A Phase 3 Study of the Hepcidin Mimetic Rusfertide (PTG-300) in Patients with Polycythemia Vera

Abstract Background. Polycythemia vera (PV) patients are treated with periodic therapeutic phlebotomy (TP) alone or in combination with either hydroxyurea (HU), ruxolitinib (RUX) or interferon (IFN) to maintain hematocrit (HCT) levels below 45% as per NCCN guidelines. Since patients are seen periodically, PV patients may spend significant time with HCT levels above 45%, thereby increasing their risk of thrombosis [Marchioli NEJM 2013]. PV is associated with systemic symptoms with fatigue. These fatigue-related symptoms are found to be the most prevalent and severe as reported in an international survey among PV patients [Scherber Cancer 2016]. Symptomatic iron deficiency represents an unaddressed clinical challenge to PV patients as most PV patients have iron deficiency at diagnosis due to increased iron utilization [Ginzburg Leukemia 2018]. The iron deficiency worsens after repeated TP. We have demonstrated in a phase 2 study that rusfertide (PTG-300) has a good tolerability profile and achieves HCT control in PV patients with improvement in iron deficiency. Methods. This is a Phase 3, multicenter, global, randomized trial that compares the efficacy and safety of rusfertide compared to placebo when added on to current therapy for PV (Figure 1). The study population is PV subjects who require frequent phlebotomies to control their hematocrit with or without concurrent therapy. This is a three-part study in subjects with polycythemia vera: - Part 1a: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on parallel-group period for 32 weeks. Subjects will be stratified by their ongoing PV treatment and randomized 1:1 to rusfertide or placebo added-on to their ongoing PV treatment. - Part 1b: open-label treatment phase during which all subjects who complete Part 1a successfully will receive rusfertide for 20 weeks (Week 32 through Week 52). - Part 2: Long term extension (LTE) phase during which all subjects who complete Part 1b will continue to receive rusfertide for 32 weeks (Week 52 to Week 84). Inclusion Criteria: Approximately 250 subjects will be randomized. Eligibility criteria include PV diagnosis (by 2016 WHO criteria) and frequent phlebotomies with or without concurrent cytoreductive therapy to maintain HCT below 45% in the 6 months prior to enrollment in Part 1. Eligible subjects will continue to receive their therapy at screening for PV (phlebotomy alone (TP) or cytoreductive therapy + TP) and must have a hematocrit <45% at Week 0 prior to randomization. Subjects who meet the eligibility criteria will be stratified by ongoing PV therapy (TP only, TP+hydroxyurea, TP+ruxolitinib, TP+interferon, TP+other) and randomized 1:1 to treatment with rusfertide or placebo added on to the subject's ongoing PV therapy at Week 0. The "add on" design allows subjects to receive standard cytoreductive therapy to control WBC and/or platelets and to receive rusfertide/placebo. The dose of cytoreductive therapy in Part 1a and Part 1b may be decreased for safety but may not be increased for efficacy including control of hematocrit, elevated platelets and/or WBC. Primary endpoint: Proportion of subjects achieving a response starting at Week 20 through Week 32 (inclusive) who receive rusfertide compared to placebo. A response is defined as absence of phlebotomy eligibility defined as either: 1. a confirmed hematocrit ≥45% and that is at least 3% higher than the baseline hematocrit (value immediately prior to randomization at Week 0); confirmation required within 1 to 7 days, or 2. a hematocrit ≥48%. Key words: Hepcidin, Hematocrit, Rusfertide, PTG-300, Polycythemia Vera, PV, Therapeutic Phlebotomy Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy. Kuykendall: Pharmaessentia: Honoraria; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Blueprint: Honoraria. Hoffman: AbbVie Inc.: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Pemmaraju: Incyte: Consultancy; HemOnc Times/Oncology Times: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Research Support, Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; MustangBio: Consultancy, Other; Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy; Dan's House of Hope: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Roche Diagnostics: Consultancy; LFB Biotechnologies: Consultancy; ASCO Leukemia Advisory Panel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Plexxicon: Other, Research Funding; Samus: Other, Research Funding; Sager Strong Foundation: Other; Aptitude Health: Consultancy; Affymetrix: Consultancy, Research Funding; CareDx, Inc.: Consultancy; Springer Science + Business Media: Other; ASH Communications Committee: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellectis S.A. ADR: Other, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Other, Research Funding; Clearview Healthcare Partners: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; ImmunoGen, Inc: Consultancy; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Valone: Protagonist Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Modi: Protagonist Therapeutics: Current Employment. Khanna: Protagonist: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. O'Connor: Protagonist Therapeutics: Current Employment. Gupta: Protagonist Therapeutics: Current Employment. Kiladjian: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; 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; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaEssentia: Other: Personal fees; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Defibrotide (DF) in the Treatment of Hepatic Veno-Occlusive Disease (VOD) in Stem Cell Transplant (SCT) and Non-SCT Patients (Pts): Early Intervention Improves Outcome - Updated Results of a Treatment IND Expanded Access Protocol

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.487.487 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 487-487 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Paul G. Richardson ◽

Angela R. Smith ◽

Stephan A Grupp ◽

Nancy A. Kernan ◽

Sally Arai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Early Intervention ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Historical Control ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Common Diagnosis ◽

Improved Outcome

Abstract Abstract 487FN2 Background: Given the life-threatening nature of severe VOD (sVOD) and multi-organ failure (MOF), DF was made available in the US through a prospective treatment IND protocol (T-IND) to gather additional safety and response data from SCT patients (pts) with sVOD who were not eligible for a pivotal Phase 3 trial. Following completion of this Phase 3 trial, the T-IND protocol has continued and been amended to include pts who would have met eligibility criteria for the completed phase 3 trial, as well as pts with non-severe VOD and non-SCT pts who develop VOD after chemotherapy (chemo). This is the largest prospective evaluation of DF for the treatment of sVOD/MOF post SCT and non-SCT pts to date. Methods: Pts were initially required to have a diagnosis of VOD by Baltimore criteria (total bilirubin > 2.0 mg/dL with > 2 of the following: hepatomegaly, ascites or 5% weight gain) with MOF (either renal and/or pulmonary failure) that followed SCT. Following treatment of 104 pts, an amendment expanded eligibility criteria to include pts with VOD after chemo and pts with non-severe VOD (defined as no MOF). Key exclusion criteria included clinically significant bleeding or >1 pressor to maintain BP. CR was defined as bilirubin < 2 mg/dL + resolution of MOF (if applicable). Mortality was assessed at Day +100 (D+100) in all pts. DF was given at 6.25 mg/kg IV q6h (25 mg/kg/d) with treatment duration recommended for at least 21d. Results: This interim analysis is based on 269 pts enrolled between December 2007 and March 2011 at 67 centers. Nearly all pts (n=251) had undergone SCT (with allogeneic SCT in 225, 90%); 18 developed VOD after chemo alone. Of the 269 cases of VOD, 200 were severe at study entry, with 25% (66/269) of all pts dialysis dependent and 31% (83/269) ventilator dependent. Median age was 16 years (range 0.1 – 70); 55% were male. In the SCT pts, the most common diagnosis was leukemia (29% AML; 22% ALL; CML 3%; 4% other), with conditioning of CY (71%), BU (46%) and TBI (38%) respectively; 18% had undergone multiple SCTs (>1 SCT). Median onset of VOD was 15 d post-SCT. When presenting after chemo alone (n=18), median onset of VOD was 16 d after the first dose, most frequently after CY (61%), cytarabine (44%) and vincristine (39%), and for treatment of leukemia (AML 33%, ALL 33%, other 6%). Overall mean number of days of DF administration in all pts was 22 (range 1–88).Of 269 pts, 32% (85/269) achieved a CR and 50% [ by Kaplan-Meier estimate] survived to D+100. In the subgroup of SCT pts, 31% (78/251) achieved CR and 50% survived to D+100; 134 pts met entry criteria for the original Phase 3 trial and comparison to the Phase 3 historical control showed a statistically improved outcome in CR (30% vs 9%, p=0.0006) and D+100 survival (46% vs 25%; p=0.006). Of 200 pts with sVOD, CR was 28% and D+100 survival was 44%. In the 18 chemo only pts, CR was 39% and D+100 survival was 50%. CR rate and D+100 survival for the 69 pts with non-severe VOD were 42% and 62%, respectively. Delay of >2 d (vs < 2 d) in the start of DF after VOD diagnosis resulted in reduced CR (23% vs 35%, p=0.0339) and survival (37% vs 56%, p=0.01). Children as compared to adults had higher rates in CR (35% vs 29%) and survival (55% vs 43%). Toxicity proved generally manageable: 22% of pts experienced a total of 81 related AEs, primarily consisting of hemorrhage (19%) and hypotension (4%). Hemorrhage included pulmonary bleeding (6%), GI hemorrhage (3%), epistaxis (3%) and hematuria (3%). Similar to the observation of decreased GvHD in other studies, the incidence of all grade GvHD in the allogeneic SCT pts was 8%. Conclusions: In 269 pts with mainly sVOD/MOF, DF therapy achieved significantly improved outcome compared to an untreated historical control. Importantly, CR and survival were improved in pts who were treated within 2d of VOD diagnosis (vs. later) and in pts who had not yet progressed to sVOD. As with prior studies, there was a low incidence of DF-associated toxicities. Interestingly, the incidence of GvHD in allo-SCT pts was low, consistent with the reduction of GvHD seen in the large randomized EBMT pediatric prevention study. These results confirm the findings of previous trials and strongly support early intervention with DF once the diagnosis of VOD is made after SCT, as well as its use in pts who have not progressed to advanced MOF. The use of DF for VOD following intensive chemotherapy without SCT also appears promising, but more research in this patient population is needed. Enrollment to the T-IND study continues. Disclosures: Richardson: Gentium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Arai:Gentium: Research Funding. Symons:Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Martin:Gentium: Research Funding. Massaro:Gentium: Consultancy. D'Agostino:Gentium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hannah:Gentium: Consultancy. Tudone:Gentium: Employment. Hume:Gentium: Employment. Iacobelli:Gentium SpA: Employment. Soiffer:Gentium: Honoraria.

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

Ruxolitinib Efficacy By Hematocrit Control in Patients with Polycythemia Vera: An Analysis of the RESPONSE Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.3201.3201 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 3201-3201

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Ruben Mesa ◽

Mark M Jones ◽

Shui He ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Polycythemia Vera ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Median Time ◽

Research Funding ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Jak2 Inhibitor ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

To Receive ◽

Response Trial

Abstract Background: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by erythrocytosis and overactive JAK/STAT activity. The RESPONSE trial compared ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, with best available therapy (BAT) in patients (pts) with PV intolerant of or resistant to hydroxyurea according to modified European LeukemiaNet criteria. RUX was superior to BAT in achieving the primary endpoint (21% vs 1%; P<0.0001), and 60% of pts randomized to RUX achieved protocol-defined hematocrit (HCT) control through Wk 32 vs 20% of pts randomized to BAT (J Clin Oncol32:5s, 2014; suppl, abstract 7026). However, the actual phlebotomy rate between Wks 8−32 was only 20% in pts randomized to RUX compared with 62% in pts randomized to BAT, and 85% of pts in the RUX arm continued to receive treatment at the median 81-wk follow-up, suggesting most pts derived some benefit from RUX. Therefore, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy of RUX in pts who did and did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control. Methods: Phlebotomy-dependent PV pts with splenomegaly, aged ≥18 years, and resistant to or intolerant of HU were enrolled. Pts were required to have HCT between 40%−45% 14 days prior to randomization; those who did not could enter a phlebotomy control period to achieve a HCT in this range within 14 days of randomization. Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to RUX or BAT. BAT pts could cross over to receive RUX from Wk 32 if they had not met the primary endpoint, or after Wk 32 due to protocol-defined disease progression. The primary composite endpoint comprised HCT control and a ≥35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume (SV) at Wk 32. HCT control was defined as lack of phlebotomy eligibility between Wks 8−32 with no more than 1 phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and Wk 8. Phlebotomy eligibility was based on protocol-defined HCT values (regardless of receipt of phlebotomy), and pts with missing data or assessments outside of protocol-defined time windows were considered non-responders. In pts who were HCT control non-responders (HCT-N) as defined by protocol, time to second phlebotomy eligibility was evaluated. For this analysis, pts without phlebotomy eligibility were excluded and phlebotomies in the first 8 wks were not considered. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated in both HCT control responders (HCT-R) and HCT-N, including the 14-item modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Results: Of 222 randomized pts (RUX, n=110; BAT, n=112), most were male (RUX, 60%; BAT, 71%) and the median age (range) was similar between treatment arms (RUX, 62.0 [34.0–90.0]; BAT, 60.0 [33.0–84.0]). Although pts had a HCT between 40% and 45% within 14 days prior to randomization (with or without phlebotomy), 24% of pts had a HCT >45% on Day 1 (similar between treatment arms) illustrating that many pts have poor HCT control over short intervals of observation. RUX treatment resulted in long-term benefits on HCT levels, even in pts who did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control through Wk 32. Among the RUX HCT-R group, the probability of maintaining HCT response was 97% at 48 wks and 87% at 80 wks. Most BAT pts crossed over to receive RUX immediately after the Wk 32 visit (84% between Wks 32 and 48). In the RUX HCT-N pts, the median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility was 52 wks, compared with 21 wks for BAT HCT-N pts (Figure). Compared with the entire BAT group, more RUX-R and RUX-N pts had a ≥50% improvement in the MPN-SAF total symptom score at Wk 32 (RUX-N, 38%; RUX-R, 40%; BAT, 4%). Median changes from baseline at Wk 32 in key symptoms such as tiredness (RUX-N; −50%; RUX-R, −49%; BAT, −4%), itching (RUX-N, −88%; RUX-R, −97%; BAT, −2%), and night sweats (RUX-N, −100%; RUX-R, −97%; BAT, 4%) were also greater among RUX-R and RUX-N pts than BAT pts. RUX-N and RUX-R pts were also more likely to consider their symptoms to be “much improved” or “very much improved” on the PGIC compared with BAT pts (RUX-N, 57%; RUX-R, 74%; BAT, 13%). Conclusion: Among pts receiving RUX who did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control, the median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility was 1 year. In contrast, pts on BAT had a median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility of 21 wks. Furthermore, pts in the RUX arm achieved meaningful improvements in PV-related symptoms, regardless of meeting the endpoint of HCT control, while pts treated with BAT showed worsening or no improvement. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Kiladjian:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Habr:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Ruxolitinib for Patients (Pts) with Polycythemia Vera: Responders Vs Non-Responders As Defined in the Response Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-128101 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2947-2947

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Monika Wroclawska ◽

Tuochuan Dong ◽

Alessandro M. Vannucchi

Keyword(s):

Polycythemia Vera ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Hematological Parameters ◽

Jak2 V617f ◽

Spleen Volume ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Allele Burden ◽

To Receive ◽

Response Trial

Introduction: The RESPONSE trial (NCT01243944) compared ruxolitinib (Rux) and best available therapy (BAT) in pts with polycythemia vera (PV) who were intolerant of or resistant to hydroxyurea (HU) according to modified European LeukemiaNET criteria. In the primary analysis, at week (Wk) 32, 60% of (pts) randomized to Rux achieved HCT control (HCT <45%). The present analysis evaluated the effect of baseline characteristics on HCT response at Wk 32, and aimed to determine the long-term clinical efficacy of Rux in pts who did and did not achieve the protocol-defined HCT control (i.e., HCT control responders and non-responders at Wk 32) in RESPONSE at Wk 256. Methods: Adult pts with phlebotomy-dependent PV with splenomegaly, and resistant to or intolerant of HU were enrolled. Pts were randomized to receive Rux (at a starting dose of 10 mg BID) or single-agent BAT (1:1). HCT control was defined as lack of phlebotomy eligibility between Wks 8−32 with no more than 1 phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and Wk 8. Phlebotomy eligibility was based on protocol-defined HCT values (HCT > 45% and ≥ 3 percentage points higher than baseline or > 48%, whichever was lower; regardless of receipt of phlebotomy), and pts with missing data or assessments outside of protocol-defined time windows were considered non-responders. In this analysis, a logistic regression model was fitted to identify the significant baseline factors to predict HCT control response at Wk 32. Time to phlebotomy eligibility in the HCT control responders and time from the first phlebotomy eligibility to the second phlebotomy eligibility in the HCT control non-responders were plotted, and the changes in hematological parameters (HCT, WBC and platelet count), spleen volume and allele burden over time, up to Wk 256, were studied in HCT control responders and non-responders who were randomized to Rux treatment arm in RESPONSE. Results: A total of 222 pts were randomized to receive either Rux (n = 110) or BAT (n = 112). Baseline WBC (P=0.0198) and baseline JAK2 V617F allele burden (P=0.0159), were found to be predictors of the HCT response within Rux treated pt group (n = 110). In the HCT responder subgroup of the Rux arm, 23% (15/66) pts needed their first phlebotomy by Wk 256. In the HCT non-responder subgroup of the Rux arm, out of 28 patients who experienced their first phlebotomy between Wk 8 and Wk 32, 64% (18/28) of pts required subsequent phlebotomy by Wk 256, with a median duration of 28.4 Wks (12.7, NA). Pts receiving Rux demonstrated controlled hematologic parameters (HCT, WBC, and platelets) over the course of study, regardless of whether they were HCT control responders and HCT control non-responders at Wk 32. From Wk 48 to Wk 80, 97% HCT control responder pts and 84% HCT control non-responder pts of the Rux treatment arm required no phlebotomies. From Wk 80 to Wk 256, 91% and 68% of the evaluable pts in the Rux treatment arm remained phlebotomy-free for HCT control responders and non-responders, respectively. By Wk 256, spleen volume on an average was reduced from baseline by approximately 35% and 50% for HCT control responders and non-responders, respectively. In pts with available assessments, allele burden on an average was reduced approximately from 80% at baseline to 55% at Wk 256 in the HCT control responders, and approximately from 70% at baseline to 40% at Wk 256 in the HCT control non-responders. Conclusions: The results from present analysis demonstrated that the benefits of the Rux treatment were not limited to pts who achieved HCT control at Wk 32. Patients treated with Rux were able to maintain hematological parameters, spleen volume reduction, and JAK2 V617F allele burden reduction for a longer duration (up to 5 years), regardless of whether they were HCT control responders or non-responders at Wk 32. Disclosures Verstovsek: Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pharma Essentia: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; Protaganist Therapeutics: Research Funding. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wroclawska:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Dong:Novartis: Employment. Vannucchi:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Outcomes with Interferon in Polycythemia Vera: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-145807 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3659-3659

Author(s):

Moazzam Shahzad ◽

Mamoon Ahmed ◽

Muhammad Arslan ◽

Sakina Abbas ◽

Tooba Kashif ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Side Effects ◽

Polycythemia Vera ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Molecular Response ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Hematological Response

Abstract Introduction Polycythemia Vera (PV) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm that presents with increase proliferation of red cells as well as variable presence of thrombocytosis & leukocytosis. Currently treatment options for PV are phlebotomy, low-dose aspirin or cytoreductive therapy. Interferon (IFN) is a biological response modifier that exerts myelosuppressive action on excessively proliferative cell lineages and is also a non-leukemogenic drug. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of Interferon for the treatment of PV. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Clinical trials.gov using MeSH terms and keywords for " Polycythemia Vera " AND " Interferons ". A total of 577 records were discovered using database searching. All search results were imported into the Endnote X9.0 reference manager, and duplicates were removed. After screening and excluding review and irrelevant articles, 22 original articles reporting IFN as treatment for PV in adult patients were included. The data were collected for baseline characteristics of the participants and efficacy and safety of the intervention. Quality evaluation was done using the NIH quality assessment tool. The inter-study variance was calculated using the Der Simonian-Laird Estimator. Proportions along with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were extracted to compute pooled analysis using the 'meta' package by Schwarzer et al. in the R programming language (version 4.16-2). Results A total of 1123 patients were evaluated from 22 studies. The median age was 54.5 (47.5-67) years and median follow-up time was 24 (9-146) months. The median prior number of phlebotomies was 4.55 (2-18). The type of IFN used were recombinant IFN-alpha-2a in 2 studies, IFN-a2b in 5 studies, recombinant IFN-a in 6 studies, and Pegylated-recombinant IFN-α2a in 7 studies. The pooled overall hematological response (OHR) was 86% (95% Cl 0.76-0.93, I 2= 84%, p=<0.01, n=460) with pooled complete hematological response (CHR) of 63% (95% Cl 0.50-0.76, I 2=85%, p=<0.01, n=409) and pooled partial hematological response (PHR) of 22% (95% Cl 0.12-0.34, I 2=81%, p=<0.01, n=361). Pooled overall molecular response (OMR) was 64% (95% Cl 0.56-0.71, I 2=0%, p=0.6, n=190) with pooled complete molecular response (CMR) of 24% (95% Cl 0.14-0.35, I 2=75%, p=<0.01, n=276) and pooled partial molecular response (PMR) of 38% (95% Cl 0.31-0.45, I 2=0%, p=0.5, n=191). Side effects reported were nausea, allergic reactions, liver dysfunction, dose dependent mild myalgia, fever, malaise, itching, persistent fever, headache, and flu like symptoms [Table 1]. Conclusion Interferon shows promising results when used for the treatment of polycythemia vera with a durable hematologic and molecular response and has an acceptable side effects profile. However, large randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings and to explore the dose and combination of interferon with other drugs.. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abhyankar: Incyte/Therakos: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk: Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding. Yacoub: Dynavex: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ACCELERON PHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Download Full-text

A Phase 2/3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Mitapivat in Patients with Sickle Cell Disease

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-148370 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3109-3109

Author(s):

Joanna Howard ◽

Kevin H.M. Kuo ◽

Abdulafeez Oluyadi ◽

Hui Shao ◽

Susan Morris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Stock Options ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Double Blind ◽

Hb Concentration ◽

To Receive ◽

2,3 Dpg

Abstract Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a life-threatening, hereditary hemoglobin (Hb) disorder characterized by chronic hemolytic anemia, pain, end-organ damage, and poor quality of life. The key pathology is red blood cell (RBC) sickling due to polymerization of deoxygenated sickle Hb (HbS), which can be exacerbated by increased levels of the glycolytic metabolite 2,3-diphosphoglycerate (2,3-DPG), and decreased ATP. Sickled RBCs are rigid, not deformable, and fragile, resulting in vaso-occlusion triggering pain and chronic hemolysis. SCD treatment options are limited, with an unmet need for safe and effective therapies to improve anemia and reduce pain. Mitapivat is an investigational, first-in-class, oral, small-molecule allosteric activator of the RBC-specific form of pyruvate kinase (PKR), a key enzyme in glycolysis. Activation of wild-type PKR decreases 2,3-DPG and increases ATP, which may reduce HbS polymerization, RBC sickling, and hemolysis in SCD. Data from the Phase 1 National Institutes of Health multiple ascending dose study of up to 100 mg mitapivat twice daily (BID) in SCD (NCT04000165) showed that mitapivat was safe and tolerable, and was associated with a dose-dependent increase in ATP and decrease in 2,3-DPG, in addition to improvements in anemia and hemolytic markers. Based on these results, a Phase 2/3 study investigating the safety and efficacy of mitapivat in patients (pts) with SCD is planned. Methods: This Phase 2/3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mitapivat in pts with SCD. Eligible: pts ≥ 16 years of age with documented SCD (HbSS, HbSC, HbSβ 0/HbSβ + thalassemia, other SCD variants), 2-10 sickle cell pain crises (SCPCs; acute pain needing medical contact, acute chest syndrome, priapism, hepatic or splenic sequestration) in the prior 12 months, and an Hb level of 5.5-10.5 g/dL. If taking hydroxyurea (HU), the dose must be stable for ≥ 90 days before starting study drug. Not eligible: pts receiving regularly scheduled blood transfusions, with severe kidney disease or hepatobiliary disorders, currently receiving treatment with SCD therapies (excluding HU) or who have received gene therapy, bone marrow or stem cell transplantation. In the double-blind Phase 2 part of the study, 69 pts will be randomized (1:1:1) to receive 50 mg mitapivat, 100 mg mitapivat, or placebo BID for 12 weeks. The primary objective of the Phase 2 part of the study is to determine the recommended Phase 3 dose of mitapivat by evaluating anemia and safety vs placebo via the following endpoints: Hb response, defined as a ≥ 1.0 g/dL increase in average Hb concentration over Weeks 10-12 compared with baseline; and type, severity, and relationship of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs). In the double-blind Phase 3 part of the study, 198 pts who did not participate in the Phase 2 study will be randomized (2:1) to receive the selected Phase 3 dose of mitapivat or placebo, BID, for 52 weeks, stratified by the number of SCPCs in the prior year (< 5, ≥ 5) and by HU use. The primary objectives of the Phase 3 study are to determine the effect of mitapivat vs placebo on anemia in pts with SCD, measured by Hb response, defined as a ≥ 1.0 g/dL increase in average Hb concentration over Weeks 24-52 compared with baseline, and to determine the effect of mitapivat vs placebo on SCPC, measured by annualized rate of SCPCs. Key secondary endpoints include change over Weeks 24-52 compared with baseline in the following: average Hb concentration, indirect bilirubin, percent reticulocyte, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System ® (PROMIS) fatigue 13a Short Form scores; annualized frequency of hospitalizations for SCPC. Other secondary objectives include evaluation of effect on additional markers of hemolysis and erythropoiesis, additional clinical efficacy measures related to SCPC, additional patient-reported measures of fatigue and pain, physical activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of mitapivat. Pts who complete the double-blind period of either the Phase 2 or Phase 3 part of the study will be eligible to receive mitapivat for an additional 216 weeks in the open-label extension period. Results: Not yet available Conclusion: This Phase 2/3 study will investigate the efficacy and safety of the pyruvate kinase activator mitapivat in pts ≥ 16 years of age with SCD and enrollment will begin in 2021. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Howard: Resonance Health: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy; Imara: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kuo: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Oluyadi: Agios Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Shao: Agios Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Morris: Agios Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Zaidi: Agios Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Van Beers: RR Mechatronics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Comparison of a Combination of Vosaroxin (VOS) and Intermediate-Dose Cytarabine (IDAC) with Idac for the Consolidation Therapy of Younger Patients with Favorable- and Intermediate-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in First Complete Remission (CR): Preliminary Results of a Randomized Phase 2 R4-VOS Study of the French ALFA-Filo AML Intergroup

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-137032 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 10-11

Author(s):

Norbert Vey ◽

Corentin Orvain ◽

Christian Recher ◽

Arnaud Pigneux ◽

Marc Bernard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Intermediate Risk ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Consolidation Phase

In spite of CR rates of 75-80% currently achieved with anthracycline-cytarabine regimens in younger patients with favorable and intermediate-risk AML, relapse remains a major issue. The French AML intergroup launched the BIG-1 trial in 2015 in order to test different strategies aiming at reducing relapse rate and improving survival. All patients with previously untreated non-APL and non-CBF AML aged 18-60 years are eligible for trial participation which is still ongoing. The trial design includes several randomizations (R): Idarubicin vs daunorubicin for induction (R1), HDAC vs IDAC for consolidation (R2), post-transplant GVHD prophylaxis modalities (R3). R4 consists of nested randomized phase 2-3 trials testing the addition of new drugs to the IDAC or HDAC backbones during the consolidation phase. The protocol was designed to allow the sequential evaluation of several new agents over the trial period. Vosaroxin (VOS) has shown antileukemic activity (Advani, Clin Cancer Res 2010). The combination of VOS and IDAC showed higher CR rate and a non-significant OS benefit as compared to a placebo-IDAC arm in a large phase 3 trial in patients with refractory/relapsed AML (Ravandi Lancet Oncol 2015). We hypothesized that the addition of VOS to IDAC would improve LFS as compared to IDAC alone when given during the consolidation phase. Methods. Eligibility criteria in the BIG-1 trial include: previously untreated AML according to WHO 2016 classification (AML secondary to an untreated myelodysplastic syndrome allowed), age 18-60, ECOG PS 0-2, no cardiac contra-indication to anthracyclines. Patients with APL and patients with CBF-AML are excluded. Eligibility criteria for R4 randomization were: Patients in first CR/CRp/CRi following 1 or 2 courses of induction chemotherapy according to the BIG-1 protocol; ELN2010 favorable- and intermediate-risk groups; ECOG PS ≤ 3; Absence of severe uncontrolled infection. Patients were scheduled to receive Cytarabine: 1.5 gr/m² twice daily on D1, 3, 5 with or without Vosaroxin: 70 mg/m² on D1 and D4 per cycle for a maximum of three cycles at 4-6 weeks intervals. Patients scheduled for allo-SCT or those who had reached CR after 2 induction cycles were to receive only 2 cycles of VOS-IDAC/IDAC. R4-VOS sub-trial was designed to detect an increase of the 18-month LFS from 55% to 75% using a two-step phase 2-3 study. With type I and II errors set at 20% and using a one-sided test, 70 patients had to be randomized. If the predefined statistical objectives were met, study would resume recruiting 130 additional patients in the phase 3 part for a total of 200 patients. Results. 70 patients (35 in each arm), median age 47, ELN 2010 favorable and intermediate risk groups, have been included. 94% had de novo AML with NPM1 mutations in 46% and FLT3-ITD in 20%. As shown in the Table, patients and disease characteristics were not different between the 2 arms except for slightly more patients in CRi in the VOS-IDAC arm. Patients received a median of 4 chemotherapy cycle (including induction; range 3-4) without difference between the treatment arms. 13 patients (18.5%) received an alloSCT (VOS-IDAC: 5, IDAC: 8). Time between cycle 1 and cycle 2 was significantly longer in the VOS-IDAC arm (p= 0.017). Hematologic toxicity was higher in the VOS-IDAC group with a significantly longer neutropenia duration after each cycle, a greater number of RBC and Platelet transfusions, a significantly greater number of days with antibiotics and antifungal therapies and days with fever (during cycle 1). There were also significantly more cutaneous toxicity, mild nausea/vomiting and diarrhea in the VOS-IDAC arm. With a median follow-up of 19 months, 14 and 15 patients relapse in the VOS-IDAC vs IDAC arms respectively. The study primary endpoint has not been reached and LFS was not significantly higher in the VOS-IDAC arm (18-month LFS of 51% vs 46% for VOS-IDAC vs IDAC respectively; see Figure) even after accounting for allo-SCT as a time-dependent variable (p-value=.49). The 2-year CIR was 51% vs 46% (p=NS) and 2-year OS was 88% vs 68% (p=NS). Conclusion, the study's primary endpoint has not been met and results fail to show a significant improvement of 18-month LFS with the addition of VOS to IDAC consolidation of favorable/intermediate-risk AML in first CR. The phase 3 part of the trial will not open. The BIG-1 trial is still ongoing and uses the same design to tests addition of other drugs to the IDAC/HDAC consolidation backbone. Disclosures Guieze: abbvie: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, travel funds; janssen cilag: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, travel funds; roche: Other: travle funds; gilead: Honoraria, Other: travel funds; astrazanecka: Honoraria, Other: advisory board. Dombret:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nova: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Menarini: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Cellectis: Consultancy; Shire-Baxalta: Consultancy; Immunogen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Hunault:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Diachi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

A Phase 3 Randomized Study (PRIMULA) of the Epigenetic Combination of Pracinostat, a Pan-Histone Deacetylase (HDAC) Inhibitor, with Azacitidine (AZA) in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Unfit for Standard Intensive Chemotherapy (IC)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-125924 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2652-2652

Author(s):

Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽

Maciej Kaźmierczak ◽

Chun Yew Fong ◽

Pau Montesinos ◽

Adriano Venditti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Hdac Inhibitors ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Research Support ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

To Receive ◽

Support Research

Background: AML is associated with poor survival rates in patients ineligible for IC or stem cell transplant due to advanced age, comorbidities, and/or disease and patient-specific risk factors. Non-intensive therapies, including the hypomethylating agent (HMA) AZA, have historically been used in this setting; however, response rates and survival remain dismal. Pre-clinical studies in myeloid malignancies indicate that the epigenetic combination of HMAs and HDAC inhibitors induce re-expression of silenced genes in a synergistic fashion. Pracinostat, an oral pan-HDAC (class I, II, and IV isoforms) inhibitor, has shown superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with other HDAC inhibitors. The activity of pracinostat has been shown in xenograft tumor models of AML and synergistic interactions have been observed with multiple cytotoxic and targeted anti-cancer therapeutics, including AZA. In a Phase 2 study in AML patients ≥65 years not eligible for IC, the epigenetic combination of pracinostat and AZA showed promising efficacy (Garcia Manero, Blood 2016) with a 64% overall response rate and 19.1 months median overall survival. Favorable responses were also seen in patients with high risk molecular features and adverse prognostic factors. The safety profile of pracinostat/AZA is comparable to each administered as monotherapy, with no significant added toxicity. Study Design and Methods: The Phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized PRIMULA study (NCT03151408) evaluates the efficacy and safety of pracinostat administered with AZA in adult patients with newly diagnosed AML who are ineligible to receive IC based on either 1) age ≥75 years or 2) age <75 years plus a protocol-defined comorbidity. A total of 500 patients (randomized 1:1 to either pracinostat/AZA or placebo/AZA) are planned to be enrolled at ~140 study centers worldwide. Randomization is stratified by cytogenetic risk (intermediate vs. unfavorable-risk) and ECOG Performance Status (0-1 vs. 2). Treatments are administered as 28-day cycles, with pracinostat given orally as a 60 mg capsule QD, 3x/week for 3 weeks followed by one week off, and AZA administered for 7 days of each cycle. Patients are to receive a minimum of 6 cycles as long as there is no evidence of disease progression or non-manageable toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival; secondary efficacy endpoints include morphologic and cytogenetic complete remission (CR) rates, CR without minimal residual disease and transfusion independence ≥8 weeks. Safety is assessed primarily through treatment-emergent adverse events. Overall survival will be tested for superiority of pracinostat/AZA over placebo/AZA using the stratified log-rank test at the alpha = 0.025 level of significance (one-sided). One interim analysis is planned when 260 events (i.e., deaths due to any cause) have occurred. Enrollment is open and as of July 8, 2019 257 patients have been randomized. Disclosures Garcia-Manero: Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Fong:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Montesinos:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Research support, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Venditti:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mappa:Helsinn Healthcare SA: Employment; Helsinn Healthcare SA: Patents & Royalties. Spezia:Helsinn Healthcare: Employment. Ades:Helsinn Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Silence Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Pracinostat is an HDAC inhibitor not yet approved by the FDA

Download Full-text

BRUIN CLL-313: A Phase 3 Open-Label, Randomized Study of Pirtobrutinib Versus Bendamustine Plus Rituximab in Untreated Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (Trial in Progress)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-145938 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3732-3732

Author(s):

Wojciech Jurczak ◽

Caroline Dartigeas ◽

Marta Coscia ◽

Peter S. Ganly ◽

Ghassan Al-Jazayrly ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma ◽

Publicly Traded ◽

Open Label ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Mutation Status

Abstract Background: Covalent Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitors (BTKi) have transformed the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), but these treatments are not curative and the majority of patients will require additional treatment. Covalent BTKi share pharmacologic liabilities (e.g. low oral bioavailability, short half-life) that collectively may lead to suboptimal BTK target coverage, for example in rapidly proliferating tumors with high BTK protein turnover such as accelerating CLL/SLL, ultimately manifesting as acquired resistance in some patients. To address these limitations, pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, non-covalent BTKi that inhibits both wild type (WT) and C481-mutated BTK with equal low nM potency was developed. In a phase 1/2 BRUIN study, pirtobrutinib achieved pharmacokinetic exposures that exceeded its BTK IC96 at trough, was well tolerated, and demonstrated promising efficacy in CLL/SLL patients regardless of prior therapy, number of prior lines of therapy, or BTK C481 mutation status (Mato et al. Lancet 2021;397, 10277:892-901). Study Design and Methods: BRUIN CLL-313 is a randomized, open-label, global phase 3 study comparing pirtobrutinib monotherapy versus bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in treatment naïve CLL/SLL patients with retained 17p. Approximately 250 patients will be randomized 1:1. Randomization will be stratified by IGHV mutation status (mutated vs unmutated), and Rai stage (low/intermediate vs high). Patients in the BR arm are eligible to crossover to pirtobrutinib monotherapy if they experience progressive disease per iwCLL 2018 and confirmed by an independent review committee (IRC). Eligible patients are adults with confirmed diagnosis of CLL/SLL and who require therapy per iwCLL 2018 criteria. Key exclusion criteria include CNS involvement by CLL/SLL, Richter transformation to DLBCL, prolymphocytic leukemia or Hodgkin lymphoma any time pre-enrollment, presence of 17p deletion, prior systemic therapy for CLL/SLL, and significant cardiovascular disease. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) per iwCLL assessed by an IRC. Secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), safety and tolerability, and patient reported outcomes. The global study is currently enrolling patients. Disclosures Jurczak: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dartigeas: Astra-Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress. Coscia: Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other; Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Wang: Eli Lilly and Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bao: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment; Genentech: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Leow: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shahda: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zinzani: Eusapharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celtrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text