Efficacy and Safety of Ravulizumab in Older Patients Aged &gt;65 Years with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria in the 301 and 302 Phase 3 Extension Studies

Background: In the two largest phase 3 studies in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), ravulizumab given every 8 weeks was noninferior to eculizumab given every 2 weeks across all efficacy endpoints. Data on efficacy and safety of ravulizumab in patients aged >65 years with PNH are limited. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of ravulizumab in patients with PNH aged >65 years with those aged ≤65 years. Methods: The population included patients from two phase 3 studies that assessed ravulizumab vs eculizumab in complement-inhibitor-naïve (301; NCT02946463) and -experienced (302; NCT03056040) adults with PNH. In study 301, patients were aged ≥18 years with a confirmed PNH diagnosis by flow cytometry and had a lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level ≥1.5x upper limit of normal (ULN; 246U/L). In study 302, patients were aged ≥18 years with a confirmed PNH diagnosis by flow cytometry, were clinically stable on eculizumab having received ≥6 months of treatment and had a LDH level ≤1.5x ULN. Patients were randomized to either ravulizumab or eculizumab for 26 weeks after which all received ravulizumab up to 52 weeks. This prespecified analysis stratified patients by age: ≤65 or >65 years. Primary endpoints included percentage change in LDH from baseline to weeks 26 and 52, percentage of patients achieving LDH-normalization (LDH-N; LDH levels: ≤1x ULN) at weeks 26 and 52 and transfusion avoidance (TA) from baseline to weeks 26 and 52. Breakthrough hemolysis (BTH), hemoglobin (Hgb) stabilization and FACIT-fatigue score were secondary endpoints. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed as an indicator of safety. Results: A total of 58 patients aged >65 years and 383 patients aged ≤65 years were included. Disposition and medical history were similar among subgroups at baseline (Table 1). Results for primary and secondary endpoints for the two subgroups were comparable across studies and efficacy was maintained through 52 weeks. A higher proportion of treatment-experienced patients (>65 years) achieved all endpoints vs -naïve patients (Table 2). The percentage change in LDH levels from baseline to 26 and 52 weeks was similar between subgroups in study 301 (-66.5 to -80.0%) whereas in study 302, LDH levels remained stable in all subgroups up to 52 weeks (-3.7 to 22%). The percentage of patients achieving LDH-N in both studies at 26 and 52 weeks differed; 43.8-63.9% of patients aged ≤65 years achieved LDH-N compared with 21.4-77.8% of patients aged >65 years. A higher proportion of older treatment-experienced patients (57.1‒77.8%) achieved LDH-N compared with older treatment-naive patients (21.4‒50.0%) at 26 and 52 weeks. In patients aged ≤65 years in both studies, 63.7‒89.4% achieved TA. In the >65 years subgroup, 14.3‒50.0% of treatment-naive patients achieved TA whereas in study 302, 54.5‒72.7% of patients achieved TA. The number of BTH events was low, with no events reported in older patients to date. Hgb stabilization was consistent in the ≤65 year subgroup between the studies; a higher proportion of older patients in study 302 (45.5‒71.4%) achieved stabilized Hgb compared with older patients in study 301 (14.3‒35.3%). A clinically significant 3-point change was seen in FACIT-fatigue scores (indicating improvements in fatigue), with higher scores observed for ravulizumab in both subgroups (Figure 1). One patient discontinued the extension of study 301 due to lung cancer onset during the 26-week period and died following discontinuation. Headache was the most frequent TEAE. The incidence of TEAEs reported during ravulizumab treatment up to 52 weeks did not increase vs the 26-week period, with few events (Table 3) and no difference between subgroups. Conclusions: We present clinical outcomes in the largest cohort of patients with PNH (>65 years) on ravulizumab in a clinical trial setting to date. Ravulizumab was associated with similar efficacy and safety in both age subgroups and showed consistent and durable efficacy through 52 weeks of treatment. A higher proportion of patients in study 302 achieved all efficacy endpoints than in study 301, which can be due to patients' prior complement inhibitor experience. This observation was more evident in older patients. There were no BTH events in the older patients to date, and the number of infections in both subgroups was low. Ravulizumab was well tolerated in older patients with no additional safety concerns compared to younger patients. Disclosures Peffault De Latour: Apellis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Szer:Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Prevail Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kulasekararaj:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kim:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Piatek:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kulagin:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Wang:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Yu:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Ogawa:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Schrezenmeier:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lee:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Transfusion Requirements in Adult Patients with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria with or without a History of Bone Marrow Disorder Receiving Ravulizumab and Eculizumab: Results from a Phase 3 Non-Inferiority Study Extension

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-140418 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 31-33

Author(s):

Antonio Risitano ◽

Jun-Ho Jang ◽

Lee Gyeong-Won ◽

Wanchai Wanachiwanawin ◽

Hubert Schrezenmeier ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Marrow ◽

Sample Size ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria ◽

Complement Inhibitor ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

History Of

Background: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare and life-threatening hematologic disorder leading to hemolytic anemia, which can occur concomitantly with bone marrow disorders (BMD), such as aplastic anemia (AA) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Accordingly, patients with PNH often require red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anemia due to hemolysis or bone marrow failure. After demonstrating a non-inferior efficacy and safety profile in two of the largest clinical trials to date, ravulizumab was approved as a treatment for adults with PNH, including patients with an underlying history of bone marrow disease, who are transfusion dependent or independent. Aims: To assess the efficacy of ravulizumab in patients with PNH with or without an underlying pathology of AA or MDS, and to investigate the impact of ravulizumab on transfusion burden as measured by number of transfusions and total packed RBC (pRBC) units transfused over a 52-week period. Methods: This phase 3 multicenter, randomized, active-controlled, open-label study (study 301, NCT02946463) enrolled complement-inhibitor-naïve patients with PNH. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of PNH by flow cytometry and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level ≥ 1.5x the upper limit of normal (ULN; 246 U/L). Patients received either ravulizumab or eculizumab for 26 weeks; after which all patients received ravulizumab from week 26 to week 52. Efficacy outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving transfusion avoidance (TA), number of pRBC units transfused and the number of pRBC or whole blood transfusions (WBT) received from baseline to 26 and 52 weeks of treatment. In this retrospective analysis, outcomes were analysed for the following subgroups: AA, MDS or no BMD (medical history of AA or MDS was determined by the investigator at screening). Descriptive statistics were calculated for continuous (means) and categorical variables (numbers and percentages). Formal hypothesis testing for significance between treatment groups was not performed. Results: Of the 246 patients included in the study, 79 had a history of AA (32.1%) and 13 (5.3%) had a history of MDS. Baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. From baseline to week 26, a comparable proportion of patients with AA achieved TA to those with no BMD; 75.6% for patients with AA and no BMD receiving ravulizumab, and 60.5% and 73.7% for patients with AA and no BMD receiving eculizumab, respectively (Table 1). Importantly, TA was maintained through 52 weeks, with similar proportions of patients with AA (87.1‒91.3%) maintaining TA to patients without BMD (85.7‒91.5%). More specifically, 65.9% of patients with AA and 69.2% of patients without BMD achieved TA through 52 weeks of ravulizumab treatment, and 55.3% and 63.2% of patients with AA and without BMD, respectively, achieved TA on eculizumab followed by ravulizumab. The proportion of patients with MDS who achieved TA appeared numerically lower compared with patients with AA or no BMD, however, this subgroup sample size was small. Furthermore, a lower proportion of patients on ravulizumab with AA or MDS received any transfusion from baseline to weeks 26 and 52 compared with those treated with eculizumab followed by ravulizumab: for week 26, 24.4% and 57.1% for ravulizumab versus 39.5% and 100.0% for eculizumab in patients with AA and MDS, respectively, and for week 52, 29.3% and 57.1% for patients with AA and MDS receiving ravulizumab for 52 weeks versus 44.7% and 100.0% for patients with AA and MDS treated with eculizumab followed by ravulizumab. In addition, ravulizumab-treated patients with AA or MDS had numerally fewer transfusions and units of pRBC/WBT compared with those who received eculizumab followed by ravulizumab. Overall, the exploratory nature of the analysis and small sample size means that interpretation of the data is limited. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that majority of patients with PNH and AA who received ravulizumab avoided the need for transfusion up to 52 weeks of treatment. Patients treated with ravulizumab for the 52-week period had numerically fewer transfusions and units of pRBC/WBT transfused compared with patients who received eculizumab followed by ravulizumab. Overall, these findings support the use of ravulizumab in complement-inhibitor-naïve patients with PNH, with or without a history of BMD. Disclosures Risitano: Amyndas: Consultancy; Samsung: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; RA pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Biocryst: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Achillion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schrezenmeier:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Yonemura:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Munir:Alexion: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Other: Medical writing support, furnished by Scott Battle, PhD, of Health Interactions, was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Pavani:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Wang:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment. Kulagin:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kulasekararaj:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sicre de Fontbrune:Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Röth:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Biocryst: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Rationale and Design of a Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of ION-682884 in Patients with Transthyretin-Mediated Amyloid Cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-129269 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5764-5764 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rodney H Falk ◽

Morie A Gertz ◽

Merrill D Benson ◽

Gustavo Buchele ◽

Michela Brambatti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Parent Compound ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Study Visit ◽

Clinical Events ◽

Patient Reported

Background: Transthyretin amyloidosis cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is a life-threatening, irreversible condition, which can lead to heart failure (HF) and, ultimately, heart transplant or death. Despite the recent approval in United States of a TTR stabilizer (VYNDAQEL®-tafamidis meglumine;VYNDAMAX™-tafamidis) for the treatment of ATTR-CM, disease progression still occurs. This study aims to determine if treatment with AKCEA-TTR-LRx (ION-682884), an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), is safe and superior to placebo in reducing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or CV clinical events in patients with hereditary (hATTR-CM) or wild-type ATTR-CM (wtATTR-CM). Study Design and Methods: AKCEA-TTR-LRx (ION-682884) is a follow-on compound that incorporates the Ligand-Conjugated Antisense (LICA) technology; in this case, a triantennary N-acetyl galactosamine (GalNAc) moiety which targets the asialoglycoprotein receptors (ASGPR) expressed abundantly on the hepatocyte cell surface. In comparison to inotersen, its parent compound, ION-682884 requires a lower dose and frequency of administration (27-fold smaller; 45mg SC Q4W) to achieve a similar reduction in ATTR, providing greater patient convenience. ION-682884-CS2 (EudraCT No: 2019-002835-27) is a Phase 3 global, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study assessing the efficacy and safety of AKCEA-TTR-LRx (ION-682884) in hATTR-CM or wtATTR-CM patients receiving available background standard of care (SoC) therapy. Approximately 750 patients with a history of HF due to ATTR-CM will be randomized 1:1 to receive AKCEA-TTR-LRx (ION-682884) or placebo administered by subcutaneous injection once every 4 weeks. The main inclusion criteria include confirmed diagnosis of ATTR-CM by tissue biopsy or positive PYP/DPD scan, end-diastolic interventricular septum thickness of >12mm, NT-proBNP >600 pg/mL, NYHA class I-III and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) >150 m. The main exclusion criteria include estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 mL/min/1.73m2, platelet count below the low limit of normality and urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) ≥ 1000 mg/g. Patients are allowed to concomitantly receive tafamidis/tafamidis meglumine as SoC for ATTR-CM, if locally approved and available, per physician's discretion. The study consists of a 120-week Treatment Period and a 20-week Post-Treatment Evaluation Period. During each study visit, subjects will undergo laboratory tests, cardiac assessments (echocardiography), and functional evaluations. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) will also be collected. Primary efficacy endpoint is the composite of CV mortality and frequency of CV clinical events (HF-related urgent visits requiring administration of IV diuretics and/or CV-related hospitalizations) at Week 120 study visit, analyzed by the Finkelstein-Shoenfeld method. This test is based on the principle of each patient in the study being compared with every other patient in a pairwise manner in hierarchical fashion. Secondary endpoints include the change from baseline in the 6MWD, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, rate of CV mortality, CV clinical events, and all-cause of mortality at Week 120. Additional exploratory endpoints include a change from baseline in cardiac imaging parameters, renal function, biomarkers, and PROs questionnaires and disease scores. An interim analysis on change from baseline in 6MWD is also planned at Week 60. All deaths and CV clinical events will be adjudicated by an independent, blinded Clinical Adjudication Committee, using predefined endpoint criteria. Conclusions: Despite recent advances, there is still a need for more efficacious, safe and convenient treatment options for ATTR-CM. The ION-682884-CS2 is a large Phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of AKCEA-TTR-LRx (ION-682884) compared to placebo for the treatment of ATTR-CM. Figure Disclosures Falk: Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Gertz:Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Annexon: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding. Benson:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Buchele:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Brambatti:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Tsimikas:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Viney:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Tai:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Monteiro:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Yang:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. O'Dea:Akcea Therapeutics: Employment. Karwatowska-Prokopczuk:Akcea Therapeutics: Employment. Schneider:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Geary:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Monia:Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Employment.

Download Full-text

The Commands Trial: A Phase 3 Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Luspatercept Versus Epoetin Alfa for the Treatment of Anemia Due to IPSS-R Very Low-, Low-, or Intermediate-Risk MDS in Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agent-Naive Patients Who Require RBC Transfusions

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-140284 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1-2

Author(s):

Matteo Della Porta ◽

Uwe Platzbecker ◽

Valeria Santini ◽

Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽

Rami S. Komrokji ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Epoetin Alfa ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Starting Dose ◽

To Receive ◽

Stimulating Factor ◽

Rbc Transfusion

Introduction: Anemia is the predominant cytopenia observed in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), with many patients requiring regular red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) remain a standard of care among patients with lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS), defined by International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised (IPSS-R) as Very Low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS, and endogenous serum erythropoietin (sEPO) levels ≤ 500 U/L. Recent studies of epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa have demonstrated efficacy among patients with LR-MDS, but the patient population in whom a clinically significant effect is seen may be limited (Fenaux P, et al. Leukemia 2018;32:2648-2658; Platzbecker U, et al. Leukemia 2017;31:1944-1950). A novel therapeutic option that increases the frequency of response and the duration of RBC transfusion independence (TI) in patients with LR-MDS would provide an important clinical benefit in this patient population. Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent with a mechanism of action distinct from ESAs (Suragani RNVS, et al. Nat Med 2014;20:408-414). It is now approved in both the US and EU for patients with LR-MDS with ring sideroblasts (RS) who require RBC transfusions and are refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive ESAs on the basis of results from a phase 3 study (Fenaux P, Platzbecker U, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;382:140-151). Luspatercept may also be beneficial in treating anemia in patients with ESA-naive, LR-MDS who require RBC transfusions. In a phase 2 study in anemic patients with LR-MDS, 63% of patients receiving luspatercept (0.75-1.75 mg/kg) achieved a modified hematologic improvement - erythroid (mHI-E) response (Platzbecker U, et al. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1338-1347); when analyzed by RS status, 69% of patients with ≥ 15% RS and 43% of patients with < 15% RS achieved mHI-E response. Study Design and Methods: The COMMANDS trial is a phase 3, open-label randomized study to compare the efficacy and safety of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa in anemic patients with IPSS-R defined LR-MDS, either with or without ≥ 15% RS, who are ESA naive, and who require regular RBC transfusions. Eligible patients must be aged ≥ 18 years at time of consent, have a documented diagnosis of IPSS-R defined LR-MDS with < 5% blasts in the bone marrow, have sEPO levels < 500 U/L, and require RBC transfusions (defined as an average transfusion requirement of 2-6 RBC units/8 weeks for ≥ 8 weeks immediately prior to randomization). Exclusion criteria include prior use of ESAs (≤ 2 doses of prior epoetin alfa permitted if ≥ 8 weeks from randomization date and sEPO confirmed as ≤ 500 U/L), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), unless given for the treatment of febrile neutropenia; disease-modifying agents (e.g. lenalidomide), or hypomethylating agents; and presence of del(5q) cytogenetic abnormality. A total of approximately 350 eligible patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either luspatercept (starting dose 1.0 mg/kg with titration up to 1.75 mg/kg) subcutaneously (SC) once every 3 weeks or epoetin alfa (starting dose 450 IU/kg with titration up to 1,050 IU/kg) SC once every week, for a minimum of 24 weeks (Figure). Best supportive care, including RBC transfusions, may be used in combination with study treatment in both arms. Randomization will be stratified by baseline RBC transfusion burden (< 4 vs ≥ 4 RBC units per 8 weeks), RS status (with RS+ defined as RS ≥ 15%, or ≥ 5% [but < 15%] if SF3B1 mutation is present), and baseline sEPO level (≤ 200 U/L versus > 200 U/L). In addition, ≥ 40% and ≤ 60% of randomized patients will be RS+, and ≥ 25% will have sEPO > 200 U/L. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients who achieve RBC-TI for 12 weeks within the first 24 weeks on study, with a concurrent mean hemoglobin (Hb) increase of ≥ 1.5 g/dL compared with baseline. Key secondary endpoints include duration of RBC-TI, change in Hb levels, achievement of HI-E response per International Working Group (IWG) 2006 criteria, and safety. The COMMANDS trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03682536) and EudraCT (number 2017-003190-34). Disclosures Platzbecker: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Santini:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Menarini: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Garcia-Manero:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acceleron Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Helsinn Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Komrokji:Geron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; JAZZ: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Acceleron: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ito:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fenaux:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Categorized Hematologic Response to Pegcetacoplan Versus Eculizumab in Patients with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria: Post Hoc Analysis of Data from a Phase 3 Randomized Trial (PEGASUS)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142166 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 44-45

Author(s):

Antonio Risitano ◽

Ilene C. Weitz ◽

Carlos M. de Castro ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Morag Griffin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria ◽

Response To Treatment ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Post Hoc Analysis ◽

Hematologic Response ◽

Post Hoc

INTRODUCTION Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare, acquired, clonal, nonmalignant hematologic disease characterized by complement-mediated red blood cell hemolysis. The current standard of care for patients with PNH is C5 inhibition. Anemia persists in up to ~70% of patients receiving eculizumab and is attributed to persistent intravascular hemolysis (IVH) and mostly to C3-mediated extravascular hemolysis (EVH). Pegcetacoplan is a pegylated pentadecapeptide C3 inhibitor targeting proximal complement to control both IVH and EVH. PEGASUS is a phase 3, open-label, active-comparator controlled study of efficacy and safety of pegcetacoplan versus eculizumab. This post hoc analysis of data from PEGASUS categorized the clinical response to pegcetacoplan or ECU in patients with PNH and hemoglobin <10.5 g/dL (despite stable ECU for ≥3 months). METHODS Hematologic response to treatment was categorized (per Risitano AM, et al. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1157) as complete, major, good, partial, minor, or no response, using number of packed red blood cell transfusions required, hemoglobin level, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, and absolute reticulocyte count (ARC). Complete response: no transfusions required, stable hemoglobin in the normal range, and no evidence of hemolysis (ie, LDH ≤1.5× upper limit of normal, ARC ≤150,000/µL). Major response: no transfusion, normal hemoglobin, but with evidence of hemolysis (LDH >1.5× upper limit of normal and/or ARC >150,000/µL). Good response: no transfusion, but with chronic mild anemia or evidence of hemolysis. Partial response: chronic moderate anemia and/or occasional transfusions (<3 units/6 months). Minor response: regular transfusions required (3-6 units/6 months). No response: regular and frequent transfusions required (>6 units/6 months). Nine patients (6 from the pegcetacoplan arm and 3 from the eculizumab arm) did not readily fit within the existing criteria due to the availability of data at week 16. Although these 9 patients were manually categorized identically by the lead and senior author in a blinded, independent manner, they were not included among these data. RESULTS The intention-to-treat population was comprised of 41 patients randomized to pegcetacoplan and 39 patients randomized to eculizumab. Four patients in the pegcetacoplan arm and 1 patient in the eculizumab arm were not evaluable for analysis due to incomplete data at week 16. Altogether, 61.0% of patients (25/41) in the pegcetacoplan arm have achieved at least a good hematological response, in contrast to 5.1% (2/39) of the eculizumab arm. At week 16, the distribution of response categories was as follows (Figure): in the pegcetacoplan arm and eculizumab arm, respectively, complete responses were 36.6% and 0%, good responses were 24.4% and 5.1%, partial responses were 12.2% and 33.3%, minor responses were 2.4% and 23.1%, and no responses were 0% and 28.2%. The addition of the 9 manually categorized patients did not significantly alter the proportions reported here. Among the factors that may contribute to heterogeneity of hematologic response to treatment are impaired bone marrow function, residual IVH, and residual C3-mediated EVH. Bone marrow failure was ruled out, and no difference in LDH was observed, suggesting that the major factor accounting for the difference between the 2 arms was the prevention of C3-mediated EVH (as confirmed by reduction of C3-opsonization of PNH red blood cells). CONCLUSION In PEGASUS, treatment with pegcetacoplan resulted in a greater proportion of patients with better hematological responses compared to eculizumab. These results further support the concept that proximal complement inhibition, by preventing EVH in addition to controlling IVH, leads to clinical and hematological improvement in the treatment of PNH. Disclosures Risitano: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Samsung: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amyndas: Consultancy; RA pharma: Research Funding; Biocryst: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Achillion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Weitz:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria. de Castro:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Steering committee; Alexion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Biocryst: Honoraria, Other: Data monitoring committee; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kiladjian:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffin:Biocryst: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Conference Support. Hamdani:Apellis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ajayi:Apellis Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Baver:Apellis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Peffault De Latour:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Pegcetacoplan is an investigational drug for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

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

Obinutuzumab or Rituximab Plus CHOP in Patients with Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Final Results from an Open-Label, Randomized Phase 3 Study (GOYA)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.470.470 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 470-470 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Umberto Vitolo ◽

Marek Trněný ◽

David Belada ◽

Angelo M Carella ◽

Neil Chua ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Open Label ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Rituximab (R) plus CHOP (R-CHOP) is standard-of-care treatment for previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Approximately 35-40% of patients (pts) will relapse following R-CHOP, and outcomes with salvage therapy remain poor. Obinutuzumab (GA101; GAZYVA/GAZYVARO; G) is a glycoengineered, type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody with greater direct cell death induction and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity/phagocytosis activity than R. In the Phase 2 GATHER study (NCT01414855), G plus CHOP (G-CHOP) demonstrated manageable toxicity and promising efficacy in pts with advanced untreated DLBCL. GOYA (NCT01287741) is an open-label, multicenter, randomized Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of G-CHOP with R-CHOP in pts with previously untreated DLBCL. GOYA was sponsored by Roche with scientific support from the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. Methods: Eligible pts were aged ≥18 years and had adequate hematologic function, ≥1 bi-dimensionally measurable lesion, an ECOG performance status (PS) of ≤2 and an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score of ≥2 (high, high-intermediate or low-intermediate risk). Low-risk pts with an IPI score of 1 (but not due to age alone) or with an IPI score of 0 with bulky disease (one lesion ≥7.5cm) were also eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive 8 (21-day) cycles of G (1000mg i.v. on Days [D] 1, 8, and 15, Cycle [C] 1 and D1, C2-8) or R (375mg/m2 i.v. on D1, C1-8) in combination with 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP (number of cycles preplanned in advance for all pts at each site). Preplanned radiotherapy was allowed for bulky or extranodal disease. The primary endpoint was investigator (INV)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); for the target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, the 3-year PFS was expected to improve from 60% to 68%. Secondary endpoints included: PFS assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC); overall survival (OS); complete response (CR) and overall response rate (ORR) with or without PET (assessed by INV or IRC according to modified Cheson 2007 criteria); and safety. Results: 1418 pts were randomized to study treatment: 706 to G-CHOP and 712 to R-CHOP. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the G-CHOP and R-CHOP arms: mean age, 62.0 years in both arms; ECOG PS ≥2, 12% vs. 14%; IPI score ≥3, 47% vs. 43%; Ann Arbor stage III-IV, 76% in both arms. Cell-of-origin distribution, as assessed by gene-expression profiling (NanoString), was similar in both treatment groups (GCB: 58% [271/471] G-CHOP, 58% [269/462] R-CHOP; ABC: 27% [125/471] G-CHOP, 26% [118/462] R-CHOP; Unclassified: 15.9% [75/471] G-CHOP, 16.2% [75/462] R-CHOP). For the primary endpoint of INV-assessed PFS, there was no significant difference between G-CHOP and R-CHOP (3-year PFS, 69% vs. 66%; stratified HR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76, 1.12; p=0.3868; Table). Secondary endpoints, including PFS by IRC, OS, and end-of-treatment ORR/CR rate (with and without PET), were consistent with the primary endpoint, with no clinically meaningful differences observed between the treatment arms (Table). In a prespecified subgroup analysis of INV-assessed PFS, a stratified HR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.50, 1.01) in favor of G-CHOP over R-CHOP was determined for pts with GCB DLBCL (3-year PFS, 79% vs. 70%). No new safety signals were identified. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs; 74% vs. 65%) and serious AEs (43% vs. 38%) were more common in the G-CHOP than in the R-CHOP arm. Grade ≥3 AEs of particular interest that were numerically more common with G-CHOP than R-CHOP included neutropenia (57% vs. 48%), infusion-related reactions (45% vs. 32%), infections (54% vs. 44%), and thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 3%). AEs resulting in withdrawal from treatment (12% [84/704] G-CHOP; 9% [60/703] R-CHOP) and AEs with fatal outcome (6% [41/704] G-CHOP; 4% [30/703] R-CHOP) were slightly more common with G-CHOP. The most common AEs leading to death were pneumonia (5 G-CHOP; 6 R-CHOP) and sepsis/septic shock (7 G-CHOP; 3 R-CHOP). Conclusions: The primary endpoint of this study was not met: G-CHOP did not significantly improve INV-assessed PFS compared with R-CHOP in previously untreated pts with DLBCL. No unexpected safety signals were identified. Further investigation of outcomes in subgroups is planned. Disclosures Vitolo: Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures. Trněný:Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene: Research Funding. Belada:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Chua:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy. Flinn:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; RainTree Oncology Services: Equity Ownership. Kim:Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pinto:Millennium: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Helssin: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Burke:Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses; Millenium: Consultancy. Oestergaard:Roche: Employment. Wenger:Genentech: Employment. Fingerle-Rowson:F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Employment. Catalani:Roche: Employment. Nielsen:Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Sehn:roche/genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; seattle genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

A Systematic Review and a Survey Both Reveal Wide Heterogeneity across Trials and Investigators on Time-to-Event Endpoints Definitions in Marginal Zone Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-150603 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4502-4502

Author(s):

Côme Bommier ◽

Emanuele Zucca ◽

Catherine Thieblemont ◽

Jérôme Lambert

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Marginal Zone ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Marginal Zone Lymphoma ◽

Time To Event ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Secondary Endpoints

Abstract Background: Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent and heterogeneous B-cell lymphoma. Because of its very indolent course, many time-to-endpoints are used across MZL trials without clear consensus on their definitions. Our aim was to carry out a description of the endpoints used in trials involving MZL patients and to point out the different definitions of time-to-event (TTE) endpoints, both in the literature and among the MZL experts. Methods: We searched over the last 35 years via PubMed, The Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu for published and registered clinical trials using the keyword "marginal zone lymphoma". We excluded studies focusing on pediatric populations, cutaneous MZL and on use of allogenic stem cell transplant. Endpoints were reviewed and definitions were analyzed. Afterwards, an online questionnaire was sent to a panel of leading international experts involved in the conduct of lymphoma clinical trials. Experts were selected for their commitment in published phase 2/phase 3 indolent lymphoma trials or for their membership in international lymphoma study groups (International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group, Lymphoma Research Foundation). The questionnaire proposed 12 criteria to define Progression-free survival (PFS), Event-free survival (EFS), Time to failure (TTF), and Time to next treatment (TTNT). Results: 1192 references were identified by the initial screening. Among the 309 included references (111 published, 198 registered), 213 (69%) were phase 2, 65 (21%) phase 1/2 and 31 (10%) phase 3 trials. The majority of them were open-label (n=295, 95%) non-randomized (n=256, 83%) trials, included all subtypes of MZLs (n=239, 77%), and also non-MZL patients (n=232, 75%). Among phase 1/2 and 2 trials, Overall/complete response rate (ORR/CRR) was the most used primary endpoint (n=196, 70.5%), followed by PFS (n=28, 10.1%); in phase 3 trials PFS was the most used primary endpoint (n=18, 58.1%; ORR/CRR n=6, 19.4%, p<0.001). Overall, the most frequent secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS, n=153, 50%), PFS (n=142, 46%) and ORR/CRR (n=116, 38%). Distribution of endpoints was similar when considering trials with only MZL patients. Time-to-event endpoints definitions were inconsistent across published trials, with up to 9 different definitions of EFS and TTF, and 4 different definitions of Duration of response. A total of 60 MZL experts from 16 different countries (Europe 66%, Northern America 26%, Asia 4%, Oceania 2%, Southern America 2%) took the questionnaire. Forty-nine (82%) of them were clinicians hematologists, and the other were oncologists, radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians, or radiotherapists. Eighty percent and 75% of them had already been primary investigator or coinvestigator in a prospective clinical trial including either MZL-only patients or MZL patients merged with other lymphoma patients, respectively. Among the experts' answers, a total of 23 different definitions of PFS were retrieved, 44 of EFS, 38 of TTF and TTNT. The main divergences concerned the consideration as event of: the add-on of a new therapy and the non-lymphoma related death for PFS; the treatment discontinuation due to adverse events and the add-on of a new therapy for EFS and TTF; the progression of the disease for TTNT. Conclusion: Trials involving MZL patients showed marked heterogeneity both in the choice and definitions of primary and secondary endpoints, thus hampering comparability between trials. This heterogeneity was confirmed through a survey among leading international MZL experts. If PFS and TTNT definitions have been well established by the Food Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, a consensus shall be pursued on EFS and TTF definitions within the MZL community. Disclosures Zucca: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: 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; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biomedicine: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celltrion Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead, Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Other: Travel Support. Thieblemont: Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Takeda: 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, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses .

Download Full-text

Ravulizumab (ALXN1210) Versus Eculizumab in Adults with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria: Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Observed in Two Phase 3 Randomized, Multicenter Studies

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-110858 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 626-626 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Regis Peffault De Latour ◽

Robert A. Brodsky ◽

Stephan Ortiz ◽

Antonio M. Risitano ◽

Jun-Ho Jang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Treatment Period ◽

Research Funding ◽

Day Treatment ◽

Complement Inhibitor ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Serum Free ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background/Objective: In 2 large, phase 3 clinical studies, ravulizumab (ALXN1210), an innovative C5 inhibitor administered every 8 weeks, achieved noninferiority to eculizumab in complement inhibitor-naive and -experienced patients (pts) with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). The objective of this analysis was to characterize ravulizumab pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Potential PD differences between ravulizumab and eculizumab were also examined to explore a possible mechanistic explanation for the robust clinical results observed in the phase 3 studies. The consistent ravulizumab vs eculizumab results across all primary and secondary clinical endpoints may be attributable to more complete inhibition of free C5 (defined as serum free C5 level <0.5 μg/mL, which is associated with complete inhibition of hemolysis in vitro). Methods: Two phase 3, randomized, open-label, noninferiority studies (NCT02946463, study 301; NCT030560040, study 302) included pts ≥18 years of age with confirmed PNH. Pts in study 301 were complement inhibitor-naive, with lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels ≥1.5 times upper limit of normal (xULN), and ≥1 PNH-related sign/symptom at screening. Pts in study 302 were clinically stable after having been treated with eculizumab for ≥6 months, with LDH levels ≤1.5 xULN at screening. Pts received weight-based dosing regimens of ravulizumab q8w or eculizumab 900 mg q2w in accordance with PNH labeling for 183 days. Study protocols did not allow dose escalation. Coprimary efficacy endpoints in study 301 were transfusion avoidance and LDH normalization; the primary endpoint in study 302 was percent change from baseline in LDH. Serum samples for PK/PD analyses were collected on study days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 43, 57, 71, 85, 99, 113, 127, 141, 155, 169, and 183. PK/PD outcomes included serum drug concentrations as well as serum free complement protein C5 and total C5. Free C5 was quantified in ravulizumab-treated pts utilizing a Gyros-based fluorescence assay, and in eculizumab-treated pts using an electrochemiluminescence ligand binding assay. Noncompartmental PK parameters were assessed for ravulizumab. Results: In study 301, 246 pts received study drug (ravulizumab, n=125; eculizumab, n=121); 195 received study drug in study 302 (ravulizumab, n=97; eculizumab, n=98). Ravulizumab met the primary objective of statistically significant noninferiority compared with eculizumab for all primary and key secondary endpoints in both studies. The PK profile of ravulizumab was similar in both studies (and when stratified by weight-based dosing [data not shown]), with Tmax of approximately 2.5 hours (Table 1). Following population PK modeling, mean (SD) post hoc terminal elimination half-life in all 222 pts was 49.7 (8.9) days. Ravulizumab steady-state therapeutic concentrations were rapidly achieved following the first dose and were sustained throughout the 183-day treatment period in both studies. Complete suppression of free C5 was attained by the end of first ravulizumab infusion (mean serum free C5 concentrations <0.5 μg/mL) and was sustained throughout the entire 183-day treatment period for all pts at all time points in both studies. In contrast, mean free C5 concentrations did not consistently remain <0.5 μg/mL with eculizumab in either study (Panels 1 and 2). In studies 301 and 302, 15 (12.4%) and 7 (7.1%) eculizumab-treated pts experienced ≥1 individual postbaseline serum free C5 level ≥0.5 μg/mL over the 183-day treatment period. In study 301, total mean (SD) C5 levels increased in the ravulizumab and eculizumab groups from 104 (24.4) and 106 (26.3) μg/mL at baseline to 183 (36.5) and 196 (38.5) respectively, at day 183. In study 302, total mean (SD) C5 levels were elevated in the ravulizumab and eculizumab groups at baseline (203 [29.5]) and 207 [37.3] μg/mL) and remained elevated at day 183 (197 [29.3] and 227 [40.2] μg/mL). Conclusions: In 2 large, phase 3 studies of PNH pts who were either naive to or receiving prior complement inhibitor therapy, ravulizumab q8w led to immediate, complete, and sustained complement C5 inhibition in all pts, whereas the effect of eculizumab q2w was less consistent. In pts treated with ravulizumab, free C5 suppression below the free C5 threshold was associated with complete inhibition of intravascular hemolysis, providing a mechanistic basis for the consistency of the point estimates for all endpoints. Disclosures Ortiz: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Risitano:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amyndas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Hillmen:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kulagin:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pradhan:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rottinghaus:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Aguzzi:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wells:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support , Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria. Szer:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support , Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Impact of Body Weight Adjusted Dose on Efficacy and Safety of Radotinib in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3086.3086 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3086-3086

Author(s):

Hayeon Noh ◽

Su Young Jung ◽

Jae-Yong Kwak ◽

Sung-Hyun Kim ◽

Suk Joong Oh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Body Weight ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Myeloid Leukemia ◽

Research Funding ◽

Pharmaceutical Research ◽

Fixed Dose ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Dosing Regimen ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees

Abstract Background: Radotinib is a BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CP-CML). It is typically administered as a fixed dose; however, a subanalysis of the Phase 2 study (Leuk Lymphoma. DOI 10.3109/10428194.2015.1113278) demonstrated that as the dose adjusted for body weight (Dose/BW) increased the risk of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) significantly. Aims: To assess the impact of Dose/BW of radotinib on the occurrence of DLT as well as on the achievement of major molecular response (MMR) using the clinical data obtained from the Phase 3 study Methods: The Phase 3 study involved 160 CP-CML patients who were randomly assigned to a fixed dose of radotinib 300 mg BID or 400 mg BID regardless of BW. The authors performed a logistic regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between daily Dose/BW and the probability of achieving MMR at 12 months as well as experiencing DLT by 12 months. Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank test) were utilized to compare the incidence of MMR and DLT, respectively, according to specific Dose/BW cut-offs. Results: Efficacy. Dose/BW of radotinib was negatively associated with the rate of MMR when controlled for gender (p = 0.033). That is, increasing Dose/BW rather decreased the likelihood of achieving MMR. More specifically, patients who received ≥13 mg/kg/d showed a significantly lower rate of MMR at 12 months (35%) than those who received <13 mg/kg/d (56%) (p = 0.045). Safety. Dose/BW of radotinib was positively associated with the rate of DLT (p = 0.003). A Dose/BW cut-off 13 mg/kg/d yielded the largest difference in the rate of DLT, such that the patients who received ≥13 mg/kg/d had a substantially higher rate of DLT (91%) than those who received <13 mg/kg/d (57%) (p <0.001). The time at which 50% of patients experienced their first DLT was also much earlier in the ≥13 mg/kg/d group (83 days) than in the <13 mg/kg/d group (194 days) (p <0.001). Conclusion: Dose adjustment of radotinib based on BW is warranted so as not to exceed 13 mg/kg/d. Therefore, a two-tier weight-based dosing regimen was developed: radotinib 300 mg BID for patients who weigh 60 kg or less, and 400 mg BID for patients who weigh more than 60 kg. A prospective clinical trial would be needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of this new dosing regimen. Disclosures Noh: Il-Yang Pharmaceutical: Research Funding. Jung:Il-Yang Pharmaceutical: Research Funding. Park:Il-Yang Pharmaceutical: Employment. Jo:Il-Yang Pharmaceutical: Employment. Shin:Il-Yang Pharmaceutical: Employment. Kim:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ILYANG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lee:Il-Yang Pharmaceutical: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

A Phase 3 Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Combined with Melphalan and Prednisone In Patients ≥ 65 Years with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM): Continuous Use of Lenalidomide Vs Fixed-Duration Regimens

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.622.622 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 622-622 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Antonio Palumbo ◽

Michel Delforge ◽

John Catalano ◽

Roman Hajek ◽

Martin Kropff ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Fixed Duration ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Risk Of Progression ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 622 Background: Lenalidomide is an oral IMiD® compound with a dual mechanism of action, namely tumoricidal and immunomodulatory activity, and has proven efficacy in patients with MM. The current study (MM-015) is a prospective, randomized phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuous lenalidomide treatment (MPR-R: melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance) vs fixed-duration regimens of melphalan and prednisone (MP) or melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide (MPR) in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Methods: 459 patients aged ≥ 65 years with NDMM, stratified by age and International Staging System (ISS) stage were randomized to receive MPR-R, MPR, or MP. During double-blind treatment, patients received melphalan 0.18 mg/kg (D1-4), prednisone 2 mg/kg (D1-4), with or without lenalidomide 10 mg/day (D1-21) for nine 28-day cycles. Following 9 cycles of MPR, patients received maintenance lenalidomide (10 mg/day; D1-21) or placebo until progression; MP patients received placebo until progression. Patients with progressive disease (PD) could enroll in the open-label extension phase (OLEP) and receive lenalidomide at 25 mg/day (D1-21) with or without dexamethasone at 40 mg/day (D1-4, 9–12, and 17–20). The primary comparison for this trial was MPR-R vs MP. Updated data from a pre-planned interim analysis at 70% of events (median follow-up of 21 months) are presented. Results: MPR-R compared with MP resulted in a higher overall response rate (ORR; 77% vs 50%, P <.001) as well as higher rates of complete response (16% vs 4%, P < .001) and very good partial response (VGPR) or better (32% vs 12%, P < .001). Responses were more rapid in patients receiving MPR-R compared with MP (median 2 vs 3 months, P < .001), and improved over time. Overall, MPR-R reduced the risk of disease progression by 58% compared with MP (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.423, P < .001) with a higher 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate (55% vs 16%). PFS was extended in patients receiving continuous lenalidomide therapy vs fixed-duration MP regardless of gender, ISS stage (stage I/II vs III), kidney function (creatinine clearance ≥ 60 vs < 60 mL/min), or baseline β2-microglobulin (≤ 5.5 vs > 5.5 mg/L). A landmark analysis comparing MPR-R and MPR initiated at the beginning of cycle 10 demonstrated that maintenance lenalidomide resulted in a 69% reduced risk of progression compared with placebo (HR = 0.314, P < .001). In addition, regardless of induction response (≥ VGPR or PR), patients who received maintenance lenalidomide had longer PFS compared with placebo. Importantly, patients relapsing during MPR-R had similar second-line treatment duration (median 55 weeks) compared with those relapsing while on placebo following MPR or MP (median 68 and 54 weeks, respectively). Additionally, PD rates during the OLEP were similar across all treatments (13% for each). Thus, outcomes of patients who relapse following continuous lenalidomide are similar to those who relapse following fixed-duration regimens, suggesting maintenance lenalidomide is not associated with more aggressive relapse. Follow-up remains too short to identify significant overall survival differences between the 3 groups. MPR-R had a manageable safety profile with minimal cumulative toxicities. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) for patients treated with MPR-R and MP were 20% and 8%, respectively. Grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia occurred in 71%, 38%, and 24% of patients receiving MPR-R and 30%, 14%, and 17% of those receiving MP; no grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy was observed. Importantly, maintenance lenalidomide was as well tolerated as placebo, with few grade 3/4 AEs. During maintenance, low rates of thrombocytopenia (3% vs 2%, respectively), neutropenia (2% vs 0%), deep vein thrombosis (1% vs 0%), and fatigue (1% vs 0%) were observed. Conclusions: MPR-R achieved a higher ORR, as well as better quality and more rapid responses vs MP. Furthermore, MPR-R compared with fixed-duration regimens of MP and MPR resulted in an unprecedented reduction in the risk of progression with a manageable safety profile, and similar rates of PD in subsequent OLEP treatment. These data suggest that continuous lenalidomide therapy with MPR-R is superior to regimens of limited duration by providing sustained disease control in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures: Palumbo: 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; Pharmion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide is not approved for first line use in multiple myeloma. Delforge:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ortho-Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Catalano:Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel Grants. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Kropff:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Petrucci:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Yu:Celgene: Employment. Herbein:Celgene: Employment. Mei:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text