) in placebo + R. AEs led to study drug discontinuation in 9 pts (8.2%) in IDELA + R and 11 pts (10.3%) in placebo + R. Based on a review of efficacy and safety, the DMC recommended stopping the study early. Conclusions IDELA + R demonstrated statistically significant improvement with acceptable safety over placebo + R in PFS, ORR, LNR and OS in heavily pretreated pts with relapsed CLL, including those with adverse genetic features. Disclosures: Furman: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Sharman:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coutre:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Cheson:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Pagel:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Hillmen:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Barrientos:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kipps:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Flinn:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Ghia:Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Eradat:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Ervin:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Lamanna:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Hallek:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Coiffier:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Pettitt:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Ma:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Research Funding. Aiello:Gilead Sciences: Employment. Johnson:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Miller:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Gilead Sciences: Employment. Jahn:Gilead Sciences: Employment. Dansey:Gilead Sciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. O'Brien:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide (LEN) Versus Placebo (PBO) in RBC-Transfusion Dependent (TD) Patients (Pts) with IPSS Low/Intermediate (Int-1)-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) without Del(5q) and Unresponsive or Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs): Results from a Randomized Phase 3 Study (CC-5013-MDS-005)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.409.409 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 409-409 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Valeria Santini ◽

Antonio Almeida ◽

Aristoteles Giagounidis ◽

Stephanie Gröpper ◽

Anna Jonasova ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Double Blind ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Treatment options for RBC-TD pts with lower-risk MDS without del(5q) who are unresponsive or refractory to ESAs are very limited. In a previous phase 2 study, MDS-002 (CC-5013-MDS-002), LEN was associated with achievement of RBC-transfusion independence (TI) ≥ 56 days in 26% of pts with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q) (Raza et al. Blood 2008;111:86-93). This international phase 3 study (CC-5013-MDS-005) compared the efficacy and safety of LEN versus PBO in RBC-TD pts with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q) unresponsive or refractory to ESAs. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group phase 3 study included RBC-TD pts (≥ 2 units packed RBCs [pRBCs]/28 days in the 112 days immediately prior to randomization) with IPSS Low/Int-1-risk MDS without del(5q), who were unresponsive or refractory to ESAs (RBC-TD despite ESA treatment with adequate dose and duration, or serum erythropoietin [EPO] > 500 mU/mL). Pts were randomized 2:1 to oral LEN 10 mg once daily (5 mg for pts with creatinine clearance 40–60 mL/min) or PBO. Pts with RBC-TI ≥ 56 days or erythroid response by Day 168 continued double-blind treatment until erythroid relapse, disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was RBC-TI ≥ 56 days (defined as absence of any RBC transfusions during any 56 consecutive days). Secondary endpoints included time to RBC-TI, duration of RBC-TI, RBC-TI ≥ 168 days, progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML; WHO criteria), overall survival (OS), and safety. Baseline bone marrow gene expression profiles were evaluated according to the Ebert signature (PloS Med 2008;5:e35) identified as predictive of LEN response. Clinical trial identifier: CT01029262. Results: The intent-to-treat population comprises 239 pts (LEN, n = 160; PBO, n = 79). Baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups; median age 71 years (range 43–87), 67.8% male, and median time from diagnosis 2.6 years (range 0.1–29.6). Pts received a median of 3.0 pRBC units/28 days (range 1.5–9.8) and 83.7% received prior therapy, including ESAs (78.7%). Significantly more LEN pts achieved RBC-TI ≥ 56 days versus PBO (26.9% vs 2.5%; P < 0.001; Table). The majority (90%) of pts with RBC-TI ≥ 56 days responded within 16 weeks of treatment. Median duration of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days was 8.2 months (range 5.2–17.8). Baseline factors significantly associated with achievement of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days with LEN were: prior ESAs (vs no ESAs; P = 0.005), serum EPO ≤ 500 mU/mL (vs > 500 mU/mL; P = 0.015), < 4 pRBC units/28 days (vs ≥ 4 pRBC units/28 days; P = 0.036), and female sex (vs male; P = 0.035). RBC-TI ≥ 168 days was achieved in 17.5% and 0% of pts in the LEN and PBO groups, respectively. The incidence of AML progression (per 100 person-years) was 1.91 (95% CI 0.80–4.59) and 2.46 (95% CI 0.79–7.64) for LEN and PBO pts, respectively, with median follow-up 1.6 and 1.3 years. Death on treatment occurred in 2.5% of pts on either LEN or PBO. The follow-up period was insufficient to permit OS comparison between the 2 groups. Myelosuppression was the main adverse event (AE); in the LEN versus PBO groups, respectively, grade 3–4 neutropenia occurred in 61.9% versus 11.4% of pts, and grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in 35.6% versus 3.8% of pts. Discontinuations due to AEs were reported in 31.9% LEN and 11.4% PBO pts; among the 51 LEN pts who discontinued due to AEs, 14 discontinuations were due to thrombocytopenia and 8 due to neutropenia. In the subset of pts evaluated for the Ebert signature (n = 203), the predictive power of the signature was not confirmed. Conclusions: LEN therapy was associated with a significant achievement of RBC-TI ≥ 56 days in 26.9% of pts with a median duration of RBC-TI of 8.2 months; 90% of pts responded within 16 weeks of treatment. These data were consistent with response rates seen in the MDS-002 trial. The overall safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of LEN and these data suggest LEN can be safely and effectively used in this patient population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Santini: Celgene Corporation: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Trial of Lenalidomide in non-del5q MDS. Almeida:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Giagounidis:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vey:Celgene: Honoraria. Mufti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Research Funding. Mittelman:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Shpilberg:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. del Canizo:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gattermann:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ozawa:Celgene: Consultancy, not specified Other. Zhong:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Séguy:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hoenekopp:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Beach:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

E-Selectin Antagonist GMI-1271 Shows a Favorable Safety, PK and Bleeding Profile in Phase I Studies of Healthy Volunteers

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3826.3826 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3826-3826 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Dana E. Angelini ◽

Sumana Devata ◽

Angela E. Hawley ◽

Susan A. Blackburn ◽

Satwinder Grewal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Bleeding Time ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Bleeding Risk ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Favorable Safety

Abstract Background : Selectins, among other adhesion-mediated functions, facilitate and augment thrombosis; standard anticoagulants address thrombosis but also increase bleeding risk. Previous work in animal models showed inhibiting E-selectin decreases venous thrombosis (VTE) and vein wall inflammation without adverse bleeding events, making E-selectin inhibition a favorable therapeutic candidate for VTE. GMI-1271 is a potent, specific E-selectin antagonist. Here we report final analysis of safety, PK, biomarker and bleeding risk profile for GMI-1271 in 2 phase 1 studies of healthy subjects. Methods: The first study was a blinded single ascending dose (SAD) evaluation of 2, 5, 20, or 40mg/kg of GMI-1271 (n=4/cohort), vs placebo control saline (n=4) or active control Lovenox 1mg/kg (n=4). The second was an open-label multiple ascending dose (MAD) study of 10 (n=3) or 20mg/kg (n=3) of GMI-1271 QD d 1-5 vs Lovenox 1mg/kg (n=2) d 1-5. Assessments included safety (adverse events [AEs], clinical labs, bleeding time, PT/PTT, vitals, exam); PK (plasma and urine); and biomarkers. Biomarkers included ELISAs (CRP, D-dimer, IL-10, MPO, Prothrombin fragment 1.2, soluble E-selectin (sEsel), soluble P-selectin (sPsel), sICAM, Thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), Tissue Factor (TF), TNFα, VWF activity, and sCD40L); PicoGreen Assay for circulating DNA; flow cytometry (Platelet Monocyte Aggregates (PMA), Mac-1, LFA-1, and CD44) and Thromboelastography (TEG). See Table 1 for functional description. SAD remains blinded to GMI-1271 or placebo (GMI-1271/p). In SAD, we measured biomarker values at baseline, 8 and 24 h after dosing. Analysis was performed of biomarkers at each dose level and then pooled by GMI-1271/p vs Lovenox. In MAD, we measured biomarker values at baseline and day 4. Comparisons were made using unpaired t-test. Results: In total, 32 subjects enrolled and received GMI-1271/placebo (GMI-1271/p; 20), GMI-1271 (6) or Lovenox (L; 6). Safety: All subjects completed dosing uneventfully. Safety findings for GMI-1271/p were unremarkable. No moderate or serious AE were seen. AE overall were as expected in healthy volunteers. In SAD, only 1/20 GMI-1271/p subjects experienced an AE possibly related to study drug (mild transient headache); 0/6 in MAD. In the L group we saw expected mild transaminitis and injection site bruising. In all studies, GMI-1271 had no effect on bleeding time, PT, or PTT. PK: Plasma levels, Cmax, and AUC increased in a linear manner. Cl, Vz, and t ½ were not dose dependent; no accumulation was seen with multiple dosing (Fig 1 and 2). TEG: In SAD, there was a tendency to increase R, K, and decrease A and MA with no change in % lysis in L vs GMI-1271/p. In MAD, we saw a similar trend as SAD except for an increase in % lysis in L. In the pooled SAD analysis, there was a statistically significant difference between GMI-1271/p and L (higher values) for R (p<0.001) and K (p<0.001); MA was statistically higher in GMI-1271/p vs L (p<0.05). sEsel: In SAD, there was a trend for sEsel to decrease with treatment in all cohorts (combined GMI-1271/p vs L p= 0.017). In MAD, there was non-significant trend for sEsel to decrease between Day 0 and Day 4 in GMI-1271; sEsel levels trended upward with L in comparison. MPO: In SAD, there was a trend for increased values in L vs GMI-1271/p, except for the 40mg/kg cohort. When pooled, there was a significant difference between GMI-1271/p vs L (higher levels) p<0.01. In MAD, there was a non-significant trend for higher levels in L vs GMI-1271. MAC-1 In SAD, there was no change. In MAD, there was a significant decrease in MAC-1 at the 10mg/kg dose (p<0.01). No other notable trend was seen in the other biomarkers measured. Conclusion: We report a favorable safety, biomarker and bleeding profile for the E-selectin antagonist GMI-1271 in healthy subjects. There is no signal to suggest GMI-1271 increases bleeding potential based on adverse events, PT, PTT, bleeding time, and TEG values, unlike traditional anticoagulants. An additional unblinded analysis of the biomarkers will be presented at ASH. We note a trend for sE-sel to decrease with GMI-1271 treatment even in this healthy volunteer population, consistent with previous experience and as expected based on mechanism of action. A phase 1 study of GMI-1271 is currently ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of E-selectin antagonism for the treatment of patients with calf vein DVT. PK Figures: Figure 1: SAD; Figure 2: MAD. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures Hemmer: GlycoMimetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flanner:GlycoMimetics, Inc.: Employment. Parker:GlycoMimetics, Inc.: Employment. Li:GlycoMimetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Froehlich:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fibromuscular Disease Society of America: Research Funding; Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy. Magnani:GlycoMimetics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Thackray:GlycoMimetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sood:Bayer: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Baseline PET-Derived Metabolic Tumor Volume Metrics Predict Progression-Free and Overall Survival in DLBCL after First-Line Treatment: Results from the Phase 3 GOYA Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.824.824 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 824-824 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Lale Kostakoglu ◽

Maurizio Martelli ◽

Laurie H. Sehn ◽

David Belada ◽

Angelo-Michele Carella ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Research Funding ◽

Metabolic Tumor Volume ◽

First Line ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction: Quantitative 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography assessment using total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) and tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG) measurements has been found promising as an objective method to predict survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients (pts). However, the methodology for PET-derived metrics is still evolving, and their predictive value is yet to be proven in large-scale, prospective, multicenter studies. We investigated the prognostic value of baseline maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), TMTV and TLG for progression-free survival (PFS) in a large pt cohort treated with obinutuzumab (GA101; G) or rituximab (R) combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) in the Phase 3 GOYA study (NCT01287741; Vitolo et al. J Clin Oncol 2017). Methods: Pts aged ≥18 years, with previously untreated, CD20-positive DLBCL and an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score ≥2 and low-risk pts with IPI scores of 1 (not due to age alone) or 0 (with bulky disease) were randomized 1:1 to receive 8 x 21-day cycles of G (1000mg intravenous [IV] on Days [D] 1, 8, and 15 of Cycle [C] 1 and D1, C2-8) or R (375mg/m2 IV on D1, C1-8) plus 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP. All pts had a baseline and end of treatment (EOT) PET. PET images were segmented using an automated workflow program in MIM software, applying thresholds of 1.5 x liver background and a minimum volume of 1mL to the whole body PET images. The data were analyzed for the overall population and according to germinal center B-cell-like (GCB), unclassified, and activated B-cell-like (ABC) subtypes of DLBCL. TMTV, TLG, and SUVmax were split into 4 categories/levels according to the following quartiles: Q1, <25%; Q2, 25-50%; Q3, 50-75%; and Q4, 75-100%, which were obtained based on their distribution in the available population. The reported hazard ratios (HRs) refer to stratified log-rank tests comparing Q2, Q3, and Q4 to Q1, adjusted for stratification factors of the study: IPI score (low [0-2], intermediate [3], and high [4-5]) and number of planned CHOP cycles (6 or 8). Results: Of 1418 enrolled pts, 1346 had a baseline PET scan and 1334 had detectable lesions. There was no statistical difference in PFS between the treatment arms (G vs R), thus the entire cohort was analyzed as a whole. Results of the predictive value of baseline TMTV for PFS are presented in quartiles in Figure 1, and results of the predictive value of TLG for PFS are presented in quartiles in Figure 2, for the overall PET intent-to-treat population. After a median follow-up of 29 months TMTV and TLG were highly predictive of PFS when comparing Q4 vs Q1: HR=2.21, 95% CI 1.48-3.29, p<0.0001, and HR=1.91, 95% CI 1.28-2.85, p=0.0005, respectively. TMTV was also predictive of overall survival (OS): HR=2.63, 95% CI 1.55-4.46; p<0.0001. However, SUVmax-based prediction of PFS was not statistically significant (HR=0.84, 95% CI 0.57-1.23, p=0.3782). Three-year PFS for pts in TMTV Q1, 2, 3 and 4 was 86% (95% CI 81-89%), 84% (95% CI 78-88%), 78% (95% CI 72-83%) and 66% (95% CI 59-71%), respectively. TMTV also showed a trend for a better prediction of PFS (Figure 3) and OS in pts with the unclassified and ABC DLBCL subtypes when compared with those with the GCB subtype. Conclusions: This large prospective study confirms baseline TMTV and TLG as predictors of PFS and OS in DLBCL after first-line immunochemotherapy, while SUVmax may not be a predictor. Furthermore, TMTV and TLG appear to be better predictors of survival for pts with the unclassified and ABC subtypes of DLBCL than for those pts with the GCB subtype. Further analyses are underway comparing these results with the predictive value of percentage change from baseline to EOT PET, Deauville score-based analysis of EOT PET, and the various molecular DLBCL subtypes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kostakoglu: Roche: Consultancy, Other: GOYA is sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Third-party editorial support, under the direction of Lale Kostakoglu and Denis Sahin, was provided by Helen Cathro of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications, and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Sehn: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chua: Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Gonzalez-Barca: Gilead: Consultancy; Sandot: Consultancy; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Pinto: Millenium Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dome: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Helssin: Honoraria; Mundipharma EDO: Speakers Bureau. Fingerle-Rowson: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Knapp: Roche: Employment. Mattiello: Roche: Employment. Nielsen: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sellam: Roche: Employment. Sahin: Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vitolo: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Trněný: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Patient Outcomes By Prior Therapies and Depth Of Response: Analysis Of MM-003, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Pomalidomide + Low-Dose Dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) Vs High-Dose Dexamethasone (HiDEX) In Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.686.686 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 686-686

Author(s):

Jesús F. San Miguel ◽

Katja Weisel ◽

Kevin W. Song ◽

Michel Delforge ◽

Lionel Karlin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Depth Of Response ◽

The Us ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Protein Reduction

Abstract Background Patient (pt) survival after becoming refractory/intolerant to novel agent treatment (Tx) is short (Kumar 2012). Depth of response has been shown to predict favorable outcomes (Harousseau, 2010). POM is a distinct oral IMiD® immunomodulatory agent with 3 primary activities: direct anti-myeloma activity, stromal cell-support inhibition, and immune modulation (Quach, 2010). POM has been approved by the US FDA for RRMM pts with ≥ 2 prior Tx, including lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT), and progressive disease (PD) on or within 60 days of completion of the last line of Tx. The randomized phase 3 trial MM-003 demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with an acceptable tolerability profile for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in pts with RRMM (San Miguel, EHA 2013). Methods Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (PD during Tx or within 60 days) and exhausted BORT and LEN after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1-21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1-4, 9-12, and 17-20. HiDEX was chosen as the comparator to isolate the effects of POM as at the time of trial design it was the standard salvage Tx for heavily pretreated pts. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included OS, time to progression (TTP), overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response [PR]), and safety. The current analysis describes pt outcomes by prior Tx history and depth of response. Results 302 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX and 153 pts to HiDEX. Pt characteristics were well balanced between Tx arms. The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range, 2-17). Most pts (75%) were refractory to both BORT and LEN. POM + LoDEX significantly prolonged PFS vs HiDEX regardless of type or number of prior Tx (Table). OS favored POM + LoDEX for all subgroups analyzed. Importantly, significant OS benefits were observed in pts with ≤ 3 prior Tx and in pts who were refractory to LEN as last prior Tx. The ORR was consistently and significantly higher for POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX. The TTP for POM + LoDEX pts was similar in this trial vs that seen with their last prior LEN-based line of Tx (4.8 vs 6.2 months; P =.11). Additionally, LEN as the last prior Tx did not negatively impact PFS, OS, or ORR when compared with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In the POM + LoDEX arm, a total of 17 pts (6%) achieved a very good partial response or better, and 78 pts (26%) achieved PR as best response. Baseline characteristics were generally similar regardless of the degree of M-protein reduction. Analyses of the correlation between M-protein reduction and PFS and OS are ongoing and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions In this heavily pretreated population, POM + LoDEX provided consistent efficacy regardless of number of prior Tx or prior Tx type. Significant OS benefits were observed for pts who received POM + LoDEX earlier in Tx and immediately following the development of LEN-refractory disease. Importantly, LEN as last prior Tx did not impact response, PFS, or OS vs the overall ITT population. POM + LoDEX should be considered a standard Tx option in RRMM pts. Disclosures: San Miguel: Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: POM is approved in the US but not in Europe. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Song:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Karlin:Celgene: Export board committee Other, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Moreau:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy. Cavo:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alegre:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martinez-Lopez:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Renner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Travel support Other. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Yu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Teasdale:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jacques:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

A Pooled Overall Survival (OS) Analysis of 5-Year Data from the COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II Trials of Ruxolitinib for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3110.3110 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3110-3110 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Vikas Gupta ◽

Jason R. Gotlib ◽

Ruben A. Mesa ◽

Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Spleen Volume ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background:The Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib has been evaluated for patients with MF in the phase 3 COMFORT studies. In both trials, ruxolitinib prolonged OS, reduced splenomegaly, and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life compared with controls. Here, we report the results of an exploratory pooled analysis of OS in the COMFORT studies at 5 years of follow-up. Methods: The double-blind COMFORT-I trial and the open-label COMFORT-II trial were randomized phase 3 studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2 (int-2) or high-risk primary MF (PMF), post-polycythemia vera MF (PPV-MF), or post-essential thrombocythemia MF (PET-MF). The comparator was placebo in COMFORT-I and best available therapy (BAT) in COMFORT-II. The ruxolitinib starting dose was 15 or 20 mg twice daily based on baseline platelet counts (100-200 and >200 × 109/L, respectively); dose modifications were permitted for safety and efficacy. Patients were allowed to cross over to ruxolitinib from the control arm for progressive splenomegaly, defined as a ≥25% increase in spleen volume from baseline (COMFORT-I) or study nadir (COMFORT-II), or select protocol-defined progression events; crossover was mandatory following treatment unblinding in COMFORT-I. OS was a secondary endpoint in both studies and was evaluated in an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using a Cox proportional hazard model that estimated the treatment effect stratified by clinical trial and International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk. The crossover-corrected treatment effect was estimated using a rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method. Results: Overall, 528 patients were randomized: 301 to ruxolitinib (COMFORT-I, n=155; COMFORT-II, n=146) and 227 to placebo (n=154) or BAT (n=73). All ongoing patients in the control arms crossed over to ruxolitinib by the 3-year follow-up. Patient populations were similar between the two trials and their details were previously published. In the combined ruxolitinib group, 162 patients (53.8%) had high-risk MF and 139 (46.2%) had int-2 risk MF based on IPSS criteria. At the 5-year ITT analysis, 128 patients (42.5%) died in the ruxolitinib group compared with 117 (51.5%) in the control group. The risk of death was reduced by 30% with ruxolitinib compared with control (median OS: ruxolitinib, 63.5 mo; control, 45.9 mo; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91; P=0.0065; Figure A). After correcting for crossover using RPSFT, OS advantage was more pronounced for patients originally randomized to ruxolitinib (median OS: ruxolitinib, 63.5 mo; control, 27 mo; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59; Figure B). An analysis of OS censoring patients at the time of crossover also demonstrated that ruxolitinib prolonged survival compared with control (median OS: ruxolitinib, 63.5 mo; control, 28.3 mo; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36−0.78; P=0.0013; Figure C). Among all patients treated with ruxolitinib, those with lower-risk disease had longer survival compared with those with high-risk disease (median OS: int-2, not reached [estimated, 102 mo]; high-risk, 50 mo; HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.95-4.20; P<0.0001; Figure D). In a subgroup analysis, OS favored ruxolitinib compared with placebo for patients with int-2 or high-risk MF (data not shown). At 5 years, median OS appeared to favor patients with int-2 (n=58) or high-risk (n=89) PMF who were originally randomized to ruxolitinib compared with historical (Cervantes et al; J Clin Oncol 30:2981-2987) controls (int-2 PMF, not reached [estimated, 70 mo] vs 48 mo; high-risk PMF, 34 vs 27 mo); OS was longer among patients with int-2 vs high-risk PMF (P=0.0003). Subgroup analyses showed that ruxolitinib provided an OS advantage regardless of age (>65 or ≤65 y), sex, disease type (PMF, PPV-MF, PET-MF), risk status (int-2 or high), JAK2V617F mutation status, baseline spleen volume (>10 or ≤10 cm), anemia, white blood cell count (>25 or ≤25 × 109L), or platelet count (>200 or ≤200 × 109/L). Conclusion: Long-term treatment with ruxolitinib up to 5 years prolonged survival in patients with MF compared with BAT or placebo. Corrections for patients who crossed over to ruxolitinib suggested that the separation between ruxolitinib and control OS curves was primarily caused by a delay in ruxolitinib treatment. The results suggest that earlier treatment with ruxolitinib may provide a greater survival advantage for patients with MF. Disclosures Gupta: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cervantes:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gao:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dong:Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Naim:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gopalakrishna:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment, Equity Ownership. Harrison:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text