Impact of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPNs) on Patients’ Overall Health and Productivity: Results from the MPN LANDMARK SURVEY in the United States

Abstract Background: Myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET), are chronic MPNs associated with a broad array of symptoms that may negatively impact patients’ quality of life (QoL). To enhance patient care, it is important to have a current and clear understanding of how MPNs affect the overall health and daily lives of patients. The MPN LANDMARK SURVEY was developed to examine patients’ perceptions of these MPNs related to disease burden, QoL, productivity, and activities of daily living (ADLs). Methods: Eligible patients diagnosed with an MPN were recruited to participate in an online survey conducted from May–July 2014in the US. Patients were asked about the overall burden of disease and impact of symptoms on their QoL, productivity, and ADLs. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess these outcomes and examined by calculated (not reported) prognostic risk score (MF - DIPSS: Passamonti, Blood 2010; PV: Tefferi, Leuk 2013; ET - IPSET: Passamonti, Blood 2012) and symptom severity quartiles, which were determined using the MPN Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) total symptom scores. Results: 813 patients (MF=207; PV=380; ET=226) responded to the survey. A majority of patients were female (MF, 54%; PV, 62%; ET, 72%), approximately half were aged 60–74 years (MF, 55%; PV, 51%; ET, 46%), and most were covered by health insurance (>98%). Nearly half (48%) were diagnosed within the last 5 years and average time to diagnosis from first symptoms was >2 years. A high proportion of patients had intermediate to high prognostic risk scores (MF, 94%; PV, 87%; ET, 44%). The majority of patients reported feeling anxious or worried about their MPN (MF, 91%; PV, 78%; ET, 74%). Among all groups, fatigue was the most severe symptom reported (mean MPN-SAF score=6.0–6.4 on a scale of 0–10). A subset of patients in each group described their symptoms as very severe (severity score ≥7 on a scale of 0–10; MF: fatigue [59%], problems with sexual desire [49%], inactivity [46%]; PV: inactivity [48%], fatigue [49%], problems with sexual desire [49%]; and ET: problems with sexual desire [49%], fatigue [50%], headaches [40%]). The majority of patients reported that MPN-related symptoms reduced their QoL (MF, 81%; PV, 66%; ET, 57%); this was reported in all risk groups but more frequently by patients with a high risk score vs a low risk score in MF and ET (MF, 89% vs 69%; PV, 63% vs 65%; ET, 71% vs 59%). A more substantial QoL impact was reported by patients in high vs low symptom quartiles (MF, 95% vs 51%; PV, 94% vs 33%; ET, 93% vs 15%). Similarly, MPNs also had a marked negative impact on reduced work hours, sick days, voluntary job termination, receipt of medical disability, early retirement, and ADLs (Table 1). For example, among patients employed, approximately one fourth reported missing ≥1 day of work (MF, 29%; PV, 19%; ET, 23%) in the last 30 days before the survey. Even patients with low prognostic risk scores often reported missing ≥1 day of work (MF, 33%; PV, 23%; ET, 22%) or cancelling ≥1 day of planned activities (MF, 46%; PV, 35%; ET, 34%). Patients in the high vs low symptom quartiles were more likely to call in sick to work (MF, 48% vs 0%; PV, 52% vs 4%; ET, 38% vs 0%) or cancel ≥1 day of planned activities (MF, 77% vs 5%; PV, 56% vs 7%; ET, 67% vs 3%). Conclusion: The findings from this large, first-of-its-kind survey demonstrate a marked burden of disease across all 3 MPNs that is not limited to symptoms but extends to QoL, productivity, and ADLs. Although high prognostic risk scores have long been associated with a significant burden of disease, in this study, patients with a low risk score also reported significant burden. The symptom burden reported is consistent with previous studies, thus validating the present dataset. MPN treatment considerations should include reducing the symptom burden and improving QoL and productivity to enhance the overall health and lives of MPN patients. Disclosures 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. Miller:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thyne:Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Mangan:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldberger:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fazal:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ma:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Wilson:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria. Dubinski:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boyle:ICF International: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mascarenhas:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Baseline Characteristics and Symptom Burden in RESPONSE: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Study of Ruxolitinib In Polycythemia Vera Patients Resistant to or Intolerant of Hydroxyurea

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.4071.4071 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 4071-4071 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Martin Griesshammer ◽

Tamás Masszi ◽

Simon Durrant ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Symptom Burden ◽

Open Label ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Jak2 Inhibitor ◽

Open Label Phase ◽

Night Sweats ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Background Polycythemia vera (PV) is the most common of the myeloproliferative neoplasms and is characterized by elevated hematocrit requiring phlebotomy, splenomegaly, a variety of symptoms and increased thrombotic risk. Ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, was well tolerated and achieved rapid and durable clinical responses in a phase 2 study of patients (pts) with PV who were resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea (HU). Pts experienced phlebotomy independence, resolution of splenomegaly, and improvements in white blood cell (WBC) counts, platelet (PLT) counts, and disease-related symptoms. Here, we describe the baseline (BL) characteristics and symptom burden of pts in a phase 3 study of ruxolitinib in pts with PV who are resistant to or intolerant of HU. Methods RESPONSE is a randomized (1:1), open-label, phase 3 study (NCT01243944) comparing the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib with best available therapy (BAT) in pts with PV who are resistant to or intolerant of HU (modified European LeukemiaNet criteria), have splenomegaly, and require phlebotomy for inadequate hematocrit (Hct) control. Fourteen disease-related symptoms were assessed on a scale of 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) using the modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF). Blinded data are presented here. Results BL demographic data are available for the 222 enrolled pts (Table). Apart from HU, other common prior medications for PV included interferons (15%), PLT aggregation inhibitors (10%), alkylating agents (3.6%), alkyl sulfonates (3.2%), pyrimidine analogues (1.8%), and nitrosoureas (1.4%). The majority of pts (54.5%) had 1 phlebotomy within 12 weeks prior to screening; 23.9% had 2 and 17.1% had 3 or more phlebotomies. RESPONSE BL demographics are generally similar in terms of age (60 years vs 57-67); sex (66% male vs 58%-68%); Hct (44% vs 45%-48%); and platelets (419 x 109/L vs 320-429 x 109/L) to other PV studies including trials of givinostat (Finazzi BJH 2013) and AOP2014 (Gisslinger ASH 2012) and the ECLAP-PV (Marchioli JCO 2005) and CYTO-PV studies (Marchioli NEJM 2012). At the time of writing, BL symptom data from the MPN-SAF were available for 164 pts (Table). Pts in this study reported a similar symptom burden as PV pts from a large study of pts with MPNs (Emanuel JCO 2012; N = 1425; PV, n = 538), including similar mean scores for early satiety, abdominal discomfort, concentration problems, night sweats, itching, and tiredness/fatigue. In addition, prior therapy may have adversely affected BL symptom burden, as many of these symptoms (concentration problems, night sweats, fatigue) have been shown to be worsened by the use of conventional therapy to strictly control Hct (< 45%) and cardiovascular risk (Emanuel EHA 2013). BL MPN-SAF symptom data for all 222 pts will be presented. In addition, correlations between BL EORTC QLQ-C30 and MPN-SAF scores will be presented. Summary/Conclusions Demographic and BL symptom data from the RESPONSE study demonstrated that pts with HU refractory or intolerant PV have a significant disease burden that includes a variety of symptoms. These findings are consistent with those of Emanuel (JCO 2012), which showed that pts with PV have a significant symptom burden and a reduced quality of life. Pts with PV in the RESPONSE study are representative of those who have been studied in other clinical trials for the treatment of PV. Disclosures: Vannucchi: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of intermediate- or high-risk MF and by the European Commission and Health Canada for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with MF. Here, we describe the baseline (BL) characteristics and symptom burden of patients in a phase 3 study of ruxolitinib in patients with PV who are resistant to or intolerant of HU. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria. Durrant:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Pane:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria. Harrison:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; YM Bioscience: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Shire: Speakers Bureau; SBio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. He:Incyte: Employment. Leopold:Incyte: Employment, Stock options Other. Li:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pirron:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lawniczek:Novartis: Employment. Verstovsek:Incyte: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Unmet Needs for Symptom Control in Essential Thrombocythemia with Front Line Therapy

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.5175.5175 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 5175-5175

Author(s):

Holly Geyer ◽

Robyn M. Scherber ◽

Heidi Kosiorek ◽

Amylou C. Dueck ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Blood Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Symptom Burden ◽

Red Blood Cell Transfusion ◽

Risk Scores ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Transfusion Requirements ◽

History Of

Abstract Background: Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications are commonly encountered in uncontrolled essential thrombocythemia (ET). Both anagrelide and hydroxyurea (HU) have proven efficacious in cytoreduction as well as reducing these events and remain first line therapy for most high-risk ET patients. Independent of their role in risk-reduction, little is known about how these therapies impact patient symptomatology or quality of life. In this study, we compared the clinical and symptomatic profiles of ET patients receiving HU or anagrelide against patients with no previous experience with these agents. Methods: Data was assessed from a prospectively collected international database of ET patients in which demographics, disease features, and ET symptoms utilizing the myeloproliferative neoplasm symptom assessment form (MPN-SAF; Scherber et al, 2011). The MPN-SAF includes the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Total symptom score (TSS) was computed based on symptom items using the published scoring algorithm on a 0 (all reported symptoms absent) to 100 (all reported symptoms worst imaginable) scale. ET risk scores were calculated using the IPSET scoring algorithm (Passamonti 2012). Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count <100 x 10(9)/L, anemia was defined as hemoglobin<10 g/dL and leukopenia was defined as a white blood cell count <4.0 x 10(9)/L. Associations between the MPN-SAF individual symptoms were investigated using chi-square test for categorical data and ANOVA F-test for continuous variables. Results Hydroxyurea vs. HU Naive A total of 402 ET patients with active HU use were compared to 392 ET patients with no history of HU use. Patients using HU were older (63.5 years vs. 52.3 years, p<0.001) and had a greater concentration of both high risk (24.9% vs. 11.4%, p=0.001) and intermediate risk (53.9% vs 38.4%, p<0.001) patients. They also had a higher rate of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs 11.3%, p<0.001) and leukopenia (10.1% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between gender, a history of prior hemorrhage, red blood cell transfusion requirements, or the presence of anemia/thrombocytopenia. In comparing symptom profiles, no significant differences were noted between TSS or individual symptoms with the exception of slightly more severe cough in HU patients (1.5 vs. 1.1, p=0.02, Figure 1). Anagrelide vs. Anagrelide Naive A total of 49 ET patients with active anagrelide use were compared to 794 ET patients with no history of anagrelide use. Patients using anagrelide had a longer mean disease duration (8.1 years vs. 5.8 years) and were more anemic (9.1% vs. 1.2%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between age, gender, risk scores, the presence of leukopenia/thrombocytopenia, a history of prior thrombosis or hemorrhage complications or red blood cell transfusion requirements. Additionally, there were no significant differences between TSS or individual symptom items (Figure 1). HU vs. Anagrelide A total of 402 patients currently using HU were compared to 39 patients currently using anagrelide. Overall, HU users were slightly older (63.5 years vs. 55.1 years, p<0.001) with a greater population of patients meeting high risk criteria (24.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.002) and having a history of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs. 12.8%, p=0.02). Patients receiving anagrelide had a slightly longer disease duration (8.2 years vs. 6.0 years, p=0.0446). In comparing symptom profiles, no differences were noted in TSS or individual symptom items between cohorts. Discussion In this retrospective analysis, it does not appear cytoreduction with either HU and/or anagrelide has a significant impact on ET symptom burden despite reducing vascular events. Importantly, the higher risk scores in HU patients did not translate directly into greater patient symptomatology supporting previous studies demonstrating a poor association between these two items. Prospective trials measuring ET symptom change, in the setting of randomized trials will better quantify impact of cytoreduction on symptom burden as well as quantify impact of newer agents such as interferon or jak inhibition. Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Disclosures Kiladjian: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Novartis: Consultancy. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cervantes:Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; CTI-Baxter: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Barbui:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Etienne:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roy:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. te Boekhorst:Novartis: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Novartis. Research- incyte, Gilead, cti, Genentech, promedior, NS Pharma: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Changes in Quality of Life and Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Polycythemia Vera Receiving Ruxolitinib or Best Available Therapy: RESPONSE Trial Results

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.709.709 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 709-709

Author(s):

Ruben Mesa ◽

Srdan Verstovsek ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Martin Griesshammer ◽

Tamas Masszi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Global Health ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Symptom Burden ◽

Global Health Status ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Eortc Qlq C30 ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Eortc Qlq

Abstract Background : Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm driven by JAK/STAT activation and is associated with erythrocytosis and a broad symptom burden that may negatively impact patient quality of life (QoL). Hydroxyurea (HU) is often used as first-line therapy for high-risk patients but may not effectively control or reduce symptom burden. RESPONSE is a phase III trial comparing ruxolitinib (RUX) with best available therapy (BAT) in patients with PV who were intolerant of or resistant to HU according to modified European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria. The primary study endpoint (a composite of hematocrit control and ≥35% spleen volume reduction at Week 32) was achieved by 21% of patients in the RUX arm vs 1% in the BAT arm (P<0.0001); 77% of patients in the RUX arm achieved at least one component of the primary endpoint. The current analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of RUX on PV-related symptoms and QoL measures in the RESPONSE trial. Methods : Patients with PV aged ≥18 years, resistant to or intolerant of HU (modified ELN criteria) with splenomegaly, and who required phlebotomy for hematocrit control were randomized 1:1 to receive open-label RUX 10 mg twice daily (BID) or BAT (administered based on investigator judgment). Dose adjustments were permitted (RUX, 5-mg BID increments [25 mg BID max]; BAT was adjusted per investigator judgment). Objectives of this analysis included assessment of improvement in symptom burden as assessed by patient-reported outcomes using the 14-item modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF), the Pruritus Symptom Impact Scale (PSIS), the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the Patient Global Impression of Change. The 14-item MPN-SAF (graded from 0 [absent] to 10 [worst imaginable]) comprised symptoms related to cytokines (tiredness, itching, muscle ache, night sweats, and sweats while awake), hyperviscosity (vision problems, dizziness, concentration problems, headache, numbness/tingling, ringing in ears, and skin redness), and splenomegaly (abdominal discomfort and early satiety). Changes in total symptom score (TSS; maximum score = 140) and individual symptom scores from baseline to Week 32 were summarized by treatment group. For the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QOL score, the percentage of patients with a minimally important difference (MID) from baseline (10-point change) at Week 32 was summarized. Results : Overall, 222 patients were randomized (RUX, 110; BAT, 112). Median age (range) was similar between arms (RUX, 62.0 [34.0–90.0]; BAT, 60.0 [33.0–84.0]); the RUX and BAT arms were 60% and 71% male, respectively. At Week 32, a higher proportion of patients in the RUX vs the BAT arms had a ≥50% improvement in MPN-SAF TSS (49% vs 5%, respectively) and MPN-SAF symptom cluster scores (cytokine, 64% vs 11%; hyperviscosity, 37% vs 13%; splenomegaly, 62% vs 17%). Median percentage changes in individual symptom scores are presented in the Table. Mean changes from baseline at Week 32 on the 5 items of the PSIS indicated that the severity of pruritus and its interference on daily life improved with RUX (range, −1.5 to −2.2) and was unchanged/worsened with BAT (range, −0.1 to 0.3). Treatment with RUX vs BAT was associated with improved mean changes from baseline at Week 32 on EORTC QLQ-C30 symptom subscales, functional subscales, and Global Health Status/QOL (Table); 46% of RUX patients versus 10% of BAT patients achieved an MID in Global Health Status/QOL (Figure). At Week 32, RUX patients were more likely to rate their global impression of symptom changes as “very much improved” or “much improved” (67%) vs BAT patients (13%). Conclusion : In patients with PV who were resistant to or intolerant of HU, treatment with RUX was associated with greater and clinically meaningful improvements in PV-related symptom burden and QoL measures compared with BAT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures 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. 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. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Kiladjian:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Masszi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durrant:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Parasuraman:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Côté: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

Symptom Severity and Clinical Variables of Polycythemia Vera Patients with Splenomegaly, Phlebotomy Requirements and/or Hydroxyurea Use: a Retrospective Evaluation of 1334 Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.1848.1848 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 1848-1848 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Holly Lynn Geyer ◽

Robyn M Scherber ◽

Amylou Constance Dueck ◽

Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽

Zhijian Xiao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Polycythemia Vera ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Unmet Needs ◽

Symptom Burden ◽

Risk Scores ◽

Control Group ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Specific Symptom ◽

Symptom Profile

Abstract Background Polycythemia vera (PV) is a clonal myeloproliferative disorder characterized by erythrocytosis, splenomegaly and a frequently burdensome symptom profile. Despite current guidelines of aspirin, phlebotomy, and selective cytoreduction, many patients have inadequately controlled PV-related symptoms and/or disease features. We performed a comparison of PV symptom burden/disease feature phenotypes to understand unmet needs in current medical management. Methods Data was collected prospectively amongst an international cohort of PV patients including symptom burden, demographics, and disease features. Subgroups were identified who had previously failed hydroxyurea (PV-HU), required ongoing phlebotomy (PV-P), had palpable splenomegaly (PV-S), or had all 3 features (PV-HUPS). Control groups were derived from the remaining PV patients lacking the specified subgroup trait; patients in whom the trait status was unknown were excluded from each respective control group. All participants completed the MPN specific symptom burden questionnaire (MPN-SAF TSS (MPN-10 – Table 1)) and had no prior history of splenectomy. Surveyed symptoms on the MPN-10 included the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. PV risk scores were calculated using the 2013 criteria (Leukemia 2013). Comparison of symptoms between groups employed t-tests. Results Patient Demographics and Disease Features Between Phenotypic Groups A total of 1334 PV patients completed the MPN-10, and were assigned to categories of PV-HU (499 [37%]), PV-P (646 [48%]), PV-S (369, [28%]), and PV-HUPS (148 [12%]). The demographics between these groups were similar (comparable age (median range 60-63), PV risk scores (mean risk range: Low 16.4-23.7%; Intermediate 31.4%-36.6%; High 42.8%-47%). Mean hemoglobin was similar among PV subgroups (range 14.4-14.9); PV-HUPS had a higher mean WBC count (20.3 g/dL vs. 8.8-11.8 g/dL) and platelet count (703.5 x 10(9)/L vs. 327.5-462.8 x 10(9)/L), and disease duration (11.5 years vs. 6.4-8.8 years). Prior thrombosis was most common in PV-S patients (28.5% vs. 21.8-25.2%) and prior hemorrhage was most common in PV-HUPS patients (23.8% vs. 13.7-15.8%). Symptom Burden The MPN-10 scores of each problematic PV phenotype (HU, P, S, HUPS) were compared to the remainder of the PV cohort lacking the trait (PV-control; Table 1). Both individual symptom scores and TSS were highest for PV-HUPS patients (mean TSS 32.5 vs. 27.7-29.2). All problematic PV subgroups demonstrated significant differences for individual symptoms and TSS compared to PV-control. Comparing "problematic" subgroup responses, PV-HU patients described more inactivity whereas PV-S patients described more early satiety and pruritus. No statistical differences were noted in PV-HU, PV-P and PV-HUPS patient responses to MPN-10 items of "fever" and "weight loss". Discussion PV patients who have either failed HU, are undergoing phlebotomy and/or have splenomegaly exhibit moderate to severe symptomatology and demonstrate unmet medical need for management. As evidenced in this study, considerable overlap in symptomatology exists in PV-HU, PV-P, PV-S and PV-HUPS. Current randomized trials of JAK inhibitors have demonstrated benefits in a PV-HUPS phenotype. This data suggests that PV patients with any evidence of inadequate control (PV-HU, P, or S) have similarly unmet needs and may be candidates for clinical trials, intensification of medical therapy or perhaps JAK inhibitor therapy. Disclosures Kiladjian: Shire Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zweegman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Besses:Shire Pharmaceuticals: honoraria for educational lectures Other. Birgegard:Shire Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Etienne:Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Ariad: Honoraria. Roy:Merck: Peg-Interferon provided for academic clinical trial in CML Other. te Boekhorst:Novartis: Consultancy. Griesshammer:Novartis: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Mesa:Incyte Corporation, CTI, NPS Pharma, Inc., Gilead Science Inc., Celgene: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Rapid and Robust Mobilization of CD34+ HSCs without G-CSF Following Administration of Mgta-145 Alone or in Combination with Plerixafor

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127523 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1961-1961

Author(s):

John F. DiPersio ◽

Jonathan Hoggatt ◽

Steven Devine ◽

Lukasz Biernat ◽

Haley Howell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Single Dose ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Preliminary Data ◽

Research Funding ◽

Fold Change ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cd34 Cells ◽

Equity Ownership

Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the standard of care for mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). G-CSF requires 4-7 days of injections and often multiple aphereses to acquire sufficient CD34+ cells for transplant. The number of CD34+ HSCs mobilized can be variable and patients who fail to mobilize enough CD34+ cells are treated with the combination of G-CSF plus plerixafor. G-CSF use is associated with bone pain, nausea, headaches, fatigue, rare episodes of splenic rupture, and is contraindicated for patients with autoimmune and sickle cell disease. MGTA-145 (GroβT) is a CXCR2 agonist. MGTA-145, in combination with plerixafor, a CXCR4 inhibitor, has the potential to rapidly and reliably mobilize robust numbers of HSCs with a single dose and same-day apheresis for transplant that is free from G-CSF. MGTA-145 plus plerixafor work synergistically to rapidly mobilize HSCs in both mice and non-human primates (Hoggatt, Cell 2018; Goncalves, Blood 2018). Based on these data, Magenta initiated a Phase 1 dose-escalating study to evaluate the safety, PK and PD of MGTA-145 as a single agent and in combination with plerixafor. Methods This study consists of four parts. In Part A, healthy volunteers were dosed with MGTA-145 (0.0075 - 0.3 mg/kg) or placebo. In Part B, MGTA-145 dose levels from Part A were selected for use in combination with a clinically approved dose of plerixafor. In Part C, a single dose MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered on day 1 and day 2. In Part D, MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered followed by apheresis. Results MGTA-145 monotherapy was well tolerated in all subjects dosed (Table 1) with no significant adverse events. Some subjects experienced mild (Grade 1) transient lower back pain that dissipated within minutes. In the ongoing study, the combination of MGTA-145 with plerixafor was well tolerated, with some donors experiencing Grade 1 and 2 gastrointestinal adverse events commonly observed with plerixafor alone. Pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure and maximum plasma concentrations increased dose proportionally and were not affected by plerixafor (Fig 1A). Monotherapy of MGTA-145 resulted in an immediate increase in neutrophils (Fig 1B) and release of plasma MMP-9 (Fig 1C). Neutrophil mobilization plateaued within 1-hour post MGTA-145 at doses greater than 0.03 mg/kg. This plateau was followed by a rebound of neutrophil mobilization which correlated with re-expression of CXCR2 and presence of MGTA-145 at pharmacologically active levels. Markers of neutrophil activation were relatively unchanged (<2-fold vs baseline). A rapid and statistically significant increase in CD34+ cells occurred @ 0.03 and 0.075 mg/kg of MGTA-145 (p < 0.01) relative to placebo with peak mobilization (Fig 1D) 30 minutes post MGTA-145 (7-fold above baseline @ 0.03 mg/kg). To date, the combination of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor mobilized >20/µl CD34s in 92% (11/12) subjects compared to 50% (2/4) subjects receiving plerixafor alone. Preliminary data show that there was a significant increase in fold change relative to baseline in CD34+ cells (27x vs 13x) and phenotypic CD34+CD90+CD45RA- HSCs (38x vs 22x) mobilized by MGTA-145 with plerixafor. Mobilized CD34+ cells were detectable at 15 minutes with peak mobilization shifted 2 - 4 hours earlier for the combination vs plerixafor alone (4 - 6h vs 8 - 12h). Detailed results of single dose administration of MGTA-145 and plerixafor given on one day as well as also on two sequential days will be presented along with fully characterized graft analysis post apheresis from subjects given MGTA-145 and plerixafor. Conclusions MGTA-145 is safe and well tolerated, as a monotherapy and in combination with plerixafor and induced rapid and robust mobilization of significant numbers of HSCs with a single dose in all subjects to date. Kinetics of CD34+ cell mobilization for the combination was immediate (4x increase vs no change for plerixafor alone @ 15 min) suggesting the mechanism of action of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor is different from plerixafor alone. Preliminary data demonstrate that MGTA-145 when combined with plerixafor results in a significant increase in CD34+ fold change relative to plerixafor alone. Magenta Therapeutics intends to develop MGTA-145 as a first line mobilization product for blood cancers, autoimmune and genetic diseases and plans a Phase 2 study in multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2020. Disclosures DiPersio: Magenta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; NeoImmune Tech: Research Funding; Cellworks Group, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; RiverVest Venture Partners Arch Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; WUGEN: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bioline Rx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hoggatt:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Biernat:Medpace, Inc.: Employment. Howell:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmelmer:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Neale:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boitano:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Cooke:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Goncalves:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Raffel:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Falahee:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Morrow:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Davis:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Connect® MM Registry

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126205 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 3129-3129

Author(s):

Hans C. Lee ◽

Sikander Ailawadhi ◽

Cristina Gasparetto ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Robert M. Rifkin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Causes Of Death ◽

Age Groups ◽

Treatment Patterns ◽

Age Group ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is common among the elderly, with 35% of patients (pts) diagnosed being aged ≥75 years (y). With increasing overall life expectancy, the incidence and prevalence of newly diagnosed and previously treated MM patients ≥80 y is expected to increase over time. Because elderly pts are often excluded from clinical trials, data focused on their treatment patterns and clinical outcomes are lacking. The Connect® MM Registry (NCT01081028) is a large, US, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of pts with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) designed to examine real-world diagnostic patterns, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and health-related quality of life patient-reported outcomes. This analysis reviews treatment patterns and outcomes in elderly pts from the Connect MM Registry. Methods: Pts enrolled in the Connect MM registry at 250 community, academic, and government sites were included in this analysis. Eligible pts were adults aged ≥18 y with symptomatic MM diagnosed ≤2 months before enrollment, as defined by International Myeloma Working Group criteria; no exclusion criteria were applied. For this analysis, pts were categorized into 4 age groups: <65, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 y. Pts were followed from time of enrollment to the earliest of disease progression (or death), loss to follow-up, or data cutoff date of February 7, 2019. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics and treatment regimens. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression. Time to progression (TTP) analysis excluded causes of death not related to MM. Results: Of 3011 pts enrolled (median age 67 y), 132 (4%) were aged ≥85 y, and 615 (20%) were aged 75-84 y at baseline. More pts aged ≥85 y had poor prognostic factors such as ISS stage III disease and reduced hemoglobin (<10 g/dL or >2 g/dL <LLN) compared with other age groups, although no notable differences between creatinine and calcium levels were observed across age groups (Table). A lower proportion of elderly pts (75-84 and ≥85 y) received triplet regimens as frontline therapy. More elderly pts received a single novel agent, whereas use of 2 novel agents was more common in younger pts (Table). The most common frontline regimens among elderly pts were bortezomib (V) + dexamethasone (D), followed by lenalidomide (R) + D, whereas those among younger pts included RVD, followed by VD and CyBorD (Table). No pt aged ≥85 y, and 4% of pts aged 75-84 y received high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (vs 61% in the <65 y and 37% in the 65-74 y age group). The most common maintenance therapy was RD in pts ≥85 y (although the use was low) and R alone in other age groups (Table). In the ≥85 y group, 27%, 10%, and 4% of pts entered 2L, 3L, and 4L treatments respectively, vs 43%, 23%, and 13% in the <65 y group. Progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y age group vs the 75-84 y age group (P=0.003), 65-74 y age group (P<0.001), and <65 y age group (P<0.001; Fig.1). TTP was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y group vs the <65 y group (P=0.020); however, TTP was similar among the 65-74 y, 75-84 y, and ≥85 y cohorts (Fig. 2). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the ≥85 y group vs the 75-84 y, 65-74 y, and <65 y groups (all P<0.001; Fig. 3). The mortality rate was lowest (46%) during first-line treatment (1L) in pts aged ≥85 y (mainly attributed to MM progression) and increased in 2L and 3L (47% and 54%, respectively); a similar trend was observed in the younger age groups. The main cause of death was MM progression (29% in the ≥85 y vs 16% in the <65 y group). Other notable causes of death in the ≥85 y group included cardiac failure (5% vs 2% in <65 y group) and pneumonia (5% vs 1% in <65 y group). Conclusions: In this analysis, elderly pts received similar types of frontline and maintenance regimens as younger pts, although proportions varied with decreased use of triplet regimens with age. Considering similarities in TTP across the 65-74 y, 75-84 y, and ≥85 y cohorts, these real-world data support active treatment and aggressive supportive care of elderly symptomatic pts, including with novel agents. Additionally, further clinical studies specific to elderly patients with MM should be explored. Disclosures Lee: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline plc: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Jagannath:AbbVie: Consultancy; Merck & Co.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rifkin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Terebelo:Celgene: Honoraria; Jannsen: Speakers Bureau; Newland Medical Asociates: Employment. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Hardin:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wagner:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Cancer Society: Other: Section editor, Cancer journal. Omel:Celgene, Takeda, Janssen: Other: Patient Advisory Committees. Srinivasan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:TechData: Consultancy. Dhalla:Celgene: Employment. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Abonour:BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Impact of Modified Thalidomide Dosing in Bortezomib/Thalidomide/Dexamethasone for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Who Are Transplant-Eligible: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-122775 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4739-4739

Author(s):

Pieter Sonneveld ◽

Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽

Adrián Alegre ◽

Thierry Facon ◽

Cyrille Hulin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peripheral Neuropathy ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Indirect Comparison ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Post Transplant ◽

Post Induction ◽

Adjusted Indirect Comparison ◽

Equity Ownership

Introduction: For patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are transplant-eligible, bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone (VTd) is a standard of care (SoC) for induction and consolidation therapy. Clinical practice has evolved to use a modified VTd dose (VTd-mod; 100 mg thalidomide daily), which is reflected in recent treatment guidelines. As VTd-mod has become a real-world SoC, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the VTd-mod dose from recent clinical trials versus the dose included in the label (VTd-label; ramp up to 200 mg thalidomide daily) was performed to understand the effect on efficacy of modified VTd dosing for patients with NDMM who are transplant-eligible. Methods: For each outcome (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], overall response rates [ORR] post-induction and post-transplant, and rate of peripheral neuropathy), a naïve comparison and a MAIC were performed. Data for VTd-label were obtained from the phase 3 PETHEMA/GEM study (Rosiñol L, et al. Blood. 2012;120[8]:1589-1596). Data for VTd-mod were pooled from the phase 3 CASSIOPEIA study (Moreau P, et al. Lancet. 2019;394[10192]:29-38) and the phase 2 NCT00531453 study (Ludwig H, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31[2]:247-255). Patient-level data for PETHEMA/GEM and CASSIOPEIA were used to generate outcomes of interest and were validated against their respective clinical study reports; aggregate data for NCT00531453 were extracted from the primary publication. Matched baseline characteristics were age, sex, ECOG performance status, myeloma type, International Staging System (ISS) stage, baseline creatinine clearance, hemoglobin level, and platelet count. Results: Patients received VTd-mod (n = 591) or VTd-label (n = 130). After matching, baseline characteristics were similar across groups. For OS, the naïve comparison and the MAIC showed that VTd-mod was non-inferior to VTd-label (MAIC HR, 0.640 [95% CI: 0.363-1.129], P = 0.121; Figure 1A). VTd-mod significantly improved PFS versus VTd-label in the naïve comparison and MAIC (MAIC HR, 0.672 [95% CI: 0.467-0.966], P = 0.031; Figure 1B). Post-induction ORR was non-inferior for VTd-mod versus VTd-label (MAIC odds ratio, 1.781 [95% CI: 1.004-3.16], P = 0.065). Post-transplant, VTd-mod demonstrated superior ORR in both the naïve comparison and MAIC (MAIC odds ratio, 2.661 [95% CI: 1.579-4.484], P = 0.001). For rates of grade 3 or 4 peripheral neuropathy, the naïve comparison and MAIC both demonstrated that VTd-mod was non-inferior to VTd-label (MAIC rate difference, 2.4 [⁻1.7-6.49], P = 0.409). Conclusions: As naïve, indirect comparisons are prone to bias due to patient heterogeneity between studies, a MAIC can provide useful insights for clinicians and reimbursement decision-makers regarding the relative efficacy and safety of different treatments. In this MAIC, non-inferiority of VTd-mod versus VTd-label was demonstrated for OS, post-induction ORR, and peripheral neuropathy. This analysis also showed that VTd-mod significantly improved PFS and ORR post-transplant compared with VTd-label for patients with NDMM who are transplant-eligible. A limitation of this analysis is that unreported or unobserved confounding factors could not be adjusted for. Disclosures Sonneveld: Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mateos:Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Adaptive: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biotech Inc, Mundipharma EDO, PharmaMar, Roche Laboratories Inc, Takeda Oncology: Other: Advisory Committee; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, Abbvie, EDO, Pharmar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Takeda Oncology.: Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc: Other: Data and Monitoring Committee. Alegre:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Facon:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hulin:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, AbbVie, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria. Hashim:Ingress-Health: Employment. Vincken:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kampfenkel:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cote:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moreau:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

A Phase I Trial of Janus Kinase (JAK) Inhibition with INCB039110 in Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease (aGVHD)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.390.390 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 390-390 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Mark A. Schroeder ◽

H. Jean Khoury ◽

Madan Jagasia ◽

Haris Ali ◽

Gary J. Schiller ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Janus Kinase ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Daily Dose ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Steroid Refractory

Abstract Background: Corticosteroids are considered standard first-line systemic therapy for patients with aGVHD, but this approach is effective in only approximately half of all cases. For patients who progress or do not respond to corticosteroids, no specific agent has been identified as standard, and regimens are typically selected based on investigator experience and patient co-morbidities. In preclinical models, JAK inhibition has been shown to impair production of cytokines as well as the differentiation and trafficking of T cells implicated in the pathogenesis of aGVHD. Retrospective studies have suggested that JAK1/JAK2 inhibition with ruxolitinib treatment provides clinical benefit in patients with steroid-refractory GVHD (Zeiser et al, Leukemia 2015;29:2062-2068). Herein, we report preliminary safety results from a prospective randomized, parallel-cohort, open-label phase 1 trial evaluating the potent and selective JAK 1 inhibitor INCB039110 in patients with aGVHD. Methods: Male or female patients 18 years or older who underwent their first allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from any donor source and developed grades IIB-IVD aGVHD were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either a 200 or 300 mg oral daily dose of INCB039110 in combination with corticosteroids, and were stratified based on prior treatment status (treatment-naive [TN] versus steroid-refractory [SR]). The primary endpoint of the study was safety and tolerability; secondary endpoints included overall response rate at Days 14, 28, 56, and 100, non-relapse mortality, and pharmacokinetic (PK) evaluations. Patients were assessed through Day 28 for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and response. A Bayesian approach was used for continuous monitoring of DLTs from Days 1-28. Treatment continued until GVHD progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. Acute GVHD was graded according to MN-CIBMTR criteria; adverse events (AEs) were graded according to NCICTCAE v 4.03. Results: Between January and June 2016, 31 patients (TN, n=14; SR, n= 17) were randomized. As of July 25, 2016, data were available from 30 patients who received an oral daily dose of 200 mg (n=14) or 300 mg (n=16) INCB039110 in combination with 2 mg/kg methylprednisolone (or equivalent dose of prednisone). The median durations of treatment were 60.8 days and 56.5 days for patients receiving a daily dose of 200 mg and 300 mg INCB039110, respectively. One DLT of Grade 3 thrombocytopenia was reported. The most frequently reported AEs included thrombocytopenia/platelet count decrease (26.7%), diarrhea (23.3%), peripheral edema (20%), fatigue (16.7%), and hyperglycemia (16.7%). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 77% of patients and with similar frequency across dose groups and included cytomegalovirus infections (n=3), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (n=3), and sepsis (n=3). Five patients had AEs leading to a fatal outcome, including multi-organ failure (n=2), sepsis (n=1), disease progression (n=1), and bibasilar atelectasis, cardiopulmonary arrest, and respiratory distress (n=1); none of the fatal events was attributed to INCB039110. Efficacy and PK evaluations are ongoing and will be updated at the time of presentation. Conclusion: The oral, selective JAK1 inhibitor INCB039110 can be given safely to steroid-naive or steroid-refractory aGVHD patients. The safety profile was generally consistent in both dose groups. Biomarker evaluation, PK, and cellular phenotyping studies are ongoing. The recommended phase 2 dose will be selected and reported based on PK studies and final safety data. Disclosures Schroeder: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Khoury:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Therakos: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Schiller:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Arbushites:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Delaite:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yan:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rhein:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Perales:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. DiPersio:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Primary Plasma Cell Leukemia Outcomes Remain Dismal Despite Novel Agents and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127049 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 266-266

Author(s):

Sagar Patel ◽

Saulius K. Girnius ◽

Binod Dhakal ◽

Lohith Gowda ◽

Raphael Fraser ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Plasma Cell ◽

Research Funding ◽

Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽

Disease Status ◽

Cell Leukemia ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Primary Plasma Cell Leukemia ◽

Equity Ownership

Background Primary plasma cell leukemia (pPCL) is a rare plasma cell neoplasm with a high mortality rate. There have been improvements in multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes with novel induction agents and use of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) with maintenance, but similar progress has not been reported for pPCL. We examined the outcomes of pPCL patients receiving novel agents with autologous (autoHCT) or allogeneic (alloHCT) approaches as reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) in the modern era. Methods From 2008 to 2015, 348 pPCL pts underwent HCT (N = 277 - autoHCT and 71 - alloHCT) with 45% and 48% having research level data available, respectively. Cumulative incidences of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse/progression (REL), and probability of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Cox multivariate regression was used to model survival after autoHCT only. Median follow-up in autoHCT and alloHCT was 48 and 60 months, respectively. Results AutoHCT Cohort Median age was 60 years and 93% received HCT within 12 months of diagnosis with 76% after a single line of induction (Table 1). 35% had high risk cytogenetics. 23% received bortezomib, doxorubicin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (VDPACE). Moreover, 40% received bortezomib (BTZ) and immunomodulatory drug (IMIID)-based triplets. Disease status at HCT was VGPR or better in 47%. 27% received maintenance therapy. At 4 years post-HCT, NRM was 7% (4-11%), REL 76% (69-82%), PFS 17% (13-23%), and OS 28% (22-35%) (Figures 1A, 2A, 2B). Disease status ≥VGPR at HCT and Karnofsky Performance Score >90 significantly predicted superior OS in multivariate analysis. AlloHCT Cohort Median age was 53 years and 89% received HCT within 12 months of diagnosis (Table 1). 61% received a single alloHCT, while 39% used auto-alloHCT tandem approach. 42% had high-risk cytogenetics. 61% received total body irradiation with 44% receiving myeloablative conditioning. Use of VDPACE was higher at 41% in this cohort. VGPR status at HCT was similar (48%), while maintenance was used less often (12%). Grade II-IV acute GVHD occurred in 30% and chronic GVHD in 45%. At four years post-HCT, NRM was 12% (5-21%), REL 69% (56-81%), PFS 19% (10-31%), and OS 31% (19-44%) (Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B). There were no differences in outcomes based on type of HCT. A comparison of post-HCT outcomes of CIBMTR pPCL patients from 1995 to 2006 showed that PFS and OS outcomes are inferior despite lower NRM in this modern cohort (Mahindra et al. Leukemia. 2012). In addition, analysis of SEER (1995-2009) and CIBMTR databases showed that use of HCT increased from 12% (7-21%) in 1995 to 46% (34-64%) in 2009. Conclusion More newly diagnosed pPCL patients are receiving modern induction regimens translating into a higher proportion receiving HCT, but without significant further benefit post-HCT. Post-HCT relapse remains the biggest challenge and further survival in pPCL will likely need a combination of targeted and cell therapy approaches. This study provides a benchmark for future HCT studies for pPCL. Disclosures Girnius: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Dhakal:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Shah:University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Bioclinical: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Genzyme: Other: Speaker. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. D'Souza:EDO-Mundapharma, Merck, Prothena, Sanofi, TeneoBio: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Pfizer, Imbrium, Akcea: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hari:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Role of Remission Status and Prior Transplant in Optimizing Survival Outcomes Following Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Transplantation (HSCT) in Patients Who Received Inotuzumab Ozogamicin (INO) for Relapsed / Refractory (R/R) Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.886.886 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽

pp. 886-886

Author(s):

Partow Kebriaei ◽

Matthias Stelljes ◽

Daniel J. DeAngelo ◽

Nicola Goekbuget ◽

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Board Of Directors ◽

Survival Probability ◽

Research Funding ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Inotuzumab Ozogamicin ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Allogeneic Hsct ◽

Post Transplant ◽

Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction: Attaining complete remission (CR) prior to HSCT is associated with better outcomes post-HSCT. Inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO), an anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin, has shown significantly higher remission rates (CR/CRi and MRD negativity) compared with standard chemotherapy (SC) in patients (pts) with R/R ALL (Kantarjian et al. N Engl J Med. 2016). Pts treated with INO were more likely to proceed to HSCT than SC, which allowed for a higher 2-yr probability of overall survival (OS) than patients receiving SC (39% vs 29%). We investigated the role of prior transplant and proceeding directly to HSCT after attaining remission from INO administration as potential factors in determining post-HSCT survival to inform when best to use INO in R/R ALL patients. Methods: The analysis population consisted of R/R ALL pts who were enrolled and treated with INO and proceeded to allogeneic HSCT as part of two clinical trials: Study 1010 is a Phase 1/2 trial (NCT01363297), while Study 1022 is the pivotal randomized Phase 3 (NCT01564784) trial. Full details of methods for both studies have been previously published (DeAngelo et al. Blood Adv. 2017). All reference to OS pertains to post-HSCT survival defined as time from HSCT to death from any cause. Results: As of March 2016, out of 236 pts administered INO in the two studies (Study 1010, n=72; Study 1022, n=164), 101 (43%) proceeded to allogeneic HSCT and were included in this analysis. Median age was 37 y (range 20-71) with 55% males. The majority of pts received INO as first salvage treatment (62%) and 85% had no prior SCT. Most pts received matched HSCTs (related = 25%; unrelated = 45%) with peripheral blood as the predominant cell source (62%). The conditioning regimens were mainly myeloablative regimens (60%) and predominantly TBI-based (62%). Dual alkylators were used in 13% of pts, while thiotepa was used in 8%. The Figure shows post-transplant survival in the different INO populations: The median OS post-HSCT for all pts (n=101) who received INO and proceeded to HSCT was 9.2 mos with a 2-yr survival probability of 41% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31-51%). In patients with first HSCT (n=86) the median OS post-HSCT was 11.8 mos with a 2-yr survival probability of 46% (95% CI 35-56%). Of note, some patients lost CR while waiting for HSCT and had to receive additional treatments before proceeding to HSCT (n=28). Those pts who went directly to first HSCT after attaining remission with no intervening additional treatment (n=73) fared best, with median OS post-HSCT not reached with a 2-yr survival probability of 51% (95% CI 39-62%). In the latter group, 59/73 (80%) attained MRD negativity, and 49/73 (67%) were in first salvage therapy. Of note, the post-HSCT 100-day survival probability was similar among the 3 groups, as shown in the Table. Multivariate analyses using Cox regression modelling confirmed that MRD negativity during INO treatment and no prior HSCT were associated with lower risk of mortality post-HSCT. Other prognostic factors associated with worse OS included older age, higher baseline LDH, higher last bilirubin measurement prior to HSCT, and use of thiotepa. Veno-occlusive disease post-transplant was noted in 19 of the 101 pts who received INO. Conclusion: Administration of INO in R/R ALL pts followed with allogeneic HSCT provided the best long-term survival benefit among those who went directly to HSCT after attaining remission and had no prior HSCT. Disclosures DeAngelo: Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Pfizer Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kantarjian: Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding. Advani: Takeda/ Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Merchant: Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stock: Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Loberiza: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vandendries: Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Marks: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text