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

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3201-3201
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Ruben Mesa ◽  
Mark M Jones ◽  
Shui He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polycythemia Vera ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Jak2 Inhibitor ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Response Trial

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

Clinical Benefit of Ruxolitinib Treatment after Crossover from Best Available Therapy in Patients with Polycythemia Vera: Analysis of the RESPONSE Trial

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3181-3181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
Martin Griesshammer ◽  
Tamas Masszi ◽  
Simon Durrant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Polycythemia Vera ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Response Trial

Abstract Background : Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by erythrocytosis, and in many cases leukocytosis and thrombocytosis. PV is driven by activating mutations in the JAK/STAT pathway, primarily JAK2V617F. For high-risk patients, a commonly used first-line therapy is hydroxyurea (HU); however, a subgroup of patients become intolerant of or resistant to HU. The phase 3 RESPONSE trial compared ruxolitinib (RUX) and best available therapy (BAT) in patients with PV who were intolerant of or resistant to HU (modified European LeukemiaNet criteria). Patients randomized in the BAT arm were permitted to cross over to receive RUX from Week 32 of the study. The results of the primary analysis comparing RUX to BAT prior to crossover have been reported, in which RUX was superior to BAT in achieving hematocrit control, reductions in spleen volume, and improvements in PV-related symptoms. This current analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of RUX treatment in patients who crossed over from BAT relative to their original BAT treatment and relative to those originally randomized to RUX. Methods : Enrollment criteria included PV diagnosis, age ≥18 years, resistance to or intolerance of HU, splenomegaly, and phlebotomy requirement to control hematocrit. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive open-label RUX 10 mg BID or BAT administered based on investigator judgment. BAT may have included HU, interferon/pegylated interferon, pipobroman, anagrelide, immunomodulators (eg, lenalidomide or thalidomide), or no medication. The protocol allowed for dose modifications (RUX, 5-mg BID increments [25 mg BID max]; BAT was adjusted per investigator judgment). Patients in the BAT group could cross over to RUX from Week 32 if they had not met the primary endpoint, or after Week 32 due to protocol-defined disease progression. The primary study endpoint was a composite of hematocrit control and a ≥35% reduction in spleen size at Week 32. Hematocrit was assessed at screening, every 2 weeks from Day 1 to Week 12, followed by every 4 weeks until Week 32, and 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 24, and 32 weeks following crossover. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging at screening and study Weeks 16, 32, 48, 64, 80 and every 32 weeks thereafter. The number of phlebotomy procedures was evaluated over time in each group. Results : A total of 110 patients were randomized to RUX and 112 to BAT; study discontinuation by Week 32 (before crossover was permitted) was 11% in both groups. However, most patients in the BAT arm crossed over to receive RUX treatment immediately after the Week 32 visit (84% between Weeks 32 and 48); only 3% of patients remained in the BAT arm compared with 85% in the RUX arm at the time of the data analysis (median 81-week follow-up). With up to 32 weeks on BAT therapy, 25% of patients in this group did not require a phlebotomy; in contrast, with up to 32 weeks on RUX, 79% of patients after crossover and 74% of patients initially randomized to RUX did not require phlebotomy. The number of phlebotomy procedures adjusted for 100 patient-years during BAT therapy was 196.8 vs 38.5 after crossover to RUX and 34.1 on randomized RUX treatment. Reduction in spleen volume from baseline at any visit occurred in 49% of patients receiving BAT, vs 73% of patients after crossover to RUX and 88% of patients initially randomized to RUX. The proportion of patients achieving at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume (best percentage change) was 1.8% during BAT treatment vs 38.5% after crossover to RUX and 60.0% during randomized RUX treatment. Conclusion : Treatment with RUX after crossover from BAT resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared with original BAT treatment. These findings support the primary RESPONSE results and further validate the efficacy of RUX in this patient population. Disclosures Kiladjian: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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. Vannucchi: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. Mesa:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals : Employment, Equity Ownership. Habr:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding.

Efficacy of Ruxolitinib By Baseline Spleen Volume in Patients with Polycythemia Vera Resistant to or Intolerant of Hydroxyurea

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1840-1840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Mark M Jones ◽  
Shui He ◽  
Jingjin Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
Polycythemia Vera ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Response Trial

Abstract Background : Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm defined by erythrocytosis; patients may also have increased platelets and white blood cells as well as splenomegaly and disease-related symptoms. JAK/STAT activation is the primary driver of PV pathogenesis, in most cases resulting from the JAK2V617F mutation. The RESPONSE trial compared ruxolitinib (RUX) and best available therapy (BAT) in patients with PV and splenomegaly who were intolerant of or resistant to hydroxyurea (HU) according to modified European LeukemiaNet criteria. At the time of the primary analysis, RUX demonstrated superior improvements in hematocrit (HCT) control, symptom burden, and spleen volume compared with BAT. This post hoc analysis of RESPONSE was conducted to determine if treatment outcomes were influenced by baseline spleen volume. Methods : Patients with PV ≥18 years of age who were resistant to or intolerant of HU with palpable spleen (confirmed by MRI/CT to be ≥450 cm3) and phlebotomy requirement were randomized 1:1 to receive open-label RUX 10 mg BID or BAT. The primary endpoint was a composite that required a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume at Week 32 and hematocrit (HCT) control. HCT control was defined as lack of phlebotomy eligibility (based on HCT values) between Weeks 8–32 with no more than 1 phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and Week 8. A linear regression was conducted to determine the effect of baseline spleen volume on the percent change in spleen volume at Week 32. A logistic regression was conducted to determine the effect of baseline spleen volume on HCT control through Week 32. Spleen volume was measured by MRI at screening and Weeks 16 and 32. Hematocrit was assessed at screening, prerandomization, and every 2 weeks from Day 1 to Week 12, followed by every 4 weeks until Week 32. Results :The RESPONSE trial enrolled 222 patients (RUX, 110; BAT, 112). Median (range) spleen volume at baseline was 1195 cm3 (396–4631 cm3) in the RUX arm and 1322 cm3 (254–5147 cm3) in the BAT arm. Baseline median (range) spleen length by palpation was 7.0 cm (0.0–24.0 cm) in the RUX arm and 7.0 cm (0.0–25.0 cm) in the BAT arm. In the 24 weeks prior to screening, most patients in both arms had ≥2 phlebotomy procedures (RUX, 87%; BAT, 80%). There was no correlation between the percentage change in spleen volume at Week 32 and baseline spleen volume; linear regression showed no significant effect of baseline spleen volume on the percentage change in spleen volume at Week 32 (P=0.40). No significant effect of baseline spleen volume on HCT control through Week 32 was identified based on logistic regression analysis (P=0.37). Conclusion : In PV patients with inadequate response to or intolerant of HU, the degree of splenomegaly at baseline did not influence achievement of HCT control or reduction in spleen volume with RUX therapy. Disclosures Vannucchi: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Habr:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kiladjian:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Subset Analysis of Response to Treatment of Chronic Phase CML in a Phase 1 Study of Ponatinib in Refractory Hematologic Malignancies

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 602-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Neil Shah ◽  
Dale Bixby ◽  
Michael J. Mauro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 602 Background: Ponatinib is a potent, oral, pan-BCR-ABL inhibitor active against the native enzyme and all tested resistant mutants, including the uniformly resistant T315I mutation. Initial findings of a phase 1 trial in patients (pts) with refractory hematologic malignancies have been reported. The effect of duration of treatment, prior treatment, and mutation status on response to treatment was examined in CML chronic phase (CP) pts who responded to ponatinib. Methods: An open-label, dose escalation, phase 1 trial of ponatinib in pts with hematologic malignancies is ongoing. The primary aim is to assess the safety; anti-leukemic activity is also being investigated. Pts resistant to prior treatments or who had no standard treatment available were enrolled to receive a single daily oral dose of ponatinib (2 mg to 60 mg). Subset analyses of factors impacting cytogenetic and molecular response endpoints (MCyR and MMR) were performed for pts with CP-CML. Data are presented through April 15, 2011. Results: In total, 81 pts (54% male) received ponatinib. Overall, 43 pts had CP with 34 ongoing at analysis. MCyR was observed as best response in 31/43 (72%), 27 (63%) CCyR. The median time to MCyR was 12 (3 to 104) wks. Response rates were assessed by duration of treatment (1 pt in CCyR at entry was excluded; 6 pts in PCyR had to achieve CCyR). At the 3 month assessment, 22/42 (52%) CP pts achieved MCyR; at 6 months, 24/42 (57%); at 12 months, 29/42 (69%) had MCyR. The impact of prior treatment on response and time to response was assessed. 42 pts (98%) had >2 prior TKIs and 28 (65%) ≥3 prior TKIs, including investigational agents. Of approved TKIs, all pts were previously treated with imatinib, 19 dasatinib or nilotinib after imatinib, and 21 both dasatinib and nilotinib after imatinib. MCyR rate decreased with number of prior TKIs (2 prior TKIs 13/14 [93%], ≥3 prior TKIs 17/28 [61%]) and number of approved TKIs (imatinib followed by dasatinib or nilotinib 17/19 [90%], or by both dasatinib and nilotinib 12/21 [57%]). Time to response was prolonged in pts more heavily treated with prior TKIs. Median time to MCyR increased with the number of prior TKIs and approved TKIs (2 TKIs 12 wks, ≥3 TKIs 32 wks). The effect of mutation status on response and time to response was also evaluated. At entry, 12 pts had the T315I mutation, 15 had other BCR-ABL kinase domain mutations, 12 had no mutations detected, 4 did not allow sequencing. MCyR response rate for CP pts with T315I was 11/12 (92%); for other mutations, 10/15 (67%); and no mutation, 7/12 (58%). Similarly, mutation status had an impact on time to response: median time to MCyR was 12 wks for those with T315I or other mutations and 32 wks in resistant pts with no mutation. All CP patients were evaluable for MMR. At analysis, MMR was 17/43 (40%). MMR rate was inversely related to number of prior TKIs (2 TKIs 10/14 [71%], ≥3 TKIs 6/28 [21%]), approved TKIs (imatinib followed by dasatinib or nilotinib 12/19 [63%], or by both dasatinib and nilotinib 4/21 [19%]), and was higher for T315I pts (7/12, 58%) and those with other mutations (7/15, 47%) compared with no mutation (2/12, 17%). Median time to MMR for CP pts was 97 wks; median time to MMR was shorter for pts who were less heavily treated (2 prior TKIs 24 wks) and those with T315I or other mutations (63 wks). Conclusion: In this subset analysis of the phase 1 data, ponatinib had substantial activity in all subgroups analyzed. Time on treatment, less prior therapy and kinase domain mutations were associated with higher response rates and early responses in CP pts. Cytogenetic responses improved over the first 12 months of treatment and were higher in less heavily treated pts. Disclosures: Cortes: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding. Shah:Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bixby:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau. Mauro:ARIAD: Research Funding. Flinn:ARIAD: Research Funding. Hu:ARIAD: Employment. Clackson:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rivera:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Turner:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Haluska:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Druker:MolecularMD: OHSU and Dr. Druker have a financial interest in MolecularMD. Technology used in this research has been licensed to MolecularMD. This potential conflict of interest has been reviewed and managed by the OHSU Conflict of Interest in Research Committee and t. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Talpaz:ARIAD: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Pacifica: A Randomized, Controlled Phase 3 Study of Pacritinib Vs. Physician's Choice in Patients with Primary Myelofibrosis, Post Polycythemia Vera Myelofibrosis, or Post Essential Thrombocytopenia Myelofibrosis with Severe Thrombocytopenia (Platelet Count <50,000/mL)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4175-4175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire N Harrison ◽  
Aaron T. Gerds ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Konstanze Döhner ◽  
Sarah A Buckley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Severe Thrombocytopenia ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Platelet Counts ◽  
Jak2 Inhibitor ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Equity Ownership

Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a life-limiting condition with severe morbidity in advanced stages. Patients with MF and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet counts <50,000/mL) have a particularly poor prognosis, with more frequent anemia and leukopenia, higher rates of hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications, and worse overall survival (~15 months) compared to the overall MF population (Scotch AH, et al, Leuk Res. 2017; Masarova L, et al, Eur J Haematol. 2018). Moreover, effective treatment options are limited in this high-risk population as the currently approved JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib (RUX), is associated with treatment-related thrombocytopenia and often requires dose reductions for patients with platelet counts <100,000/mL, with reduced efficacy compared to patients able to tolerate higher doses. Further, there is no approved dose of RUX for patients with platelet counts <50,000/mL, and NCCN guidelines encourage physicians to consider clinical trials for such patients given the lack of approved therapies. Pacritinib (PAC) is an oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity in MF patients in two prior Phase 3 studies (PERSIST-1, PERSIST-2) as well as a Phase 2 dose-finding study (PAC203), including patients with severe thrombocytopenia. The PACIFICA trial has been designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PAC 200 mg BID vs. physician's choice (P/C) therapy in patients with MF and severe thrombocytopenia. Study Design and Methods: PACIFICA is a randomized, controlled Phase 3 trial of PAC vs. P/C in adult patients with primary or secondary MF who are not candidates for stem cell transplant, with DIPSS intermediate- or high-risk disease, ECOG PS ≤2, and platelet counts <50,000/mL, who have had up to 90 days of prior treatment with a JAK2 inhibitor or are JAK2 inhibitor-naïve. Additional exclusion criteria exist for patients with recent cardiac or hemorrhagic events, ejection fraction <50%, QTc >450 msec, or use of medications that increase the risk of hemorrhage or QT prolongation. On the PAC arm, patients receive continuous PAC 200mg BID. On the P/C arm, one of the following agents is selected prior to randomization: low-dose ruxolitinib (no more than 5 mg BID while platelet counts remain <50,000/mL), thalidomide, lenalidomide, corticosteroids, or hydroxyurea. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of PAC vs. P/C based on the proportion of patients achieving a ≥35% spleen volume response (SVR) at Week 24. Secondary objectives include comparisons of the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS) at Week 24, overall survival, and proportion of patients who self-assess as "very much improved" or "much improved" as measured by the patient global impression of change (PGIC). Tertiary endpoints include alternative methods of evaluating SVR improvement, hematologic improvement (transfusion independence and improvement in anemia and thrombocytopenia), improvement in fatigue as measured by the PROMIS - Fatigue - Short form 7a, and changes in mutated allelic burden and gene expression (including correlation with response data). The study will enroll ~180 patients in a 2:1 ratio (PAC to P/C), which will have >80% power to achieve the primary endpoint. Enrollment is anticipated to begin in Q3 2019, as PACIFICA is expected to open as an amendment to the Phase 2 PAC203 study (NCT03165734) in select sites. Disclosures Harrison: Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; AOP: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria. Gerds:Roche: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding. Döhner:Daiichi: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Buckley:CTI BioPharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Smith:CTI BioPharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Craig:CTI BioPharma: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mascarenhas:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Verstovsek:Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pharma Essentia: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; Protaganist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding.

The Effect of Ruxolitinib on White Blood Cell Counts in Patients with Polycythemia Vera: Results from the RESPONSE Trial

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4070-4070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole B. Miller ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Martin Griesshammer ◽  
Ahmad B. Naim ◽  
William Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Response Trial

Abstract Background: Age, prior thrombotic events, and an elevated hematocrit are established risk factors for increased risk of thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera (PV). Evidence also suggests that elevated white blood cell (WBC) counts ≥ 11×109/L are a significant independent risk factor for thrombosis in patients with PV (P =0.02; Barbui T, et al. Blood. 2015; 126:560-561). Therefore, this analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of ruxolitinib (Rux) and best available therapy (BAT) treatment on WBC counts among patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L in the RESPONSE trial. RESPONSE is a global, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial investigating Rux and BAT in patients with PV who are resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea (HU). In the RESPONSE trial, Rux was associated with durable improvements in hematocrit control without phlebotomy compared with BAT as well as reductions in WBC counts. Methods: Changes from Baseline in WBC counts in the Rux arm (n=110), BAT arm (n=112), and HU subgroup of the BAT arm (n=66) were evaluated as part of an exploratory analysis using the RESPONSE 80-Week analysis dataset. Patient subgroups with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L and < 11×109/L were analyzed for changes in WBC counts at Weeks 12, 32, and 80. For patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L, the proportion of patients who achieved a decrease in WBC counts to ≤ 10×109/L or a ≥50% reduction at Week 12 and Week 32, respectively, was summarized; time to achieve the decrease was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Baseline mean WBC counts were generally similar among patients in the Rux arm, BAT arm, and HU subgroup (17.6×109/L, 19.0×109/L, and 17.4×109/L, respectively). The proportion of patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L was also similar among the Rux arm, BAT arm, and HU subgroup (75%, 71%, and 70%, respectively). In patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L, patients treated with Rux had greater mean reductions in WBC counts compared with the BAT arm and HU subgroups, and these reductions were maintained over time; mean changes from Baseline in WBC values at Week 12/Week 32 (×109/L) were -7.7/-7.2 for Rux, -3.2/-4.2 for BAT, and -1.2/-2.2 for HU. In patients with lower Baseline WBC counts, mean values remained stable over time. The change from Baseline to Week 12 for individual patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L is shown in Figure 1. In patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L, worsening WBC counts were observed in 10.8% of patients in the Rux arm vs 35.4% in the BAT arm (P =0.0002) and 47.8% in the HU subgroup (P <0.0001). In this same subgroup with elevated WBC counts, a greater proportion of patients in the Rux arm achieved WBC counts ≤ 10×109/L or a ≥50% reduction compared with the BAT arm or HU subgroup (Week 12: Rux, 41% vs BAT, 19% vs HU, 13%; Week 32: Rux, 45% vs BAT, 22% vs HU, 9%); median time to this reduction was 8 weeks in the Rux arm and was not reached in the BAT arm or HU subgroup. Conclusion: Rux treatment resulted in better control of WBC counts compared to BAT in patients with PV. These changes in the Rux arm occurred early after study initiation (within a median of 8 weeks) and were durable over time. Although RESPONSE was not powered to assess the impact of Rux on thromboembolic events, the lower rate of thromboembolic events observed in the Rux arm vs the BAT arm (1.8 vs 8.2 per 100 patient-years of exposure) is consistent with the observed effects of Rux on hematocrit, WBC counts, and C-reactive protein levels, which are all associated with thromboembolic risk. Disclosures Miller: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kiladjian:Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Naim:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gadbaw:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vannucchi:Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau.

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

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2947-2947
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Monika Wroclawska ◽  
Tuochuan Dong ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi
Keyword(s):  
Polycythemia Vera ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hematological Parameters ◽  
Jak2 V617f ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Allele Burden ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Response Trial

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

scholarly journals Phase 2 Study of Venetoclax Plus Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 303-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciano J Costa ◽  
Edward A. Stadtmauer ◽  
Gareth Morgan ◽  
Gregory Monohan ◽  
Tibor Kovacsovics ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Plasma Concentration ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Introduction: Venetoclax (Ven), an oral agent that targets the antiapoptotic protein, BCL-2, has demonstrated efficacy, as monotherapy and combined with proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib, in relapsed/refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). We report preliminary safety and efficacy data for Ven combined with the second generation PI carfilzomib (K) and dexamethasone (VenKd) in R/R MM. Methods: In this ongoing phase 2, dose escalation study (NCT02899052), patients with R/R MM and no prior K exposure received VenKd on 28-d cycles in 4 dose finding and one expansion cohorts: Ven 400 mg/day + K 27 mg/m2 Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 + dex 40 mg Day 1, 8, 15, 22 (Cohort 1), same regimen but with Ven 800 mg/day (Cohort 2), Ven 800 mg/day + K 70 mg/m2 Day 1, 8, 15 + dex 40 mg Day 1, 8, 15, 22 (Cohort 3/expansion cohort), or Ven 800 mg + K 56 mg/m2 Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 + dex 40 mg Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23 (Cohort 4). Treatment continued until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Results: As of June 11, 2018, 42 patients were enrolled. The median age was 66.5 years (min, max: 37, 79), 63% had ISS II/III disease, and 8 patients (19%) had t(11;14). Patients received a median of 2 prior therapies (range: 1 - 3), 93% had received prior PI (50% refractory), 62% were refractory to immunomodulatory therapies, and 33% double refractory. At the data cut off, 29 patients were still active and had completed ≥2 cycles and 13 patients discontinued with the primary reason being disease progression (n=4), death (n=3), physician decision (n=2), withdrawal of consent (n=2), lack of efficacy (n=1), and AE (n=1). All patients experienced at least one AE, and grade 3/4 AEs experienced by >10% of subjects included: decreased lymphocyte count (26%), decreased neutrophil count (14%), and hypertension (12%). Thirteen subjects experienced at least one serious AE. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached and Ven 800 mg/day + K 70 mg/m2 was selected for expansion. Ven mean (% coefficient of variation) maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over 24 hours (AUC24) on Cycle 1 Day 15 were 2.7 (57) mg/mL and 33.1 (54) mg×h/mL, respectively, at 400 mg venetoclax (n=4); and were 2.42 (53) mg/mL and 38.7 (51) mg×h/mL, respectively, at 800 mg venetoclax (n=13) in the dose escalation cohorts. The overall response rate (ORR) was 78% and the very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate was 56% (Table). Median time from first dose to the data cut or discontinuation was 5.7 months (range: 0.9 - 16.3) and the median time to first response was 1.9 months (95% CI: 0.9, 9.2). ORRs for subgroups of interest are reported in the Table. Conclusions: The combination of VenKd appears tolerable with no new safety signals or changes in Ven pharmacokinetics. VenKd shows promising preliminary efficacy in R/R MM patient subgroups. Response rates were comparable in all high risk subgroups and overall population. However, the subset of patients with t(11;14) had the highest response. Overall, these results demonstrate that VenKd is a safe and efficacious regimen in R/R MM and support the continued study of VenKd. Disclosures Costa: Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Stadtmauer:Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Morgan:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kovacsovics:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; SkylineDx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kaufman:Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Mobasher:Genentech Inc: Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC. Freise:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ross:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pesko:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Munasinghe:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gudipati:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mudd:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bueno:AbbVie, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Use of Blood Transfusions In Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Patients with and without Aplastic Anemia Enrolled In the Global PNH Registry

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2241-2241
Author(s):  
Hubert Schrezenmeier ◽  
Robert A Brodsky ◽  
Petra Muus ◽  
Monica Bessler ◽  
Jeffrey Szer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Clone Size ◽  
History Of ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Abstract 2241 Background: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare clonal hematopoietic stem cell disease characterized by complement-mediated hemolysis which can lead to life-threatening complications including thrombosis, kidney disease, pulmonary hypertension, pain, anemia, and severe fatigue. PNH clones occur in a number of patients with concomitant aplastic anemia (AA) and other bone marrow disorders (BMD). Some patients with PNH and/or BMD may require red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anemia due to hemolysis or bone marrow hypoplasia. Aims: To characterize the use of RBC transfusions among PNH patients with and without underlying AA. Methods: Enrollment data from 117 clinical sites participating in the observational PNH Registry in 16 countries on 5 continents was analyzed. Patients are included in the Registry regardless of the proportion of cells with deficiency of glycosylphosphatidyl-inositol anchored proteins (GPI-AP), bone marrow pathology, symptoms, or treatments. Sites collect clinical history at enrollment and additional data every 6 months. Demographic data, use of transfusions and other treatments, lab results, and symptoms are summarized for PNH patients with and without AA. Results: As of June 30, 2010 there were 655 enrolled patients in the Registry (53% female, median age 43). At enrollment, 28% of patients had history of AA and 45% had no history of BMD. Patients with underlying AA had lower median GPI-AP deficient granulocytes than those without BMD (median = 53% vs. 86%, respectively, p<.01) and patients in both groups had similar evidence of hemolytic activity when stratified by clone size (median LDH fold above normal upper limit was 0.90 vs. 0.94, p=.39 for patients with and without AA and clone size <10%; median = 3.41 vs. 4.84, p=.08 for AA vs. no BMD and clone size ≥50%). Not all PNH patients required transfusions: 56% of all patients required transfusions in the year prior to enrollment. Although patients with and without AA were equally likely to be treated with blood transfusions in the year prior to study enrollment overall, some differences emerged when stratified by clone size. For patients with clone size <50%, AA patients were almost twice as likely to receive transfusion in the previous year as patients without BMD (39% vs. 20%, p=.08). However, regardless of underlying AA, the proportion of patients receiving transfusions, in the prior year increased as clone size increased (29%, 31%, and 69% for clone sizes <10%, 10–49%, and ≥50%, respectively, p<.01). When patients were stratified by percent reticulocytes at enrollment (below vs. above the median value of 4.16%), 45% vs. 75% received transfusion in the prior year (p<.01). Among patients receiving a transfusion in the year prior to enrollment, the mean number of RBC units transfused was 9.6 for patients with underlying AA and 7.9 for patients with no BMD (p=.10). However, approximately twice as many patients with AA received 20+ RBC units in that year compared to patients without BMD (20% vs. 11%, p=.09). Number of transfused units in that year was similar by clone size (mean 9.5 vs. 8.6 for clone size <50% vs. ≥50%, p=.57). Concomitant treatment with anticoagulants or immunosuppressants was similar among patients who had received a transfusion in the past year compared to patients with no transfusions (39% vs. 33%, p=.13 and 26% vs. 22%, p=.25 respectively). Patients with AA had more bruising and bleeding while patients without BMD had more hemoglobinuria, dysphagia, and abdominal pain. Transfused patients with AA had more fatigue than non-transfused patients with AA (68% vs. 48%, p=.02). Conclusions: A substantial proportion (56%) of patients with PNH, but not all, required at least one transfusion in the year prior to enrolling in the registry, independent of underlying AA. The proportion of patients who had at least one transfusion increased with clone size. Among patients who had at least one transfusion, there was a trend for patients with underlying AA to receive more RBC units than patients without BMD. PNH patients with AA have fewer GPI-AP deficient granulocytes but demonstrate elevated hemolysis similar to patients without history of BMD when patients with similar clone sizes were compared. This Global PNH Registry, which remains open to accrual ([email protected]), should help to redefine prospectively the long-term natural history of PNH, its treatments, and the outcomes of treatment. Disclosures: Schrezenmeier: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Brodsky: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Muus: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bessler: Alexion Pharmaceutical Inc: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taligen: Consultancy. Szer: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maciejewski: Celgene: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy. Socié: Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Urbano-Ispizua: Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kanakura: Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hoechsmann: Alexion: Speakers Bureau. Rosse: Alexion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Khursigara: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Karnell: Alexion Pharma International: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bedrosian: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hillmen: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Effectiveness of Lenalidomide in Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma Who Relapsed/Progressed after or Were Refractory/Intolerant to Ibrutinib: The MCL-004 Study

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1786-1786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wang ◽  
Peter Martin ◽  
Tycel Phillips ◽  
Andre Goy ◽  
Izidore S Lossos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Unknown Primary ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains challenging particularly in the relapsed/refractory setting, where patients often show chemoresistance. Novel molecular-based therapies have shown impressive and durable activity in that setting, although primary and acquired resistance remains problematic. A recent retrospective series of 114 patients who had failed ibrutinib (median of 4.7 month exposure) showed very short median overall survival of 2.9 months after ibrutinib cessation (Martin et al. Blood 2015). Here we report the results from the observationalMCL-004 study investigating outcomes of patients treated with lenalidomide (an IMiD® immunomodulatory agent) after failing ibrutinib; patients were either relapsed, progressed, refractory, or intolerant to ibrutinib. The objective here is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of lenalidomide monotherapy or a lenalidomide-containing regimen in relapsed/refractory MCL after ibrutinib failure or intolerance. Methods: MCL-004 is a multicenter study in patients with MCL who relapsed/progressed after or were refractory/intolerant to ibrutinib, and were subsequently treated with lenalidomide. With patient informed consent, data were collected retrospectively from patients who, after their disease failed to respond to ibrutinib, received lenalidomide-based therapy from March 1, 2009 to June 9, 2015. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) based on 2007 International Working Group criteria, with required patient monitoring and routine imaging. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled at 7 US sites and 1 EU site, including patients receiving lenalidomide monotherapy (n=8), lenalidomide + rituximab (n=8), and lenalidomide + other treatment (n=14). Lenalidomide + other treatment included combination with rituximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone (n=3); other combinations were given in ≤2 patients. Patients had a median age of 69 years (range, 50-84), and median time from last dose of ibrutinib to first dose of lenalidomide was 1.3 weeks (range, 0.1-21.7). All patients received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, and 83% received ≥3 prior therapies (median prior therapies, 3.5; range, 2-8). With prior ibrutinib, the best responses achieved were 10% complete response (CR), 43% partial response (PR), 3% stable disease, 40% relapse/progressive disease (PD), and 3% unknown. Primary reasons for ibrutinib discontinuation were 50% relapse/PD, 40% refractory, and 10% intolerance. Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range, 1-11) of lenalidomide-based treatment. Eight patients' disease responded (4 CR, 4 PR), resulting in an ORR of 27% (95% CI, 12%-46%). Five of 8 maintained their response at data cut-off (3 CR, 2 PR). ORR was similar for patients with relapse/PD vs. those refractory to ibrutinib (29% vs. 33%, respectively). Median duration of response (DOR) was 18 weeks (95% CI, 2.9-25+) for all patients. Median DOR was not reached in patients who previously relapsed/progressed with ibrutinib compared with a median of 11 weeks for those whose disease was refractory to ibrutinib. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 33% fatigue; 27% nausea; and 23% each dyspnea, neutropenia, dizziness, or rash. In general, TEAEs were less common with lenalidomide monotherapy. The most frequently reported serious AEs were pneumonia, dyspnea, deep vein thrombosis, hypotension, and acute kidney injury (7% each). At data cutoff, 15 patients (50%) had died, mostly due to MCL and none due to second primary malignancy. Conclusions: Most patients received ≥3 prior lines of treatment, and median time from last dose of ibrutinib to first dose of lenalidomide was short. Lenalidomide-based treatment showed clinical activity in this difficult-to-treat patient population, including 27% ORR and 13% CR. No new safety signals for lenalidomide were identified. Overall, our results show that lenalidomide is active in a selected group of patients with relapsed/refractory MCL that previously failed ibrutinib. Disclosures Wang: BeiGene: Research Funding; Asana BioSciences: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martin:Acerta: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Goy:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hamadani:Takeda: Research Funding. Ghosh:Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Reeder:Millennium: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barnett:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Casadebaig Bravo:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schuster:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Exposure-Response Relationship of the SMART-Ig Anti-hC5 Antibody Crovalimab (SKY59): Results from the Umbrella Phase 1/2 Composer Trial in Healthy Volunteers and PNH Patients

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3745-3745
Author(s):  
Alexandre Sostelly ◽  
Simon Buatois ◽  
Antoine Soubret ◽  
Erica Winter ◽  
Barbara Klughammer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Complement Inhibition ◽  
Exposure Response ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Terminal Complement

Crovalimab (RO7112689) is a novel anti-human C5 antibody engineered with Sequential Monoclonal Antibody Recycling Technology (SMART Ig)(Fukuzawa et al., Sci Rep. (2017) 7(1):1080), resulting in significant half-life extension and enabling infrequent SC dosing using small volumes (1mL - 4mL) in C5 mediated diseases. We aimed at characterizing the exposure-response relationship of crovalimab used to define the minimum concentration of crovalimab achieving complete terminal inhibition. To establish pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), safety, efficacy, and optimal dose of crovalimab, we conducted a four-part adaptive clinical trial (Figure 1): Part 1: 15 healthy subjects were enrolled. 3 received 75 mg RO7112689 IV, 3 received 125 mg RO7112689 IV, 3 received 100 mg RO7112689 SC, and 6 received placeboPart 2: 10 treatment-naïve PNH patients were enrolled in Part 2 to receive increasing IV doses of 375mg, 500mg, and 1000mg on days 1, 8 and 22, respectively, followed by weekly doses of 170mg SC starting on day 36Part 3: 19 eculizumab pre-treated PNH patients were enrolled in Part 3 to receive 1000mg IV before randomization into 3 different arms: Arm A: 680mg SC Q4W (N=7)Arm B: 340mg SC Q2W (N=6)Arm C: 170mg SC QW (N=6) SC dosing was initiated on day 8 after the IV dose in all the dosing groups. Part 4: 5 eculizumab pre-treated PNH patients and 5 treatment-naïve PNH patients are planned to be enrolled to receive IV dose of 1000mg on Day 1 followed by SC dose of 340mg on Day 2, Day 8, Day 15, Day 22 followed by SC dose of 680mg given Q4W from Day 29 Crovalimab concentrations and free C5 were measured using a validated ELISA. A population PK model was developed using all the available data to describe the crovalimab concentration-time profiles. Crovalimab PD was assessed by evaluating the extent and duration of terminal complement inhibition, quantified using a validated, functional ex vivo liposome immunoassay (LIA) (http://www.wakodiagnostics.com/r_ch50.html). Relationships between crovalimab PK and PD were analyzed using graphical analysis. The PK was best described by a two-compartment open model with first-order elimination and absorption. To describe the PK in eculizumab pre-treated patients, elimination of crovalimab was modeled as a combination of the first-order elimination used for naïve patients and a faster clearance which decreases exponentially over time. Body weight was introduced using allometry on the clearance and volume of the distribution. After SC administration, bioavailability is estimated at 100% and terminal half-life around 30 days. In all PNH patients, complete complement inhibition (defined as LIA <10 U/ml, the LLOQ of the assay) was achieved immediately after end of infusion following the initial dose and maintained across the different dosing intervals investigated in the majority of the patients (Figure 2). Complete inhibition of free C5 (defined as free C5 <0.05μg/mL) was also achieved after end of infusion and maintained throughout the dosing intervals reflecting the LIA profiles. By pooling all the PK and PD data from the 3 parts of the COMPOSER study, crovalimab was shown to induce a concentration-dependent inhibition of serum hemolytic activity and of free C5 which closely correlates with terminal complement inhibition. Collectively, these data indicate that approximately 100μg/mL of crovalimab are required to achieve complement inhibition (Figure 3). At the target concentration of crovalimab between 80-100ug/mL, patients achieve complete terminal complement inhibition. Data collected in the ongoing Part 4 of COMPOSER will be used to confirm the target concentration of crovalimab. Exposure-response characterization demonstrated the potential of crovalimab as an infrequent, subcutaneous therapy for PNH. Disclosures Sostelly: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Buatois:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Soubret:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Klughammer:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hsu:Roche/Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jordan:Roche Diagnostics GmbH: Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Equity Ownership. Bucher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Charoin:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Gotanda:Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Employment. Shinomiya:Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.: Employment, Patents & Royalties: (WO2018143266) A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR USE IN THE TREATMENT OR PREVENTION OF A C5-RELATED DISEASE AND A METHOD FOR TREATING OR PREVENTING A C5-RELATED DISEASE. Nagy:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Panse:Blueprint Medicines: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yoon:Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy; Kyowa Hako Kirin: Research Funding; Yuhan Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Peffault de Latour:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Nishimura:Alexion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Röth:Alexion: 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; Apellis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bioverativ: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document