Efficacy Outcomes of Isatuximab with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone Are Comparable to (ICARIA-MM) Trial Data: Initial Results of a UK-Wide Real-World Study of Relapsed Myeloma Patients

Abstract Objective: Real-world data on the efficacy and tolerability of isatuximab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex) in relapsed/refractory myeloma (RRMM) patients are limited. In this UK-wide retrospective study, IsaPomDex outcomes were evaluated across 24 UK cancer centres. Methods: The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Patients were censored at the end of their follow up period, if they did not experience a PFS or OS event. A 3-month landmark analysis was conducted to assess the influence of pomalidomide and dexamethasone dose intensity, and of myeloma response on survival outcomes Results: In a total cohort of 107 patients, median follow up (IQR) was 3.7 months (0.5-12.4 months), median age (IQR) was 69 years (61-77); median (IQR) Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) score was 3 (2-4), 61.7 % had CCI <4 and 80.4% had PS<2. Renal presentation (e-GFR<60 ml/min) in the total cohort was 43%; 28 patients had ISS III staging (from 85 patients with known data), 15 patients had high risk cytogenetics (from 62 patients with known data). Median (range) number of prior therapies was 3 (2-5). Prior therapies included transplant (60.7%), alkylator (99.1%), PI (99.1%), IMiD (100%), anti-CD38 (4.7%) and HDACi (3.7%). Median (IQR) number of IsaPomDex cycles administered was 4 (2-8). ORR in the total cohort was 61.7% with responses categorised as: ≥VGPR: 25.2%, PR: 36.5%, SD: 18.7%, PD: 14% and unknown: 5.6%. Median time (IQR) to objective response (≥PR) was 2.67 months (1.6-4.6). Median PFS in the total cohort was 10.1 months (95% CI: 6.0-12.5). PFS survival probability at 3 months was 82.4% (95% CI: 72.7-88.9). Pomalidomide and dexamethasone doses were reduced in 40.2% and 41.1% of patients, respectively. Treatment is ongoing in 68.2% of patients and was discontinued in 31.8%. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were: death of any cause (14.9%), PD (14.9%) and toxicity (1.9%). Patients in the older subgroup and those with a higher co-morbidity burden achieved statistically insignificant differences in ORR: by age (<75: vs. ≥75 years, p=0.448), and by co-morbidities (CCI <4 vs. ≥ 4, p=0.635). ORR was not statistically lower in the dose-attenuated cohort (full dose vs. Pom OR Dex ↓, Pearson chi2 p=0.322; full dose vs. Pom AND Dex ↓, Pearson chi2 p=0.214). There was no statistical difference in median PFS by age (<65 years: 10.2 vs. 65-74: not reached (NR) vs. ≥75: 7.9 months, log-rank p=0.323), by co-morbidity score (<4: 9.0 months vs. ≥4: NR, log-rank p=0.6339), or by e-GFR renal impairment (≥60: 11.2 vs. <60: 7.9 months, log-rank p=0.1259). The 3-month land-mark analysis, used to reduce the risk of survivorship bias, demonstrated no statistical difference in PFS according to dose intensity of pomalidomide (<4mg vs. 4mg, log-rank p=0.1162) or dexamethasone (<100% vs. 100%, log-rank p=0.2421), but there was a statistically improved PFS in those who achieved ≥PR response (log-rank p= 0.0005). Median OS for the total cohort was not reached (95% CI: 8.4-not estimable). OS survival probability at 3 months was 87.2% (95% CI: 78.5-92.6%) and at 6 months 75.1% (95% CI: 62.9-83.8%). Median OS was not reached for any of the age subgroups (<65: NR vs. 65-74: NR vs. ≥75: NR, log-rank p=0.3422), and for any co-morbidity subgroups (<4: NR vs. ≥4: NR, log-rank p=0.4654). Any grade AEs was experienced by 87.9% of patients. The most common (>10%) any grade AEs were neutropenia (65.4%), thrombocytopenia (23.4%), infections (23.4%), anaemia (15.9%), and fatigue (10.3%). The total number of all ≥G3 AEs was 119; experienced by a total of 67 patients (62.6%). The most common (>10%) ≥G3 AEs were: neutropenia (45.8%), infections (18.7%) and thrombocytopenia (14%). The total number of all ≥G3 haematological AEs was 80; experienced by 57 patients (53.2%). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe IsaPomDex outcomes in the real-world. It demonstrated encouraging ORR and PFS outcomes in RRMM in the routine care setting, and these were comparable to ICARIA-MM trial data. However, close monitoring and dose adjustments are required to manage toxicities. Longer follow up of patients in this cohort will enable a further assessment of these initial outcomes. Disclosures Djebbari: Takeda: Other: Support with virtual ASH attendance (2020); Sanofi: Other: Honoraria for an education evening for haematologists about isatuximab. Ramasamy: GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Nilotinib in Imatinib-Resistant or -Intolerant Patients (pts) with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP): 48-Month Follow-up Results of a Phase 2 Study,

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3770.3770 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3770-3770 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Philipp D. le Coutre ◽

Francis J. Giles ◽

Javier Pinilla-Ibarz ◽

Richard A. Larson ◽

Norbert Gattermann ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Lung Neoplasm ◽

Chronic Phase ◽

Dose Intensity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Imatinib Resistance ◽

Imatinib Resistant ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Abstract 3770 Background: Nilotinib is a selective and potent BCR-ABL TKI approved for the treatment of pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP, and for pts with CML-CP or CML-AP resistant to or intolerant of imatinib. Here, we present the 48-mo follow-up data from the 2101 trial for pts with imatinib resistance or intolerance. Methods: Pts were treated with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily (BID). Key endpoints included PFS (defined as progression to AP/BC or discontinuation due to disease progression as assessed by investigator or death from any cause) and OS (includes deaths during treatment or follow-up after discontinuation). Results: 321 pts were enrolled (70% imatinib resistant; 30% imatinib intolerant with resistance). At baseline (BL), 36% of pts were in CHR. At the time of data cutoff, 224/321 pts (70%) discontinued nilotinib therapy (Table), and 31% of all pts had at least 48 mo of treatment. The median nilotinib dose intensity was 789 mg/day (range, 151–1110) and 62% of pts received ≥ 400 mg BID nilotinib as their last dose available. Pts with BL CHR had a significantly higher PFS rate at 48 mo vs pts without BL CHR (71% vs 49%, respectively; P =.001). Only 11 (3%) pts progressed to advanced disease (AP/BC) during study. Estimated 48-mo OS rate was 78% (95% CI 74%-83%). Among resistant pts, those without BL mutations (n = 92) had a significantly higher OS rate at 48 mo vs pts with sensitive mutations at BL (n = 78) (84% vs 74%, respectively, P =.029); however, there was no significant difference in OS among pts with sensitive and insensitive mutations (Y253H, E255K/V or F359C/V, n = 27) at BL (74% vs 71%, respectively, P =.804). No new safety signals were observed, and few additional AEs were reported since 24 mo follow-up (Table). Biochemical lab abnormalities were generally mild, transient, and easily managed; grade 3/4 lipase elevation (19%), hypophosphatemia (18%), and hyperglycemia (13%) were most common. Reports of any-grade pleural effusions remained low (1%), and no new cases were reported with longer follow-up. No new cases of QTcF >500 ms and 3 new cases of QTcF increases > 60 ms from BL were reported. Nine pts died during treatment or within 28 days of discontinuation: 8 deaths were previously reported and occurred in the first 24 mo of follow-up; 1 additional death due to lung neoplasm occurred between 24 and 48 mo (35 mo). Conclusions: With longer follow up, nilotinib continues to be effective and well tolerated in pts with Ph+ CML-CP resistant to or intolerant of imatinib therapy. Nilotinib prevented progression to AP/BC in the majority of pts on treatment and was associated with high OS rates. No cumulative toxicity was observed. Data demonstrating the higher rate of PFS in pts who entered the study with a BL CHR suggest that switching pts to nilotinib prior to hematologic failure on imatinib, and according to current treatment guidelines, may maximize the efficacy of nilotinib therapy. Disclosures: le Coutre: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria. Giles:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Pinilla-Ibarz:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gattermann:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ottmann:Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hochhaus:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Radich:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martinelli:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Branford:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding. Müller:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shou:Novartis: Employment. Novick:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fan:Novartis: Employment. Cortes:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding. Baccarani:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Real-World Outcomes for Standard-of-Care Treatments in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-146250 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4075-4075

Author(s):

Michel Delforge ◽

Marie-Christiane Vekemans ◽

Sébastien Anguille ◽

Julien Depaus ◽

Nathalie Meuleman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Retrospective Chart Review ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Real World Data ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Treatment Regimens

Abstract Background: With the advent of immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and, more recently, anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved considerably. Unfortunately, even with these 3 major MM drug classes, most patients ultimately relapse and require further therapy. There remains an incomplete understanding of how patients who have received extensive therapy and with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are treated in routine clinical practice, as no standard-of-care exists for these patients, and what the outcomes are in this real-world setting. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients with triple-class (IMiD, PI and anti-CD38 mAb) and triple-line exposed RRMM using real-world data from patients in Belgium. Methods: A multicenter, observational study, involving 7 non-academic and academic Belgian centers, was conducted based on a retrospective chart review of adult RRMM patients who started subsequent treatment from March 2017 through May 2021 after having received ≥3 lines of therapy including at least an IMiD, a PI, and anti-CD38-directed therapy (tri-exposed). Data were captured in an electronic case report form (Castor EDC). Patients with an ECOG performance status of ≥2, who received prior CAR-T treatment or prior BCMA-targeted therapy, or with a known active or prior history of CNS involvement (or with clinical signs thereof), were excluded. All treatment lines initiated after becoming eligible were used in the analysis. Specifically, all treatment lines for patients meeting the eligibility criteria more than once in their entire follow-up were included as separate observations, with date of treatment initiation as specific baseline for each treatment line. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to explore the prognostic value with Overall Survival (OS), Progression Free Survival (PFS), and Time to Next Therapy (TTNT). Results: A total of 112 patients with 237 eligible treatment lines were included in the analysis; median follow-up was 16.6 months. In 45% of the initiated treatment lines, patients were refractory to 4 or 5 therapies, 62% had received ≥5 prior lines, 22% had extramedullary disease and in 48% of observations the time to progression in prior line was shorter than 4 months. After patients became tri-exposed, more than 50 unique treatment regimens were initiated, with the following being the most common: carfilzomib + dexamethasone (14%), pomalidomide + dexamethasone + chemotherapy (8%), and ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (6%). Additionally, 4% of included observations were exposed to anti-BCMA agents. Overall, the following treatment classes were the most frequently started: PI only (19%), PI + IMiD combinations (17%), and regimens including anti-CD38 antibodies (15%). Median OS was 9.79 months [95% CI: 7.79; 12.22], median PFS was 3.42 months [95% CI: 2.79; 4.27], median TTNT was 3.61 months [95% CI: 3.09; 4.57]. Higher refractory status (p<0.001), being male (p=0.001), older age (p<0.001), shorter duration of prior lines (p<0.001), shorter time to progression in prior line (p=0.025), and higher LDH levels (p<0.002) were prognostic for worse outcomes for both OS (Figure 1) and PFS. Conclusions: This retrospective chart review of patients with tri-exposed RRMM in Belgium shows that real-world outcomes in terms of OS, PFS and TTNT are poor for these patients, with a median OS of <10 months. A wide variety of treatment regimens used in clinical practice confirm the absence of a clear standard-of-care in this patient population. The literature also confirms that these poor outcomes observed in Belgium, for this subset of MM patients, are similar in other countries. These real-world data highlight the high unmet medical need in this patient population and critical need for new and effective treatment options. MD and MCV contributed equally to this work. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Delforge: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Vekemans: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS-Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceutica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Depaus: Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Meuleman: iTeos Therapeutics: Consultancy. Strens: Realidad bvba: Consultancy. Van Hoorenbeeck: Janssen: Current Employment. Moorkens: Janssen-Cilag: Current Employment. Diels: Janssen: Current Employment. Ghilotti: Janssen-Cilag SpA, Cologno Monzese, Italy: Current Employment. Dalhuisen: Janssen: Current Employment. Vandervennet: Janssen: Current Employment.

Download Full-text

Real-World Outcomes for Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) Treated with Tisagenlecleucel: Update from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-146393 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 428-428

Author(s):

Samuel John ◽

Michael A. Pulsipher ◽

Amy Moskop ◽

Zhen-Huan Hu ◽

Christine L. Phillips ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

T Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Ad Hoc ◽

Age Groups ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Advisory Boards

Abstract Background: Tisagenlecleucel is an autologous CD19-directed T-cell immunotherapy indicated in the USA for treatment of patients up to 25 years (y) of age with B-cell ALL that is refractory or in second or later relapse. Overall response rate was 82% with 24 months' (mo) follow-up in the registrational ELIANA trial [Grupp et al. Blood 2018]; pooled data from ELIANA and ENSIGN revealed similar outcomes upon stratification by age (<18y and ≥18y) [Rives et al. HemaSphere 2018]. Early real-world data for tisagenlecleucel from the CIBMTR registry reported similar efficacy to ELIANA with no new safety signals [Pasquini et al. Blood Adv 2020]. Outcomes are reported here for patients who received tisagenlecleucel in the real-world setting, stratified by age (<18y and ≥18y). Methods: This noninterventional prospective study used data from the CIBMTR registry and included patients aged ≤25y with R/R ALL. Eligible patients received commercial tisagenlecleucel after August 30, 2017, in the USA or Canada. Age-specific analyses were conducted in patients aged <18y and ≥18y at the time of infusion. Efficacy was assessed in patients with ≥12mo follow-up at each reporting center and included best overall response (BOR) of complete remission (CR), duration of response (DOR), event-free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Safety was evaluated in all patients who completed the first (100-day) assessment. Adverse events (AEs) of interest - including cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity - were monitored throughout the reporting period. CRS and neurotoxicity were graded using the ASTCT criteria. Results: As of October 30, 2020, data from 451 patients were collected, all of whom received tisagenlecleucel. The median time from receipt of leukapheresis product at the manufacturing site to shipment was 27 days (interquartile range: 25-34). Patients aged ≥18y appeared to have greater disease burden at baseline than those aged <18y, indicated by lower rates of morphologic CR and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity prior to infusion. Older patients were also more heavily pre-treated before infusion. All other patient characteristics at baseline were comparable between the two groups (Table 1). In the efficacy set (median follow-up 21.5mo; range 11.9-37.2; N=322), BOR of CR was 87.3% (95% CI 83.1-90.7); MRD status was available for 150 patients, of whom 98.7% were MRD negative. Median DOR was 23.9mo (95% CI 12.3-not estimable [NE]), median EFS was 14.0mo (9.8-24.8) and median RFS was 23.9mo (13.0-NE); 12mo EFS and RFS were 54.3% and 62.3%, respectively. For OS, the median was not reached. Efficacy outcomes were generally similar across age groups (Table 1). In the safety set (median follow-up 20.0mo; range 2.6-37.2; N=400), most AEs of interest occurred within 100 days of infusion. Any-grade CRS was observed in 58.0% of patients; Grade ≥3 in 17.8%. Treatment for CRS included tocilizumab (n=113; 28.3% of all patients) and corticosteroids (n=31; 7.8%). Neurotoxicity was observed in 27.3% of patients; Grade ≥3 in 10.0%. Treatment for neurotoxicity included tocilizumab (n=17; 4.3% of all patients) and corticosteroids (n=28; 7.0%). During the reporting period, 82 (20.5%) patients died; the most common cause of death was recurrence/persistence/progression of primary disease. CRS and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell-related encephalopathy syndrome were the primary cause of death in 2 patients and 1 patient, respectively. Overall, safety data were similar across age groups, although more patients aged ≥18y experienced any-grade CRS or neurotoxicity and were subsequently treated (Table 1). Conclusions: Updated registry data for pediatric and young adult patients with R/R ALL treated with tisagenlecleucel revealed that patients aged ≥18y had a greater disease burden and were more heavily pre-treated at baseline than patients aged <18y. The overall efficacy and safety profiles of commercial tisagenlecleucel reflected those observed in the clinical trial setting [Grupp et al. Blood 2018; Rives et al. HemaSphere 2018] and were broadly consistent across age groups. Some important differences between the <18y and ≥18y groups were identified, which may point to challenges in timely identification and/or referral of older patients for CAR-T cell therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pulsipher: Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Phillips: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Margossian: Cue Biopharma, Inc.: Current Employment; Novartis: Other: Ad hoc Advisory Boards. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; Novartis: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; Iovance: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): Other: Ad hoc advisory boards. Martin: Novartis: Other: Local PI for clinical trial; Bluebird Bio: Other: Local PI for clinical trial. Rouce: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tessa Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Tiwari: Novartis Healthcare private limited: Current Employment. Redondo: Novartis: Current Employment. Willert: Novartis: Current Employment. Agarwal: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grupp: Novartis, Roche, GSK, Humanigen, CBMG, Eureka, and Janssen/JnJ: Consultancy; Novartis, Kite, Vertex, and Servier: Research Funding; Novartis, Adaptimmune, TCR2, Cellectis, Juno, Vertex, Allogene and Cabaletta: Other: Study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Steering committee, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Real World Evidence of Prescription Patterns and Effect of Oxbryta (voxelotor) for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-143434 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 31-32

Author(s):

Nirmish Shah ◽

Ahmar Urooj Zaidi ◽

Michael U. Callaghan ◽

Darla Liles ◽

Clarissa E. Johnson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Sickle Cell ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Disease ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Real World Evidence ◽

Disease Modifying

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a chronic illness characterized by anemia, recurrent severe pain and recurrent organ damage, affecting approximately 100,000 persons in the United States. Prior to November 2019, FDA approved SCD disease-modifying treatments included only hydroxyurea (HU) and L-glutamine. However, voxelotor (Oxbryta®) was recently approved under an accelerated approval based on the HOPE study for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with SCD 12 years of age and older. We aimed to provide real world evidence of the types of patients prescribed voxelotor and preliminary evidence of potential treatment effects. Methods: Patient records were reviewed from five medical centers with comprehensive sickle cell care. All patients prescribed voxelotor from Nov 25, 2019 to July 31, 2020 were included in our analysis. Data reviewed included: patient demographics, hydroxyurea use, as well as pre- and post- voxelotor changes on red cell transfusion number, vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) and hemoglobin (Hb) values. In addition, voxelotor dosage changes, side effects, and patients perception on impact on their health were recorded. Descriptive and summary statistics were used to provide results. Results: We reviewed data from 60 patients (18 pediatric and 42 adult), across the five centers, who were prescribed voxelotor. Mean age was 33 (SD 13.8) years old with 63% female patients. All patients were African-American/Black and 96% were HbSS (2% Hb SC and 2% HbSOArab). Eighty (80)% were on hydroxyurea, 20% were on chronic transfusions, and 10% were on erythropoietin stimulating agents when prescribed voxelotor. Mean baseline hemoglobin during the 3 months prior to initiation was 7.38 g/dL (SD 1.46) with all patients started at the recommended dose of 1500mg. Annualized VOC events for the year prior to starting voxelotor was 0.62 (SD) or 7.44 VOCs per year. Across all sites, 31 patients were prescribed voxelotor but had either not initiated drug, not returned for follow up labs at time of analysis, or refused to take drug once approved (n=1). Nine patients had only 1 month of follow labs to review and an additional 18 patients with 3 months of follow up labs. These 27 patients were followed for an average of 6.0 months (SD 7.7) on treatment with 4 patients (15%) requiring dose adjustment to 1000mg. Dose adjustments were for side effects including abdominal pain, diarrhea, loose stools and nausea/vomiting. One patient had dosing changed from daily to three times a day. Average hemoglobin during steady state after 1 and 3 months of treatment were 8.6 g/dL (SD 1.8) and 8.0 g/dL (SD 1.8), respectively. In addition, 52% increased by 1g/dL at 1 month (n=21) and 44% increased by 1g/dL at 3 months (n=18). The mean maximum hemoglobin obtained during the 3-month period following initiation of voxelotor was 8.9 (SD 2.1) g/dL. During follow up visits, several patients reported 'more energy' and improvement in 'morning achiness' and 'quality of life', while a few patients noted no change in stamina or well-being. Three patients (5%) had drug discontinued due to becoming pregnant, unexplained elevation of liver enzymes, and due to excessive abdominal pain and nausea. Annualized VOC rates after voxelotor initiation were numerically decreased, although limited by short follow up. Conclusion: We present real world evidence of prescribing patterns and initial outcomes from the use of newly approved voxelotor. We found the majority of patients prescribed voxelotor were the HbSS genotype, on hydroxyurea, and with a mean baseline Hb <7.5 g/dL, indicating an initial focus on more anemic patients. Interestingly, one-fifth of the prescribed patients where on chronic transfusions. Consistent with the HOPE trial, the average Hb levels was found to have increased at 1 month and 3-month follow up. Our preliminary results support an overall increase in hemoglobin in patients treated with voxelotor and we aim to continue following patients over a longer follow up period. This provides important real-world evidence for this newly approved disease-modifying therapy for SCD. Disclosures Shah: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy. Zaidi:Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Emmaus Life Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Imara: Consultancy, Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cyclerion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Callaghan:Grifols: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Site Investigator/sub-I Clinical Trial, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Site Investigator/sub-I Clinical Trial, Research Funding; Sancillio: Other; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; NovoNordisk: Other, Speakers Bureau; Biomarin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Site Investigator/sub-I Clinical Trial, Speakers Bureau; Global Blood Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Speakers Bureau; Alnylum: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spark: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hema Biologics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Castro:Global Blood Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; FORMA Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlycoMimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Treatment-Free Remissions in Newly Diagnosed CP CML Patients Treated with the Combination of Nilotinib + Pegylated Interferon Alpha 2a Versus Nilotinib Alone in the National Phase III Petals Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-146412 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2553-2553

Author(s):

Franck E. Nicolini ◽

Gabriel Etienne ◽

Francoise Huguet ◽

Agnès Guerci-Bresler ◽

Aude Charbonnier ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

Statistical Difference ◽

Univariate Analysis ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Obstructive Sleep

Abstract Aims: Combining 2GTKI+pegylated IFN-a (Peg-IFN) represents an attractive approach for first-line treatment of CP CML, while providing somewhat light additional AEs, it induces high rates of deep molecular responses. We evaluated nilotinib (NIL) alone versus NIL+Peg-IFN in newly diagnosed CP-CML patients (pts) in a randomised phase III trial (PETALs, EudraCT 2013-004974-82) and analysed here the proportion of patients reaching Treatment-Free Remission (TFR) and outcome. Methods: Newly diagnosed CP CML pts ≤65 years, without vascular history were randomized 1:1 to get NIL 300 mg BID alone [M0 to M72 (unless TFR), arm A] vs Peg-IFN alone for 30 days (M-1→M0) 30 mg/wk, prior to NIL 300 mg BID + Peg-IFN 30 mg/wk 2 wks, upgraded to 45 mg/wk thereafter, for up to 2 y (M0 to M24, arm B) followed by NIL alone until M72 unless TFR. The primary endpoint was the rate of MR4.5 by M12, and after amendment, the trial was extended to 72 months follow-up in order to add, as a secondary endpoint, the TFR rate in pts reaching MR4.5 ≥2 y. The trigger for treatment resumption was loss of MMR. All molecular assessments were centralised until M36, and in case of TFR, MR4.5 was centrally confirmed at M0 TFR, and further molecular follow-up was then performed locally. All molecular quantifications are expressed as BCR-ABL1/ABL1 (IS) in % with ≥32,000 copies of ABL1 as control in the central lab and in the local labs all involved to the pluri-annual French external quality controls. Results are analysed in intention-to-treat. Results: As previously reported, 200 pts were randomized (99 in A, 101 in B), 130 M and 35 F in each arm, median age of 46 (18-66) y. The median follow-up (FU) since diagnosis is now 47.5 (33.77-62.39) Mo. and the median FU since discontinuation is 9.86 (5.8-23) Mo. in arm A and 15.57 (12.62-22.77) Mo. in arm B. Sokal and ELTS scores were high in 25% and 2.5%, intermediate in 33% and 16.5% and low in 42% and 81% pts respectively, equally balanced. All pts harboured a "Major" BCR transcript. We have previously shown that by M12, the rate of MR4.5 was 15.9% vs 21.5% (primary endpoint met, p=0.049) and that the overall cumulative incidence of MR4.5 was somewhat superior in arm B (54.6 [43.7-65.5] %) vs A (44 [31.5-54] %), p=0.05. Two pts died, one from myeloid blast crisis before TFR (arm A), one from a solid tumour (arm A). Overall, 40 pts (20%) reached the TFR criteria, 21 in arm A with a median FU of 9.86 (5.8-23) Mo. and 19 in arm B with a median FU since Nilo cessation of 15.57 (12.62-22.77) Mo, partly related to slightly different time for obtaining sustained MR4.5 in favour of arm B (16 vs 13 Mo.). For these 40 pts reaching TFR criteria, there was no statistical difference in terms of age at diagnosis and age at TFR, gender, Sokal, ELTS, FU since diagnosis, undetectability at cessation, BCR-ABL1 levels at 3 Mo. after cessation between the 2 arms. The survival without loss of MMR after cessation is illustrated in Figure 1. It looks superior in arm B over arm A, but did not reach statistical difference (p=0.445), but the FU is very short after cessation yet, especially in arm A. Once NIL was resumed in the pts that failed TFR, all pts recovered MMR within 6 Mo., with no difference between arms (p=1.00). In univariate analysis, we did not identify significant factor impacting on the TFR success (age at cessation, sex, undetectability at cessation, Sokal, ELTS) except the BCR-ABL1 value at M3-TFR (undetectable versus detectable, HR 7.15 [2.06-24.75], p=0.002), and the duration of MR4.5 before discontinuation (HR 1.11 [1.03-1.19], p=0.004). During this TFR phase 7 SAEs were reported in arm A (2 pregnancies, 1 obstructive sleep apnea, 1 fever episode, 1 carotid stenosis and 1 femoral stenosis in the same patient at 2 Mo. after cessation, 1 lung carcinoid tumor) and 2 in arm B (1 persistent atrial fibrillation, 1 cholecystectomy). Conclusions: The combination of NIL + Peg-IFN induces higher MR4.5 rates by M36 in newly diagnosed CP CML pts that may translate in higher successful TFR rates, however a longer follow-up is needed to see consistent significant differences. Updated data will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nicolini: Kartos Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding; Incyte Biosciences: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sun Pharma Ltd.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria. Etienne: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Huguet: Novartis: Other: Advisor; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisor; Celgene: Other: Advisor; BMS: Other: Advisor; Amgen: Other: Advisor; Pfizer: Other: Advisor. Guerci-Bresler: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Charbonnier: Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Rousselot: Incyte, Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Deconinck: Stemline Therapetutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imunogen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel Grants, Research Funding; Abbevie: Research Funding. Rea: Pfizer: 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; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Comparative Effectiveness of Triplets Containing Bortezomib (V), Carfilzomib (K), or Ixazomib (I) Combined with a Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Backbone (Rd) in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) in Routine Care in the United States (US)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-121658 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1827-1827

Author(s):

Ajai Chari ◽

Dorothy Romanus ◽

Aditya Raju ◽

Lauren Cain ◽

Marlo Blazer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Comparative Effectiveness ◽

Research Funding ◽

Routine Care ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Us ◽

Frailty Score

BACKGROUND: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) combined with an Rd backbone constitute commonly used regimens in RRMM in the US. Lack of data from head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy of these PI-Rd triplets and the extent to which efficacy translates to benefit in routine care highlight the need for real-world evidence. We conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis of time to next therapy (TTNT) of these PI-Rd triplet combinations in a real-world representative cohort of RRMM patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, RRMM patients who initiated an index regimen with IRd, KRd, or VRd in ≥2nd line of therapy (LOT 2+) were followed between 1/2014-9/2018 in Optum's deidentified national electronic health records database. This database captures information on all patients treated by >140,000 providers across 50 states in the US. It is representative of the US general population. Baseline data included: a modified frailty score utilizing age and Charlson Comorbidity Index1, ECOG performance status, CRAB symptoms, ISS stage, cytogenetic risk (high: del[17p], t[4;14], or t[14;16]), history of: cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy, stem-cell transplant, and uncontrolled hypertension, prior PI and/or IMID exposure and refractory status, time from diagnosis to start of index LOT, time from start of frontline therapy to start of LOT 2, and treatment-free interval prior to index LOT. Duration of therapy (DOT) and TTNT were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using stratified (by LOT) ± baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models with a repeated measures analysis of pt-LOTs with robust sandwich estimators to account for inclusion of patients in multiple LOTs. The main analysis was repeated in subgroups a priori defined by frailty score, cytogenetic risk, prior PI and/or IMID exposure and LOT. Observations were censored at time of loss to follow up/end of study period (9/30/2018). RESULTS: Overall, 650 patients with 733 pt-LOTs (IRd, n=168; KRd, n=208; VRd, n=357) were included; 20% of the RRMM patients in this cohort were treated at academic centers. In the I-/K-/V-Rd groups, respectively, median age was 71/65/71 years and 42/22/38% patients were ≥75 years old; 39/55/46% and 28/14/29% patients had a modified frailty score of intermediate and frail, respectively; 71/88/80% had a symptomatic relapse with at least 1 CRAB symptom; 20/28/13% patients had high cytogenetic risk; 69/72/90% patients were treated in 2-3 LOT, and 63/70/32% patients had prior exposure to a PI+IMID (P<0.05 for all). The median follow-up was 14.4 months. Unadjusted median DOT of index LOT was 12.3/7.2/10.0 months, with a lower risk of discontinuation of the oral PI component for I in comparison to both K and V (HR[I vs K] of 0.66 and HR[I vs V] of 0.68) and R component in the IRd vs KRd and VRd groups (HR[I vs K] of 0.64 and HR[I vs V] of 0.75) (P<0.05 for all). Unadjusted median TTNT was 12.7/8.6/14.2 months for I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2; with HR for TTNT of 0.76 (IRd vs KRd; P<0.05); 1.01 (IRd vs VRd; P=0.96); 1.33 (KRd vs VRd; P<0.05). The adjusted HRs for TTNT I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2 were 0.82 (IRd vs KRd); 0.93 (IRd vs VRd); 1.13 (KRd vs VRd; P>0.05 for all), and were comparable between all 3 groups. A significant TTNT benefit for IRd vs KRd was observed among patients with high cytogenetic risk (HR: 0.47) and with intermediate frailtymodified score (HR: 0.60; P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world representative RRMM cohort, in unadjusted analyses, the IRd group had a longer DOT of the PI and R components and a longer TTNT in comparison with KRd. After adjusting for baseline confounders to separate the treatment effect, the I/K/V-Rd triplet combinations were comparable in TTNT, but IRd was significantly better than KRd in patients with high-risk cytogenetics and with an intermediate frailty score. Residual confounding is always a potential limitation of any non-randomized study. Conversely, the results of randomized, clinical trials are limited in generalizability as 40-60% of patients are excluded due to inability to meet eligibility criteria. This is especially pertinent in an elderly RRMM population as demonstrated in the real-world effectiveness results in this study. Ref: 1. Palumbo, et al. Blood. 2015;125:2068-2074 Figure Disclosures Chari: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Romanus:Takeda: Employment. Raju:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda to complete this analyses., Research Funding; Xcenda, LLC: Employment. Cain:Takeda: Employment. Blazer:Xcenda: Employment; Takeda: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda for completion of this analysis, Research Funding. Farrelly:Xcenda: Employment; Takeda: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda for completion of this analysis, Research Funding. Stull:Takeda: Employment. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

An Ongoing, Observational Cohort Study in Multiple Myeloma (PREAMBLE): Preliminary Efficacy Analyses in Patients with 1 Line of Prior Therapy

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.2403.2403 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 2403-2403

Author(s):

Brian Durie ◽

David J Kuter ◽

Catherine Davis ◽

Teresa Zyczynski ◽

Hartmut Goldschmidt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Treatment Outcomes ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Hematologic Malignancy ◽

Research Assessment ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Prior Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable hematologic malignancy associated with high disease burden and relapse rates. In recent years, several treatment options for MM have become available that have improved patient outcomes. However, robust data on real-world treatment outcomes associated with these MM treatments are sparse. PREAMBLE (Prospective REsearch Assessment in Multiple myeloma: an oBservationaL Evaluation; NCT01838512) is an ongoing multinational observational study that aims to increase understanding of real-world clinical effectiveness of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and combination therapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Here, we present preliminary efficacy analyses on data from patients with 1 line of prior MM therapy both with and without prior transplantation experience. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of RRMM with 1 prior treatment and started treatment with an IMiD, PI, or IMiD+PI 90 days prior/30 days following study enrollment. Patient data were collected at each healthcare provider visit for a follow-up period of 3 years. Vital status was recorded every 6 months for all patients. Response rates (defined as minimal response or better) were assessed using cumulative incidence function, with progression as competing risk. Time in response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 855 treated patients, 367 (43%) had 1 prior line of therapy (median age 70 years, 56% male). In this group, 71 (19%) had refractory disease, with even distribution among International Staging System stages I, II, and III. Index therapy was IMiD (n=193, 53%), PI (n=148, 40%), or IMiD+PI (n=26, 7%). At data cut-off (April 2016), median (Q1-Q3) follow-up was 16.7 (9-27) months, and 225 (61%) patients were still on study; the most common reasons for discontinuation were death or entering into a randomized clinical trial. Discontinuation was attributed to death for 92 (25%) patients; 69 (75%) of these deaths were due to disease progression. Approximately one-third of patients (128/367; 35%) had prior transplantation experience: 5% of patients had 2 prior transplantations, 99% of transplantations were autologous, and 83% were received after frontline (first) therapy. In patients without transplantation experience (n=238), the response rate (95% CI) was 46% (39-53) at 6 months, 58% (50-65) at 12 months, and 60% (53-67) at 18 months, versus 43% (34-53), 60% (50-70), and 60% (50-70), respectively, in those with prior transplantation. Median time in response was 14.6 months in patients without prior transplantation versus 20.3 months in those with prior transplantation. In patients with and without prior transplantation, time in response was longer in patients who had received an IMiD as index therapy (Table). Median PFS was 11.5 months in patients without transplantation and 14.1 months in those with transplantation; PFS rates (with/without prior transplantation) was: 6 months, 71%/67%; 12 months, 56%/49%; 18 months, 41%/32%. OS rate at 12 months was 81% in patients without prior transplantation and 82% in those with prior transplantation. In patients (≥6 months on study) who responded within 6 months, OS rate (IMiD/PI cohorts) was: 6 months, 100%/100%; 12 months, 93%/91%; 18 months, 85%/78%. In patients (≥6 months on study) who progressed within 6 months, OS rate (IMiD/PI cohorts) was: 6 months, 100%/100%; 12 months, 84%/69%; 18 months, 56%/64%. Conclusions: In patients with MM and 1 line of prior therapy either with or without prior transplantation experience, approximately 45% achieved a response, with approximately 40% of these patients maintaining their response at 18 months. Regardless of index therapy type or prior transplantation experience, loss of response was observed over time, highlighting the continuing unmet medical need in RRMM. Collectively, these data exemplify the importance of novel therapies that have potential to provide durable responses and improve treatment outcomes for patients with RRMM. Further analyses exploring any impact of prior transplantation and type of frontline therapy on treatment outcomes with subsequent lines of therapy are ongoing, and will be included in the final presentation. Study support: Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). Medical writing assistance was provided by K Rees, of Caudex, funded by BMS. Disclosures Durie: Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Kuter:Amgen: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Shionogi: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; 3SBios: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Protalix: Research Funding; Rigel: Research Funding. Davis:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Zyczynski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: 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, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Popov:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Cella:Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Alexion, Inc., Astellas, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Evidera, Inc., Exelixis, Fiborgen, Genetech, Helsinn Therapeutics, Inc., Immunogen, Ipsen Pharma, Janssen, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck, Novartis, Onc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Facit.org: Other: President; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cook:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

How Median Follow-up Time Informs Survival Outcomes: Lessons from a Trial of Acute Myeloid Patients Treated with Venetoclax and Azacitidine

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126344 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5897-5897

Author(s):

Diana Abbott ◽

Andrew Hammes ◽

Jonathan A Gutman ◽

Daniel A Pollyea ◽

Clayton Smith

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Trial Data ◽

Time To Event ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

The Stability

Background: Follow-up time in clinical trials must leverage conflicting aims. To ensure patient safety, investigators often assess toxicity and efficacy endpoints at various times throughout a trial. Yet accurate analysis requires stable estimates of time-to-event outcomes, which can require longer follow-up than is observed in interim analyses. While median follow-up is routinely reported in clinical trials, the stability of time-to-event estimates and their relationship to follow-up times are rarely discussed. However, the potential follow-up of study participants who are censored in a clinical trial can impact time-to-event estimates (Betensky 2015). Methods: A clinical trial of venetoclax + azacitidine in 33 newly diagnosed older patients with AML was conducted at our institution and is described in detail elsewhere (Pollyea 2018). Trial data consisting of follow-up from January 2015 through February 2018 established promising results (overall response rate = 91%; median response duration, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were not yet reached). Due to ongoing interest in median time-to-event patient outcomes that were not reached and thus could not be reported at the time of publication, the data have been re-analyzed on repeated occasions as follow-up has continued, with OS of particular interest. Median follow-up was calculated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Median OS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier product limit estimates. Analysis of trial data has occurred at 6 different censoring time points: December 4, 2017; February 28, 2018; October 3, 2018; December 31, 2018; March 8, 2019; and May 20, 2019. Upper and lower limits of the Kaplan-Meier OS estimate were calculated to explore the stability of OS estimates over time (Betensky 2015). Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). Results: Median OS was not reached until analysis was conducted as of October 3, 2018. At this analysis the median OS (1130 days) exceeded the median follow-up time (867 days). This phenomenon also occurred for data censored on December 31, 2018, with the median OS (1130 days) also exceeding the median follow-up time (956 days). In the most recent two analyses of the data (March 8, 2019 and May 20, 2019), the median OS settled at a consistent value (880 days) that did not exceed the median follow-up times (1023 days and 1096 days, respectively). Exploration of the stability of OS estimates revealed that a single patient enrolled early in the study and died after 1130 days of follow-up skewed the median OS estimate upward. Conclusions: Interest in our clinical trial results motivated numerous follow-up analyses of our data. As such, we encountered a peculiar result in which median OS exceeded median follow-up. In investigating the stability of the OS K-M estimates, a single patient's study data was found to skew results in these instances. Removal of this patient's data in these instances (when the relationship between median follow-up and median OS suggest estimate instability) results in a median OS consistent with subsequent analyses at later censoring dates (880 days for the modified analysis). We therefore conclude that time-to-event estimate stability is informative and should be incorporated into survival analysis of clinical trial data. Disclosures Pollyea: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celyad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Diachii Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Real-World Effectiveness of Voxelotor for Treating Sickle Cell Disease in the US

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-140525 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 25-25

Author(s):

Ahmar Urooj Zaidi ◽

Thokozeni Lipato ◽

Ofelia A. Alvarez ◽

Alexander Lonshteyn ◽

Derek Weycker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Index Date ◽

Health Claims ◽

Transfusion Rate ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

The Us

Background: Until late 2019, few treatments had been approved by the FDA for treating sickle cell disease (SCD). Voxelotor (Oxbryta®) is a sickle hemoglobin-polymerization inhibitor approved by the FDA in November 2019 for treatment of SCD in adults and adolescents aged ≥12 years under an accelerated approval based on results of the pivotal HOPE study. In HOPE, voxelotor increased average hemoglobin (Hb) by 1.1 g/dL from baseline in patients with 1-10 vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) in the previous year and a Hb level between 5.5 and 10.5 g/dL who were not transfusion dependent. Of the participants on voxelotor 1500 mg, 51% had a Hb response >1.0 g/dL at week 24 (Vichinsky et al, NEJM 2019). This study sought to assess the real-world effectiveness of voxelotor based on data during the first 6 months post FDA approval. Methods: Data on medical and pharmacy claims for patients who were aged ≥12 years and receiving voxelotor from December 2019 to May 2020 were obtained from the Symphony Health claims dataset. For each patient, the date of the first voxelotor claim was defined as the "index date." Patients with at least 1 year's data prior to the index date were included in the analyses. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized descriptively. Standardized annualized rates of transfusions and VOCs per patient per year (PPPY) prior to and after voxelotor initiation were compared. A subset of patients in the Symphony Health claims dataset had Hb lab data available. Patients with at least 1 Hb result within 30 days prior to the index date and at least 1 Hb result after the index date were included for Hb analyses. For these patients, change in Hb and the percentage of patients achieving a >1 g/dL increase in Hb were summarized. Confidence intervals and P values for changes in outcomes were based on bootstrapping. Results: As of May 31, 2020, 1275 patients from the Symphony Health claims datasets were identified who received voxelotor (40% male, mean age 35.7 years). In the year prior to voxelotor initiation, 715 (56.1%) of these patients received hydroxyurea, 121 (9.5%) received L-glutamine, 166 (13.0%) received at least 1 transfusion, 17 (1.3%) were on chronic transfusion (≥8 transfusions per year), and 681 (53.4%) had 1 or more VOCs. Mean (SD) follow-up was 64.9 (40.7) days. Among 1275 patients, 175 and 52 patients had at least 1 Hb level measurement during the 1 year prior to and after voxelotor initiation, respectively. Among the subset of patients with their Hb level tested within 30 days prior to the index date and at least 1 Hb level after index date (n=22), the baseline average Hb level was 8.0 g/dL (SD 1.4, median 7.9 g/dL, range 5.0-11.8 g/dL). Mean increase in Hb from baseline was 1.1-1.3 g/dL (Table 1) depending on the approach used to calculate Hb levels after voxelotor initiation; 55% (95% CI 32%-77%) of patients achieved a Hb increase >1 g/dL after voxelotor initiation. Among all 1275 patients, mean (SD) overall transfusion rates declined from 0.45 (1.67) PPPY pre-index to 0.31 (1.88) post-index, a change of -0.14 PPPY (P=0.005). Among 169 patients who received at least 1 transfusion in the year prior to initiation of voxelotor, the transfusion rate dropped from 3.39 (3.34) to 1.75 (4.30) PPPY, a change of -1.64 PPPY (P<0.001). Among 17 patients receiving chronic transfusions, the transfusion rate dropped from 11.29 (3.12) to 6.74 (7.37) PPPY, a change of -4.56 PPPY (P=0.013) (Table 2). After voxelotor initiation, the annualized rates of VOC were numerically reduced from 3.86 (6.69) to 3.64 (8.54) (P=0.248). To address the potential bias from the relatively short follow-up duration, similar results of transfusion and VOC rates were observed among patients with at least 30 days of follow-up or when only events within 3 months prior to index date were considered. Conclusions: Based on the first 6 months' data after the approval of voxelotor in the US, in real-world practice, voxelotor increases Hb by at least 1 g/dL, consistent with the HOPE randomized controlled trial results. Evidence suggests that transfusion rates decreased after voxelotor initiation. A favorable downward trend in VOC rates was also observed. This real-world evidence provides additional support for the use of this novel therapy in the treatment of hemolytic anemia and its associated complications in the SCD population. Further evaluation with a larger sample size and longer follow-up will help to confirm these findings. Disclosures Zaidi: Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cyclerion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Imara: Consultancy, Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Emmaus Life Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria. Alvarez:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonshteyn:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weycker:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding. Pham:Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Delea:Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Policy Analysis Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Agodoa:Global Blood Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cong:Global Blood Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Real World Prospective Observational Multicenter Trial of Venetoclax-Based Therapy for Patients with AML Reveals Unique Patterns of Patient Selection and Treatment Utilization - Revive Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-147245 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1246-1246

Author(s):

Ofir Wolach ◽

Itai Levi ◽

David Lavie ◽

Jonathan Canaani ◽

Sigal Tavor ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Patient Selection ◽

Real World ◽

Research Funding ◽

Early Death ◽

Treatment Patterns ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Related Factors

Abstract Background: Venetoclax-based combinations were recently approved to treat patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Limited prospective 'real-world' data is available on treatment patterns of venetoclax-based therapy in routine clinical practice. We investigated patterns of patient selection, efficacy, toxicity, patient related outcome and post-remission management in a nationwide multicenter prospective observational trial. Methods: Newly diagnosed pts with AML were enrolled at the time of venetoclax-based therapy initiation from 10 medical centers in Israel. Demographic, clinical and patient-related baseline characteristics were documented. Treatment patterns, safety and efficacy outcomes are reported. Results: Between August 12, 2019, and June 17, 2021(data cut) ,127 AML pts were enrolled to receive venetoclax based therapy. Baseline patient and disease characteristics are reported in Table 1. The main reasons for physician's choice of venetoclax-based therapy were age ≥75, comorbidities and ECOG ≥2 (patient related factors) in 76% of cases and adverse disease biology predicting poor response to intensive chemotherapy (disease related factors) in 24% of cases. Most pts started therapy in an inpatient setting, 82 (64.6%) with a median hospitalization duration of 14 days, while 44 pts (34.6%) started therapy as out pts. Pts received a median of 3.8 cycles of therapy (range 1-21). Most pts (97%) received venetoclax in combination with hypomethylating agents. The full dose of 400mg QD after a median ramp-up duration of 3 days was achieved in 88% of the pts. Dose interruptions and dose modifications during follow-up occurred in 59 (46%) and 30 (24%) of pts, respectively. To allow for adequate follow up for response assessment, efficacy analysis was limited to pts enrolled prior to December 31, 2020, and included 108 pts with a median follow-up of 8 months (range 1-20). As of data cut, 93 pts completed cycle 1 of therapy, 66 pts completed cycle 3 and 39 pts completed cycle 6. 29 pts (27%) are still active on treatment. Best composite complete remission [CCR = complete remission (CR) plus CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi)] was achieved in 62 (57%) pts. CCR rates were assessed in different pre-defined subgroups. Best CCR in pts selected for therapy based on disease-related and patient-related factors were 70% and 54% respectively. Best CCR in pts with AML arising from MPN and pts with other AML were 45% and 58% respectively. Estimated median overall survival (OS) of all pts was 9.6 months (range 7.4-10.6) (Figure 1). Achieving CCR was associated with a superior probability for survival. Estimated median OS was 13.6 months (range 10.6 - not reached) in pts achieving CCR and 4.2 months (range 1.2-10.3) in non-CCR (p<.0001). Of responding pts (CR/CRi, partial remission (PR), morphologic leukemia free state (MLFS), 27 (37%) progressed. Estimated median time to progression was 9.2 months (6.7-NR). Allogeneic transplantation following venetoclax based treatment was offered to 16 (26%) pts with a median age of 71 years (range 43-77). Last documented response prior to transplant was CR in 5 (32%) pts, CRi 9 (56%), MLFS 1 (6%) and PR in 1 (6%) patient. Among grade ≥3 AEs were febrile neutropenia in 28% and infections in 21% of pts. Clinical and laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was documented in 2 and 4 pts, respectively. Antifungal prophylaxis was administered in 20% of pts and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) support was used in 17% of pts in response. Early death rate at 30 and 60 days were 7% and 13%, respectively. Conclusion: This prospective real-world analysis reveals unique patterns of patient selection and venetoclax treatment utilization in a medical system with wide access for this indication. Venetoclax-based therapies are effective and associated with manageable toxicity, including in AML patient populations that were excluded from previous registration trials with comparable CCR and early death rates. Factors associated with patient selection in the 'real-world' setting and immature follow up data most probably led to a shorter estimated median OS in this analysis as compared to controlled trials. The REVIVE study continues to expand and is expected to provide additional insights on treatment patterns, management as well as clinical and patient related outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wolach: Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Neopharm: Consultancy. Levi: AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lavie: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Fees for lectures; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Fees for lectures; Roche: Other: Fees for lectures; Novartis: Other: Fees for lectures. Tavor: AbbVie: Consultancy. Hellmann: AbbVie: Consultancy. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zuckerman: Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Cellect Biotechnology: Honoraria; BioSight Ltd: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Orgenesis Inc.: Honoraria. Stemer: AbbVie: Consultancy. Berelovich: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ofek: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Frankel: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Grunspan: AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: May hold equity. Ofran: Medison Israel: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Moshe: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Lectures; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Lectures; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Lectures.

Download Full-text