Long-Term Safety, Efficacy, and Survival Findings From Comfort-II, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Ruxolitinib with Best Available Therapy (BAT) for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF)

Abstract Abstract 801 Background: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1 & 2 inhibitor that has demonstrated superiority over traditional therapies for the treatment of MF. In the two phase 3 COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life. COMFORT-II is a randomized, open-label study evaluating ruxolitinib versus BAT in patients (pts) with MF. The primary and key secondary endpoints were both met: the proportion of pts achieving a response (defined as a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume) at wk 48 (ruxolitinib, 28.5%; BAT, 0%; P < .0001) and 24 (31.9% and 0%; P < .0001), respectively. The present analyses update the efficacy and safety findings of COMFORT-II (median follow-up, 112 wk). Methods: In COMFORT-II, 219 pts with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and splenomegaly were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib (15 or 20 mg bid, based on baseline platelet count [100-200 × 109/L or > 200 × 109/L, respectively]) or BAT. Efficacy results are based on an intention-to-treat analysis; a loss of spleen response was defined as a > 25% increase in spleen volume over on-study nadir that is no longer a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median follow-up was 112 wk (ruxolitinib, 113; BAT, 108), and the median duration of exposure 83.3 wk (ruxolitinib, 111.4 [randomized and extension phases]; BAT, 45.1 [randomized treatment only]). Because the core study has completed, all pts have either entered the extension phase or discontinued from the study. The primary reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; ruxolitinib, 11.6%; BAT, 6.8%), consent withdrawal (4.1% and 12.3%), and disease progression (2.7% and 5.5%). Overall, 72.6% of pts (106/146) in the ruxolitinib arm and 61.6% (45/73) in the BAT arm entered the extension phase to receive ruxolitinib, and 55.5% (81/146) of those originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment at the time of this analysis. The primary reasons for discontinuation from the extension phase were progressive disease (8.2%), AEs (2.1%), and other (4.1%). Overall, 70 pts (48.3%) treated with ruxolitinib achieved a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume at any time during the study, and 97.1% of pts (132/136) with postbaseline assessments experienced a clinical benefit with some degree of reduction in spleen volume. Spleen reductions of ≥ 35% were sustained with continued ruxolitinib therapy (median duration not yet reached); the probabilities of maintaining the spleen response at wk 48 and 84 are 75% (95% CI, 61%-84%) and 58% (95% CI, 35%-76%), respectively (Figure). Since the last report (median 61.1 wk), an additional 9 and 12 deaths were reported in the ruxolitinib and BAT arms, respectively, resulting in a total of 20 (14%) and 16 (22%) deaths overall. Although there was no inferential statistical testing at this unplanned analysis, pts randomized to ruxolitinib showed longer survival than those randomized to BAT (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27–1.00). As expected, given the mechanism of action of ruxolitinib as a JAK1 & 2 inhibitor, the most common new or worsened grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities during randomized treatment were anemia (ruxolitinib, 40.4%; BAT, 23.3%), lymphopenia (22.6%; 31.5%), and thrombocytopenia (9.6%; 9.6%). In the ruxolitinib arm, mean hemoglobin levels decreased over the first 12 wk of treatment and then recovered to levels similar to BAT from wk 24 onward; there was no difference in the mean monthly red blood cell transfusion rate among the ruxolitinib and BAT groups (0.834 vs 0.956 units, respectively). Nonhematologic AEs were primarily grade 1/2. Including the extension phase, there were no new nonhematologic AEs in the ruxolitinib group that were not observed previously (in ≥ 10% of pts), and only 1 pt had a new grade 3/4 AE (epistaxis). Conclusion: In COMFORT-II, ruxolitinib provided rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly; this analysis demonstrates that these reductions are sustained over 2 years of treatment in the majority of pts. Ruxolitinib-treated pts showed longer survival than those receiving BAT, consistent with the survival advantage observed in previous (Verstovsek et al. NEJM. 2012) and current analyses of COMFORT-I, as well as with the comparison of pts of the phase 1/2 study with matched historical controls (Verstovsek et al. Blood. 2012). Disclosures: Cervantes: Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Celgene: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Pfizer: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: AdvisoryBoard Other, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Sirulnik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stalbovskaya:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. McQuity:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunter:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte: Employment, stock options Other. Passamonti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Barbui:Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knoops:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison:Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide (POM) with Low-Dose Dexamethasone (LoDEX) in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Outcomes Based on Prior Treatment Exposure

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.4070.4070 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 4070-4070 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ravi Vij ◽

Craig C. Hofmeister ◽

Paul G. Richardson ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

David S. Siegel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Low Dose ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Prior Exposure ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Duration Of Response ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 4070 Background: There are currently limited effective treatment options for patients (pts) with RRMM with prior exposure to lenalidomide (LEN), bortezomib (BORT) and chemotherapy. In a multicenter, randomized phase 2 study, POM with or without LoDEX (n=221) was active in RRMM pts who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT (Richardson PG, et al. Blood 2011;118:abs 634); activity was also observed in those with disease refractory to LEN, BORT, or both (Vij R, et al. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:abs 8016). Here we characterize outcomes in the POM+LoDEX group (n=113) according to the prior treatment exposure. Methods: Pts with RRMM who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including LEN and BORT, and had progressive disease (PD) within 60 days of their last treatment were randomized (1:1 ratio) to POM+LoDEX (POM, 4 mg/day for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle; LoDex, 40 mg/week) or POM alone. At randomization, pts were stratified by age, prior number of treatments, and prior thalidomide exposure. At progression, pts receiving POM alone could receive POM+LoDEX at investigator's discretion. All pts received thromboprophylaxis (daily low-dose aspirin). The endpoints in this study were progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (using European Bone Marrow Transplantation [EBMT] criteria), duration of response, time to response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Response data according to prior therapy were assessed by investigator assessment. Results: All 113 pts assigned to POM+LoDEX had prior exposure to LEN (100%), BORT (100%), and steroids (100%). Most pts had also received prior alkylator therapy (93%), stem cell transplant (SCT) (73%), and thalidomide (THAL) (68%); 49% had received prior anthracyclines. Regimens immediately prior to study entry included BORT (50%), LEN (39%), cyclophosphamide (13%), THAL (8%), vorinostat (8%), carfilzomib (5%), and melphalan (5%). The median number of exposures to LEN and BORT in prior lines was once (range 1–4) and twice (range 1–6), respectively. The majority of pts (80%) had received >3 prior therapies. The overall response rate (ORR) was 48% and 30% in pts who had received ≤3 and >3 prior therapies, respectively. Of the pts who had ≤3 vs > 3 prior therapies, 9% vs 1% pts achieved complete response (CR), 39% vs 29% pts achieved partial response (PR), 9% vs 12% pts achieved minimal response (MR) and 44% vs 36 % pts achieved stable disease (SD), respectively. ORR was 34% and appeared similar regardless of prior exposure to alkylators (33%), anthracyclines (35%), SCT (35%), or THAL (35%). Median duration of response was also similar in pts who had received prior alkylators (8.4 mos), anthracyclines (10.1 mos), SCT (7.7 mos), and THAL (7.7 mos). Of the 69 pts who had a best response of SD or PD to their last prior antimyeloma therapy, 21 pts (12 SD and 9 PD) achieved a PR and 3 pts (1 SD and 2 PD) achieved a CR with POM+LoDEX treatment. Responding pts had longer time to progression (TTP; 11.1 mos) with POM+LoDex compared with the TTP (4.4 mos) observed with their last antimyeloma regimen prior to study. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the POM+LoDEX group were neutropenia (41%), anemia (22%), pneumonia (22%), thrombocytopenia (19%), and fatigue (14%). The incidence of at least 1 grade 3–4 adverse event was 100% in pts with ≤ 3 prior therapies, and 88% in pts with >3 therapies. Conclusions: The combination of POM+LoDEX has demonstrated an ORR of 34% in heavily pretreated pts with RRMM who have been previously exposed to LEN, BORT, steroids, and other treatments. Early treatment of POM+LoDEX (≤3 prior therapies) achieved better ORR (48%) compared with pts who received POM+LoDex later (>3 prior therapies; ORR, 30%). Disclosures: Vij: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide is an investigational drug and is not approved for the treatment of patients with any condition. Hofmeister:Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene, Millennium, Johnson & Johnson: Advisory Board Other. Jagannath:Onyx Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siegel:Onyx: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharma: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Baz:Celgene, Millennium, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Acetylon, Oncopep: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Celgene, Millennium, BMS, Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Complete Molecular and Hematologic Response in Adult Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive B-Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) Following Treatment with Blinatumomab: Results from a Phase 2 Single-Arm, Multicenter Study (ALCANTARA)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.679.679 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 679-679 ◽

Cited By ~ 32

Author(s):

Giovanni Martinelli ◽

Hervé Dombret ◽

Patrice Chevallier ◽

Oliver G. Ottmann ◽

Nicola Goekbuget ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Philadelphia Chromosome ◽

Pcr Amplification ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

T315i Mutation ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction. Prognosis of patients (pts) with R/R Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) ALL is dismal despite the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) which may be used as single agents or in combination regimens. Blinatumomab is a bispecific T-cell engaging (BiTE®) antibody construct that has shown antileukemic activity. Among adults with R/R Ph-negative ALL receiving blinatumomab, 43% achieved complete remission (CR) or CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) during the first two cycles (Topp MS et al. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:57). We evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of blinatumomab in pts with R/R Ph+ ALL who progressed after or were intolerant to a 2nd or later (2+) generation TKI. Methods. Eligible adult pts (≥18 years) had Ph+ B-precursor ALL and had relapsed after or were refractory to at least one 2+ generation TKI; or were intolerant to 2+ generation TKI and intolerant or refractory to imatinib. All pts had to have >5% blasts in the bone marrow and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2. Blinatumomab was dosed by continuous IV infusion (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) for up to 5 cycles (9 μg/d on days 1-7 in cycle 1, and 28 μg/d thereafter). The primary endpoint was CR or CRh during the first two cycles; minimal residual disease (MRD) response based on RT-PCR amplification of BCR-ABL per central laboratory, relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) rate were key secondary endpoints. Complete MRD response was defined as no RT-PCR amplification of BCR-ABL at a sensitivity of 10-5. Results. Of 45 treated pts, 44 were resistant to 2+ generation TKI; one patient was resistant to imatinib and never exposed to 2+ generation TKI (protocol deviation). 53% of pts were men. Median (range) age was 55 (23-78) years (≥65 years, 27%). Ten pts (22%) had a BCR-ABL gene with T315I mutation. All pts had received prior TKI (dasatinib, 87%; ponatinib, 51%; imatinib, 56%; nilotinib, 36%; bosutinib, 2%), with 60% having received ≥ 2 prior 2+ generation TKI; most pts (96%) had received prior chemotherapy. 38% of pts had ≥ 2 prior relapses and 44% had prior alloHSCT. Efficacy outcomes for key endpoints are shown in the table. 16 pts achieved CR/CRh during the first two cycles for a response rate of 36% (95% CI: 22%, 51%); of those, 14 pts achieved CR, most of them (10/14, 71%) in cycle 1. The patient who never received 2+ generation TKI did not respond to treatment. 12 of the 14 pts (86%) with CR and two of the two pts with CRh achieved a complete MRD response. Among the 10 pts with T315I mutation, four achieved CR/CRh; all four also achieved a complete MRD response. Eight CR/CRh responders (50%) relapsed, three during treatment (including two with CR who did not achieve complete MRD response). One patient died in CR post alloHSCT. Median (95% CI) RFS was 6.7 (4.4, not estimable) months (median follow-up, 9.0 months); median OS was 7.1 (5.6, not estimable) months (median follow-up, 8.8 months). Patient incidence of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 82%, most commonly febrile neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (22%), anemia (16%), and pyrexia (11%). Five pts had fatal AEs; one (septic shock) was considered treatment-related by the investigator. Three pts discontinued because of AEs. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in three pts (all grade 1 or 2). 21 pts (47%) had neurologic events (paraesthesia, 13%; confusional state, 11%; dizziness, 9%; tremor, 9%); three pts had grade 3 neurologic events (aphasia, hemiplegia; and depressed level of consciousness and nervous system disorder), one of which (aphasia) required treatment interruption. Conclusion. In this population of pts with R/R Ph+ ALL who have very poor prognosis after failure of 2+ generation TKI therapy, treatment with CD19-targeted immunotherapy blinatumomab as single agent showed antileukemic activity. AEs were consistent with those previously reported for pts with R/R Ph-negative ALL treated with blinatumomab. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Martinelli: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy. Dombret:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ottmann:Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goekbuget:Bayer: Equity Ownership; Eusapharma/Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SigmaTau: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Sanofi: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Topp:Astra: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Fielding:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sterling:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Benjamin:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stein:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

The Use of Erythropoietic-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) with Ruxolitinib in Patients with Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF), Post-Polycythemia Vera Myelofibrosis (PPV-MF), and Post-Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis (PET-MF).

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.2838.2838 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 2838-2838 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Mary Frances McMullin ◽

Claire N Harrison ◽

Dietger Niederwieser ◽

Hilde Demuynck ◽

Nadja Jakel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Spleen Size ◽

Epoetin Alfa ◽

Spleen Volume ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 2838 Background: Ruxolitinib (rux), a potent oral JAK1 & 2 inhibitor, has demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life in 2 phase 3 COMFORT studies in MF patients (pts). Consistent with rux's known mechanism of action, anemia was one of the most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) and was generally transient and manageable leading to discontinuation in only 1 pt. In clinical practice, anemia can be managed with ESAs, which promote red blood cell proliferation via cytokine receptors that signal through the JAK pathway. Because these agents act upstream of rux in the JAK2 pathway, it is important to determine the effects of these medications on the safety and efficacy of rux. This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of rux in pts receiving concomitant ESA in COMFORT-II. Methods: COMFORT-II is an open-label, randomized, multicenter study. Pts were randomized (2:1) to receive rux 15 or 20 mg bid or best available therapy (BAT; as selected by the investigator). Use of ESAs (eg, darbepoetin alfa, epoetin alfa, epoetin nos), although not prohibited, was discouraged for pts randomized to rux because ESAs can increase spleen size, which could confound efficacy analyses. Spleen volume was assessed by MRI or CT every 12 wk. The rate of transfusions was calculated as the number of units transfused per exposure duration (typically 12 wk). Results: Concomitant use of ESA was reported for 13 (PMF, n = 10; PET-MF, n = 2; PPV-MF, n = 1) of the 146 pts who were treated with rux (darbepoetin alfa, 2% [n = 3]; epoetin alfa, 6% [n = 9]; epoetin nos, < 1% [n = 1]). The median exposure to rux was similar for pts who received an ESA (+ESA group; 500 d) vs those who did not receive ESA (468 d), and the median dose intensity of rux was the same for each group (30 mg/d). As shown in the table, 8 pts (62%) had no change, 2 pts (15%) had a decrease, and 3 pts (23%) had an increase in the rate of packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions per mo after the first administration of ESA compared with 12 wk before ESA use. Six wk prior to the first administration of ESA, 10/13 pts (77%) had grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities; however, 6 wk after the administration of ESA, most pts' conditions improved to grade 2 (7/13 [54%]). The majority of pts (77%) did not have any change in their reticulocyte counts within the 6 wk before and after the administration of ESA; 1 pt (8%) had a marked increase; for 2 pts (15%), the data were not available. The AEs reported in pts who received ESA were similar to those previously reported with rux. Serious AEs were reported for 8 pts in the +ESA group (3 events in 2 pts that were possibly related to study drug). Within the last assessment prior to and the first assessment after the first administration of ESA, 7/9 evaluable pts (78%) had spleen volume reductions. Conclusions: In this analysis, although the sample size is small, rux was generally well tolerated in pts who received ESA, and the tolerability profile of rux was similar to that reported in previous studies. Rux-treated pts who received ESA generally did not have any change in their transfusion rates, but the rate of grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities decreased within 6 wk of the first administration of ESA, suggesting that the use of ESA in combination with rux was beneficial in some pts. ESA did not appear to affect the efficacy of rux concerning spleen size reduction. The use of ESA for the treatment of anemia is common in clinical practice, and further analyses in combination with rux in this pt population are warranted. Disclosures: McMullin: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Harrison:Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Niederwieser:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Sirulnik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. McQuity:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stalbovskaya:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Recher:Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, travel to ASH, travel to ASH Other; sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Gisslinger:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al- Ali:Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.409.409 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 409-409 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Valeria Santini ◽

Antonio Almeida ◽

Aristoteles Giagounidis ◽

Stephanie Gröpper ◽

Anna Jonasova ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Double Blind ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

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

Download Full-text

Imetelstat Treatment Leads to Durable Transfusion Independence (TI) in RBC Transfusion-Dependent (TD), Non-Del(5q) Lower Risk MDS Relapsed/Refractory to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent (ESA) Who Are Lenalidomide (LEN) and HMA Naive

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-114877 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 463-463 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

David P. Steensma ◽

Uwe Platzbecker ◽

Koen Van Eygen ◽

Azra Raza ◽

Valeria Santini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Research Funding ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Transfusion Independence ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Rbc Transfusion

Abstract BACKGROUND: Patients with TD lower-risk (LR)-MDS relapsed or refractory to ESA have limited treatment options. Imetelstat is a first-in-class telomerase inhibitor that targets cells with short telomere lengths and active telomerase, characteristics observed in some MDS patients. IMerge is an ongoing global study of imetelstat in RBC TD patients with LR-MDS (IPSS Low or Int-1). In the first 32 patients enrolled, 8-week TI rate was 34%, with 24-week TI of 16%, and HI-E of 59%. The most frequently reported adverse events were reversible grade ≥3 cytopenias (Fenaux et al EHA 2018 Abstr S1157). Higher response rates were observed in patients (n=13) who were LEN and HMA naïve without del(5q). We report here results in an additional 25 LEN and HMA naïve patients without del(5q), with longer term follow-up of the 13 initial patients meeting the same criteria. METHODS: IMerge is a phase 2/3 trial (NCT02598661) that includes LR-MDS patients with a high transfusion burden (≥4 units / 8 weeks) who are relapsed/refractory to ESA or have sEPO >500 mU/mL. The additional 25 were required to be LEN and HMA naïve and lack del(5q). Imetelstat 7.5 mg/kg was administered IV every 4 weeks. In addition to the key endpoints noted above, secondary endpoints include safety, time to and duration of TI. Biomarkers are also being explored, including telomerase activity, hTERT, telomere length, and genetic mutations. RESULTS: Overall, for the 38 LEN/HMA naïve and non-del(5q) patients, median age was 71.5 years and 66% were men. 63% of patients were IPSS Low and 37% Int-1. Median prior RBC transfusion burden was 8.0 (range 4-14) U, and 71% had WHO 2008 RARS or RCMD-RS. 9/37 (24%) patients with evaluable sEPO levels had baseline level >500 mU/mL. As of July 2018, with a median follow-up of 25.8 months for the initial 13 patients, and 5.2 months for the 25 recently included patients, the 8-week RBC-TI rate was 37% (14/38). Durability of 24-week TI responses was demonstrated, with a median duration of 10 months and the longest ongoing response now >2 years. Among the patients achieving durable TI, all showed a Hb rise of ≥3.0 g/dL compared to baseline during the transfusion-free interval. Response rates were similar in RARS/RCMD-RS (33% [9/27]) and other patients (27% [3/11]), and those with baseline EPO levels >500 mU/mL (33% [3/9]) and ≤500 mU/mL (32% [9/28]). Reversible grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were each reported in 58% of the patients. Liver function test (LFT) elevations were mostly grade 1/2. Reversible grade 3 LFTelevations were observed in 3 (8%) patients on study. An independent Hepatic Review Committee deemed the observed LFT elevations were not imetelstat-related hepatic toxicities. SUMMARY / CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of 38 non-del(5q) LR-MDS patients with a high RBC transfusion burden who were ESA relapsed/refractory and naïve to LEN/HMA, single-agent imetelstat yielded a TI rate of 37%, with a median duration of 10 months and limited side effects. Durable responses were characterized by transfusion independence >24 weeks and accompanied by Hb rise. Updated data will be presented. Disclosures Steensma: Takeda: Consultancy; Syros: Research Funding; Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onconova: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biosciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amphivena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acceleron: Consultancy. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Van Eygen:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Raza:Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Geoptix: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Syros: Research Funding. Santini:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Germing:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Font:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Samarina:Janssen: Research Funding. Díez-Campelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bussolari:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sherman:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Varsos:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rose:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fenaux:Roche: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Outcome of Ruxolitinib Treatment in Patients with Myelofibrosis: Durable Reductions in Spleen Volume, Improvements in Quality of Life, and Overall Survival Advantage in COMFORT-I

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.800.800 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 800-800 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Ruben A. Mesa ◽

Jason Gotlib ◽

Richard S. Levy ◽

Vikas Gupta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Survival Advantage ◽

Primary Analysis ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 800 Background: Ruxolitinib (RUX), an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, reduced spleen volume (SV), improved myelofibrosis (MF)-associated symptoms and quality of life (QoL), and appeared to exhibit a survival advantage over placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with MF regardless of JAK2V617F mutation status in the phase III COMFORT-I study. We describe long-term efficacy and safety of RUX from COMFORT-I, with 1 year of additional follow up beyond previously published data. Methods: Eligible pts (N=309) were randomized (1:1) to RUX or PBO. The primary analysis occurred when all pts completed 24 weeks (wks) and when half the pts completed 36 wks of treatment. All pts receiving PBO were eligible for crossover to RUX after the primary analysis; crossover before wk 24 was permitted if pts met protocol-defined criteria for worsening splenomegaly. The proportion of pts with ≥35% SV reduction at 24 wks (primary endpoint) and durability of SV response were assessed. Although symptom burden (measured daily using the modified MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0) was only measured up to wk 24, QoL continued to be evaluated beyond wk 24 (every 24 wks) using the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Overall survival (OS) was assessed according to original randomized treatment. Results: In this updated analysis, median follow-up of pts randomized to RUX was 102 wks. All pts receiving PBO completed crossover or discontinued within 3 months of the primary analysis. Of 134 pts randomized to RUX who remained on treatment after the primary data analysis, 100 continue on study. Mean SV reduction in pts randomized to RUX was 31.6% at wk 24 and has remained stable with additional follow up through wk 96 (Table). In pts who achieved a ≥35% SV reduction, response was durable, with a median response duration of 108 wks. RUX treatment was also associated with durable improvements in the Global Health Status/QoL (Table) and the 5 functional domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Twenty-seven (27) pts randomized to RUX and 41 pts randomized to PBO died, representing a continued OS benefit in favor of RUX (HR=0.58; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.95; P = 0.028; Fig 1) similar in magnitude to that previously reported. OS favored RUX across subgroups including starting dose as well as baseline risk status and hemoglobin (Hgb). Of 34 pts randomized to RUX who discontinued after the primary analysis, 4 discontinued for an adverse event (AE). In pts who continued on RUX, anemia and thrombocytopenia remained the most frequently reported AEs. New onset of grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia was reported in only 12 and 5 pts, respectively. One pt discontinued for anemia. Overall, among all pts randomized to RUX, Grade 3 and 4 anemia regardless of baseline Hgb was reported in 37.4% and 14.8% of pts, respectively. Similarly, Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was reported in 11.0% and 5.2% of pts, respectively. These rates were similar to those reported in the primary analysis. By wk 36, the proportion of pts receiving red blood cell transfusions decreased to the level seen with PBO and remained stable thereafter (Fig 2). Rates of nonhematologic AEs adjusted for increased follow-up duration remain similar to those seen at the time of the primary data analysis. No additional cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in pts randomized to RUX were reported. Two pts originally randomized to PBO developed AML, 21 and 178 days after crossover to RUX. There continued to be no reports of a withdrawal syndrome after RUX discontinuation. Conclusions: RUX provides durable reductions in SV and improvements in QoL. Although all pts randomized to PBO crossed over to RUX shortly after the primary analysis, with 1 year of additional follow up, RUX continues to be associated with a survival advantage over PBO. RUX continues to be well tolerated; the AE profile with long-term treatment is consistent with that previously reported. The proportion of pts receiving transfusions decreased over time to rates similar to PBO, and there were no reports of a specific withdrawal syndrome or cytokine rebound phenomenon after RUX discontinuation. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; YM Bioscience: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, travel to congress Other. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; YM Biosciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofiå]Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Catalano:Incyte: Consultancy. Deininger:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy. Miller:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, development of educational presentations Other; Incyte: development of educational presentations, development of educational presentations Other. Talpaz:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; B.M.S.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Telik: Research Funding. Paquette:Incyte: Consultancy. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Incyte: grant support Other.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.3110.3110 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 3110-3110 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Vikas Gupta ◽

Jason R. Gotlib ◽

Ruben A. Mesa ◽

Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Spleen Volume ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Equity Ownership

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

Download Full-text

Bosutinib Vs Imatinib for Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) in the BFORE Trial: 18 Month Follow-up

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.896.896 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 896-896

Author(s):

Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini ◽

Michael W. Deininger ◽

Michael J. Mauro ◽

Charles Chuah ◽

Dong-Wook Kim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Research Funding ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: Bosutinib is a potent SRC/ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment of adults with CML resistant or intolerant to prior therapy. Here we compare the efficacy and safety of first-line bosutinib versus imatinib in patients with chronic phase (CP) CML enrolled in BFORE after ≥18 months of follow-up. Methods: BFORE (NCT02130557) is an ongoing, multinational, open label phase 3 study that randomized 536 patients 1:1 to 400 mg QD bosutinib (n=268) or 400 mg QD imatinib (n=268 [3 not treated]). The prespecified primary endpoint was major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as Philadelphia chromosome‒positive (Ph+) patients with e13a2/e14a2 transcripts, and excluding Ph- patients and those with unknown Ph status and/or BCR-ABL transcript type (mITT: BOS, n=246; IM, n=241). Efficacy results refer to the mITT population unless otherwise noted. Results: MMR rate was higher with bosutinib versus imatinib at 18 months (56.9% vs 47.7%; P=0.042). Among all randomized patients (ITT) 18-month MMR rates were higher for bosutinib (56.7% vs 46.6%; P <0.02). Earlier analyses (Table) showed complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) rate by 12 months (77.2% vs 66.4%; P=0.0075) was significantly higher with bosutinib versus imatinib. Rates of BCR-ABL1 transcript ratio ≤10% (International Scale) at 3 months (75.2% vs 57.3%), as well as MR4 at 12 months (20.7% vs 12.0%) and MR4.5 at 12 months (8.1% vs 3.3%), were all higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (all P <0.025). By comparison at 18 months, rates of MR4 (24.4% vs 18.3%) and MR4.5 (11.4% vs 7.1%) were consistent with this trend. Also after ≥18 months follow-up, time to MMR (hazard ratio=1.36, based on cumulative incidence; P=0.0079) and time to CCyR (hazard ratio=1.33; P=0.0049) were shorter for bosutinib (Figure). Cumulative incidence of transformation to accelerated/blast phase disease at 18 months was 2.0% and 2.9% for bosutinb and imatinib, respectively, of which 2 bosutinib and 4 imatinib patients discontinued treatment due to transformation. Additional treatment discontinuations due to suboptimal response/treatment failure occurred in 11 (4.1%) and 35 (13.2%) of bosutinib and imatinib patients, respectively. Dose increases happened in 20% of bosutinib-treated and 31% of imatinib-treated pts There were 2 deaths and 9 deaths in the bosutinib and imatinib arms, respectively. One patient taking bosutinib died within 28 days of last dose, while 4 patients taking imatinib died with that period from last dose. Overall survival at 18 months was 99.6% vs. 96.6% for bosutinib and imatinib groups, respectively. Grade ≥3 diarrhea (8.2% vs 0.8%) and increased alanine (20.9% vs 1.5%) and aspartate (10.1% vs 1.9%) aminotransferase levels were more frequent with bosutinib. Cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and cerebrovascular events were infrequent in both arms (3.4%, 1.9%, and 0.4% bosutinib vs 0.0%, 1.1%, and 0.8% imatinib; grade ≥3: 1.5%, 0%, and 0.4% vs 0%, 0%, and 0.4%). There were no deaths in the bosutinib arm and 1 death in the imatinib arm due to treatment-emergent vascular events. Treatment discontinuations due to drug-related toxicity occurred in 15.3% and 9.4% of bosutinib and imatinib patients, respectively. Conclusion: After 18 months of follow-up,the MMR benefit seen with bosutinib over imatinib was sustained. These results are in line with observations at 12 months where patients taking bosutinib had significantly higher response rates (primary endpoint) and achieved responses sooner than those on imatinib. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profiles. These results suggest that bosutinib may be an important treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CP CML. Disclosures Gambacorti-Passerini: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Deininger: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy; Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, CTI BioPharma Corp, Gilead, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Blue Print, Galena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy. Mauro: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Chuah: Avillion: Honoraria; Chiltern: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Novartis: Honoraria. Kim: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Il-Yang: Consultancy, 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. Milojkovic: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria. le Coutre: BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Honoraria. García Gutiérrez: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Crescenzo: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leip: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bardy-Bouxin: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hochhaus: Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Brümmendorf: Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cortes: Sun Pharma: Research Funding; ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Current Results of Lentiglobin Gene Therapy in Patients with Severe Sickle Cell Disease Treated Under a Refined Protocol in the Phase 1 Hgb-206 Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113480 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 1026-1026 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

John F. Tisdale ◽

Julie Kanter ◽

Markus Y. Mapara ◽

Janet L. Kwiatkowski ◽

Lakshmanan Krishnamurti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Therapy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cd34 Cells ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background β-globin gene transfer has the potential for substantial clinical benefit in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). LentiGlobin Drug Product (DP) contains autologous CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) transduced with the BB305 lentiviral vector (LVV), encoding β-globin with an anti-sickling substitution (T87Q). The safety and efficacy of LentiGlobin gene therapy is being evaluated in the ongoing Phase 1 HGB-206 study (NCT02140554). Results in the initial 7 patients treated with LentiGlobin DP from steady state bone marrow harvested (BMH) HSCs using original DP manufacturing process (Group A) demonstrated stable HbAT87Q production in all patients, but at levels below the anticipated target. The protocol was thus amended to include pre-harvest RBC transfusions, optimize myeloablation by targeting higher busulfan levels, and use a refined DP manufacturing process (Group B); additionally, HSC collection by plerixafor mobilization/apheresis was instituted (Group C). Data from patients in Group C, treated under the modified protocol with DPs manufactured from plerixafor-mobilized HSCs using the refined process, are reported here. Results in patients in Groups A and B are reported separately. Methods Patients with severe SCD (history of recurrent vaso-occlusive crisis, acute chest syndrome, stroke, or tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity of >2.5 m/s) were enrolled. Patients in Group C received ≥2 months of transfusions to reach Hb of 10 - 12 g/dL and <30% HbS before HSC collection. Patients received 240 μg/kg of plerixafor 4 - 6 hours before HSCs were collected by apheresis and CD34+ cells were transduced with the BB305 LVV at a central facility. Following myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, the DP was infused, and patients were monitored for adverse events (AEs), engraftment, peripheral blood (PB) vector copy number (VCN), HbAT87Q expression, and HbS levels. Summary statistics are presented as median (min - max). Results As of 15 May 2018, 11 Group C patients (age 25 [18 - 35] years) had undergone mobilization/apheresis, 9 patients had DP manufactured (median 1 cycle of mobilization [1 - 3]) and 6 patients had been treated. Cell dose, DP VCN and % transduced cells in the 6 treated patients were: 7.1 (3 - 8) x 106 CD34+ cells/kg, 4.0 (2.8 - 5.6) copies/diploid genome (c/dg) and 81 (78 - 88) % transduced cells. The median follow-up was 3.0 (1.2 - 6.0) months. Patients achieved neutrophil engraftment at a median of 19 (18 - 20) days. Platelet engraftment was achieved at a median of 28 (12 - 64) days in 4 patients; platelet engraftment was pending in 2 patients. Two of 11 patients experienced 4 grade ≥3 AEs associated with plerixafor mobilization/HSC collection: 1 had vaso-occlusive pain and hypomagnesaemia, and the other had vaso-occlusive pain and non-cardiac chest pain. The toxicity profile from DP infusion to last follow-up in the 6 treated patients was consistent with myeloablative conditioning. Febrile neutropenia (n=5) and stomatitis (n=4) were the most common non-hematologic grade ≥3 AEs. Serious AEs were reported in 3 patients post-DP infusion: splenic hematoma, non-cardiac chest pain and mucosal inflammation. To date, there have been no DP-related AEs, graft failure, vector-mediated replication competent lentivirus, or clonal dominance. In the 6 treated patients, PB VCN at last visit ranged from 1.4 - 2.9 c/dg. In the 3 patients with 3 months follow-up, total Hb levels were 11.7 g/dL, 9.8 g/dL and 9.2 g/dL, and HbAT87Q levels were 4.7 g/dL, 3.2 g/dL and 3.5 g/dL. One additional patient with 6 months follow-up was off transfusions and had total Hb of 14.2 g/dL, of which 62% (8.8 g/dL) was vector-derived HbAT87Q and 36% (5.1 g/dL) was HbS. All 4 patients had HbAT87Q (median 39%) levels higher than or equal to HbS (median 31%) at the 3-month visit. Summary HGB-206 protocol changes and refined DP manufacturing have improved the LentiGlobin DP characteristics resulting in significantly improved outcomes. In addition, the HbAT87Q expression is comparable to, or exceeds, HbS levels as early as 3 months post DP infusion. These data support the feasibility of plerixafor-mediated CD34+ cell collection in patients with severe SCD and the efficacy of gene therapy. The safety profile of LentiGlobin gene therapy remains consistent with single-agent busulfan conditioning. Additional data and longer follow-up will determine the clinical effect of increased HbAT87Q/HbS ratios. Disclosures Kanter: Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; bluebird bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sancilio: Research Funding; NHLBI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Apopharma: Research Funding; ASH: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mapara:Incyte: Consultancy. Kwiatkowski:Novartis: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Apopharma: Research Funding; Terumo: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schmidt:GeneWerk GmbH: Employment; German Cancer Research Center: Employment; bluebird bio: Consultancy. Miller:bluebird bio: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pierciey:bluebird bio: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shi:bluebird bio: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ribeil:bluebird bio: Employment, Equity Ownership. Asmal:bluebird bio: Employment, Equity Ownership. Thompson:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Baxalta/Shire: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Biomarin: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharmaceutical: Research Funding. Walters:Sangamo Therapeutics: Consultancy; bluebird bio: Research Funding; ViaCord Processing Lab: Other: Medical Director; AllCells Inc.: Other: Medical Director.

Download Full-text

Results From the ENESTnd Extension Study: Efficacy and Safety of Patients (pts) with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP), Treated with Nilotinib 400 Mg Twice Daily (BID) After Suboptimal Response (SoR) or Treatment Failure (TF) to Imatinib 400 Mg Once Daily (QD) or Nilotinib 300 Mg BID

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.114.114 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 114-114 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Andreas Hochhaus ◽

Gert Ossenkoppele ◽

Josy Reiffers ◽

Ming Yao ◽

Hirohiko Shibayama ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Dose Escalation ◽

Research Funding ◽

Extension Study ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Core Study ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 114 Background: In ENESTnd, nilotinib demonstrated superior efficacy vs imatinib in pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP, including a significantly reduced rate of progression to AP/BC on treatment and a lower rate of SoR/TF. Pts in ENESTnd with SoR/TF on nilotinib 300 mg BID or imatinib could discontinue core study and enter an extension study; entrance was not allowed for intolerance. Here, we report the efficacy and safety of 49 such pts. Methods: 31 pts initially randomized to imatinib 400 mg QD (IM group) and 18 pts to nilotinib 300 mg BID (NIL group) in ENESTnd discontinued due to SoR/TF and received nilotinib 400 mg BID in this study. Progression and deaths in the extension study and after discontinuation of extension treatment have been previously reported as progression events after discontinuation of core ENESTnd treatment and in the OS analysis of ENESTnd. Results: Median time on extension treatment was 6 months (mo) for both groups (range, IM 0.2–24; NIL 1–14); 35/49 pts (71%) remain on study. Median nilotinib dose during extension treatment was equal to planned dose (800 mg/day). In the IM group, 65% of pts escalated imatinib to 400 mg BID prior to extension; 12 pts (46%) not in CCyR at extension entry and 7 pts (23%) not in MMR achieved these responses on extension treatment (table). Of these responders, 7/12 pts (58%) who achieved CCyR and 4/7 pts (57%) who achieved MMR had escalated imatinib to 400 mg BID on core study. In the NIL group, 1 pt (17%) not in CCyR at extension entry and 5 pts (29%) not in MMR, achieved this response on extension treatment. Overall, 4 pts in the IM group progressed to AP/BC (2 on extension treatment, 1 within 1 mo and the other > 12 mo after discontinuation). All 4 pts discontinued core study for TF. Overall, 1 pt in the NIL group progressed to AP/BC (< 1 mo after discontinuation of extension treatment); pt discontinued core study for SoR. The safety of nilotinib 400 mg BID was similar to that in the core study. Grade 3/4 AEs and drug-related AEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 52% and 10% of pts in the IM group. Higher rates of AEs in the first few mo of starting nilotinib in pts previously treated with imatinib were not unexpected as common AEs occur early following initial exposure. In the NIL group, grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 28% of pts and no pt discontinued due to drug-related AEs. No deaths were reported on extension treatment or ≤ 28 days of discontinuation; 4 deaths occurred > 28 days after discontinuation of treatment: 3 were CML-related (2 and 1 deaths in the IM and NIL groups, respectively) and occurred 8–10 mo after discontinuation. Conclusions: Results confirm the efficacy of nilotinib 400 mg BID for pts with CML-CP who had SoR/TF on imatinib, even after imatinib dose escalation. These results suggest that nilotinib 400 mg BID may be efficacious in pts with CML-CP with SoR/TF on nilotinib 300 mg BID, although longer follow-up is required. Whereas dose escalation of imatinib may overcome OCT-1 transporter activity in pts with correspondingly low imatinib plasma levels, nilotinib is not a substrate for OCT-1. The modest (∼16%) increase in nilotinib systemic exposure by dose escalation from 300 to 400 mg BID may benefit some patients with SoR/TF, but requires further evaluation. Currently, dose escalation of nilotinib from 300 to 400 mg BID appears safe with no additional safety signals. The extension study is ongoing and additional follow-up will provide more information moving forward. Disclosures: Hochhaus: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ossenkoppele:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gattermann:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hughes:Bristol Myers Squibb: 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; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Saglio:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Larson:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gallagher:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yu:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Blakesley:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment. Kantarjian:Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding.

Download Full-text