scholarly journals Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions Related to Immune Thrombocytopenia Drugs. A Prospective Cohort Study

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1056-1056
Author(s):  
Salim Mezaache ◽  
Thibault Comont ◽  
Johanne Germain ◽  
François Montastruc ◽  
Natacha Brun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Platelet Count ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Immune Thrombocytopenia ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Factors Associated

Abstract Background: The incidence ofadverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) drugs is not well known in the real-life practice. Aim: The principal aim of this study was to assess the incidence of ADRs related to ITP drugs. The secondary aims were to compare the incidence of ADRs depending on the drugs, and to assess the factors associated to corticosteroids-related ADR occurrence. Methods: Study population was the patients included between June 2013 and December 2014 in the CARMEN (Cytopénies Auto-immunes: Registre Midi-PyréneEN) registry. This multicenter registry is carried out on behalf of the French national center for autoimmune cytopenia and the French national center for rare diseases in immunohematology. It is aimed at the prospective follow-up of all newly diagnosed ITP adults in the French Midi-Pyrénées region (3 million inhabitants). Each investigator prospectively follows every patient newly diagnosed for ITP in routine visit or hospital stay, providing informed consent was received. ITP is defined in accordance with French guidelines: platelet count <150 x 109/L and exclusion of other causes of thrombocytopenia. CARMEN is dedicated to pharmacoepidemiological studies, with detailed recording of treatment exposure and prospective reporting of every ADR that the investigator judge significant. All ADRs are analyzed by two independent investigators at the Midi-Pyrénées Center for Pharmacovigilance. Only ADRs with a World Health Organization causality score at least "possible" were included in this study. For incidence calculations, the denominator was the period of exposure to ITP drugs. To assess the factors associated with corticosteroids-related ADRs, we performed univariate and multivariate (backward procedure) Cox models. The variables included were: age, gender, secondary vs.primary ITP, bleeding score and platelet count at diagnosis, diabetes mellitus, Charlson's comorbidity score, and number of concomitant drugs. Results: Out of 116 patients, 81 were exposed to at least one ITP drug and had at least one follow-up visit. At diagnosis, median age was 64 years (range: 18-95), 48.1% were female, 74.1% had primary ITP, 69.1% had bleeding symptoms and median platelet count was 7 x109/L. Eighty patients (98.8%) of the patients were exposed to corticosteroids, 46 (56.8%) to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), 11 (13.6%) to thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RA), 7 (8.6%) to danazol and 7 to dapsone, 6 (7.4%) to rituximab. Thirty-nine patients (48.1%) experienced at least one significant ADR (58 ADRs in total). The most frequent ADRs were infections (25.0%) and endocrinal diseases (18.5%). Twenty-two (37.9%) ADRs were serious (leading to hospitalization, necessitating a new drug) and 2 were lethal. The overall incidence of ADRs related to ITP drugs was 4.2/100 persons-weeks (95% confidence interval - 95% CI: 3.2-5.2). Corticosteroids showed the highest incidence of ADR (5.2/100 persons-weeks; 95% CI: 3.6-6.8). In multivariate analysis, the 2 remaining variables associated with corticosteroids-related ADR occurrence were an age >60 years (hazard ratio - HR: 1.79, 95% CI: 0.77-4.15) and diabetes mellitus (HR: 2.73, 95% CI: 1.08-6.87). Conclusion: This first study assessing the incidence of ADRs related to ITP drugs in a real-life setting showed that they are frequent. Corticosteroids were the first drug responsible for ADRs, stressing the need of second-line treatments, particularly in older and diabetic patients. Disclosures Godeau: Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Adoue:AMGEN: Other: Symposium presentations; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Other: Symposium presentations; OCTAPHARMA: Other: Symposium presentations; PFIZER: Other: Symposium presentations; LFB: Other: Symposium presentations; ACTELION: Other: Symposium presentations.

scholarly journals French Observatory of Adult' Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP) Treated By Thrombopoietin Receptor Agonists (TPO-RAs)

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2250-2250
Author(s):  
Marc Michel ◽  
Daniel Adoue ◽  
Stéphane Cheze ◽  
Paul Coppo ◽  
Soraya Leclerc-Teffahi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Platelet Count ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Immune Thrombocytopenia ◽  
Malignant Tumors ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Autoimmune Disorder ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Antiplatelet Antibody ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by isolated low platelet count (<100x109/L) with a variable risk of bleeding. The prevalence of ITP in France is 25/100000. While drug therapy is indicated in patients with platelet count less than 30x109/L and or with bleeding symptoms, discussions remain about therapeutic strategy to be implemented. The SATURNE study aimed to describe the current therapeutic management of adult ITP patients, to focus on TPO-RAs treated patients, and to assess changes in real life treatment strategy since TPO-RAs' approval. This study was carried out in referral and non-referral centersby hematologists and internists from hospitals or clinics in France. Enrolled patients were adults suffering from persistent (3 to 12 months after diagnosis) or chronic (>12 months) ITP. Patients with a newly diagnosed ITP (<3 months) and patients with secondary ITP (viral infection, lupus, etc.) were excluded. Data were collected online by investigators through an eCRF at inclusion (M0). A subgroup of patients initiating a TPO-RAs treatment during the study period was followed up at M3, M6, M12, M18 and M24. Only M0 data are presented in this abstract as interim analysis. Overall, 48 investigators included 333 patients (278 with chronic ITP and 55 with persistent ITP) over a 19 months period (2012 to 2013). Figure 1 displays the main characteristics including comorbidities and laboratory tests performed at diagnosis. Half ofthe patients (53%) had bleeding manifestations at ITP diagnosis; 10% at time of inclusion. ITP was mainly diagnosed by a hematologist (53%) or an internist (32%) and less frequently by a general practitioner (11%). Patients completed a median of 2 treatment lines before entering the study. Figure 2 shows treatment-lines distribution according to the ITP phase. Most patients had been treated with corticosteroids ± intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (83%) as 1st line treatment. Rituximab was the preferred 2nd line option, far prior to splenectomy (44% vs 14%). A total of 144 patients (123 chronic/ 21 persistent ITP) received TPO-RAs (39% romiplostim/ 33% eltrombopag / 15% both / 13% non specified): 6%, 20%, 34%, 28% and 12% respectively as a 1st line treatment, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and beyond. At inclusion 75% were still on TPO-RAs. Recently diagnosed patients received 2nd line TPO-RAs in higher proportions: 40% (of 46 patients diagnosed <2 years) vs 15% (of 65 patients diagnosed 2-5 yrs ago) and 7% (of 72 patients diagnosed >5 yrs). TPO-RAs became the 3rd line most used treatment (over 76% for diag. <2 yrs). In parallel, the use of splenectomy decreased from 31% (diag. >5 yrs) to 9% (<2 yrs) in 2nd line, and from 16% to 5% in 3rd line. TPO-RAs treated patients had a more severe ITP, in particular at diagnosis. More patients in this group showed platelet counts less than 30.109/L (71% vs 51%, p<0.0001 at diagnosis / 23% vs 10%, p<0.001 at inclusion), and bleeding manifestations (64% vs 44%, p<0.001 at diagnosis/12% vs 8%, p=0.24 at inclusion). They received an average of 3.2 lines of treatment (against 1.7 in TPO-RAs' non-treated patients, p<0.0001). The SATURNE study supports epidemiological trends observed in current practice in terms of patients and ITP characteristics, and provides current data on comorbidities. The results highlight the increasing use of TPO-RAs as 2nd and 3rd lines for ITP treatment and the decrease of splenectomy use over time. Initiated in 2012, respectively 1 and 2 years after eltrombopag and romiplostim approval, the SATURNE study points out the changes of the management of adult ITP in France. Table 1. N=333 Age 57 ± 20yr Women 190 (57%) Main ITP characteristics Chronic/Persistent ITP 278 (84%)/55 (16%) Mean ITP duration* 6 ±8yr Platelet count* - diagnosis - inclusion 33±31.109/L 100±83.109/L Hemorrhagic manifestations- diagnosis- baseline 176 (53%) 32 (10%) White blood cell* 8±3.109/L Hemoglobin* 14±5g/dl Globular volume* 90±6fl Comorbidities since ITP diagnosis At least once 36% Hypertension 17% Diabetes 8% Benign/malignant tumors 8% Cardiovascular disease 6% Diagnostic tests performed at ITP onset Viral serology tests 96% Blood smear 93% Blood coagulation 93% Marrow aspirate 78% Antiplatelet antibody 52% ITP treatment (at least once since diagnosis all lines combined) Corticosteroids and/or IVIG 275 (83%) Rituximab 146 (44%) TPO-RAs- eltrombopag- and/or romiplostim 144 (43%) 69 (48%) 78 (54%) Splenectomy 59 (18%) *mean ± SD Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Michel: Roche: Research Funding; AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Adoue:GSK: Other: Symposium presentations; AMGEN: Other: Symposium presentations; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OCTAPHARMA: Other: Symposium presentations; LFB: Other: Symposium presentations; PFIZER: Other: Symposium presentations; ACTELION: Other: Symposium presentations. Cheze:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coppo:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leclerc-Teffahi:Novartis: Employment. Fernandes:Novartis: Other: CRO. Texier:Novartis: Other: CRO.

Clinical Epidemiology and First-Line Treatment in Immune Thrombocytopenia Adults. Results of the Carmen Prospective Cohort

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3473-3473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Moulis ◽  
Thibault Comont ◽  
Johanne Germain ◽  
Natacha Brun ◽  
Claire Dingremont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Platelet Count ◽  
Clinical Epidemiology ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Severe Bleeding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Bleeding Score ◽  
Autoimmune Cytopenia

Abstract Background: The clinical epidemiology of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is not well known. Some issues (bleeding events at diagnosis, association to other autoimmune diseases, rate of infection prior to ITP onset) are not well described in adults. Little is known as regards first-line treatment choice in the real-life practice. Aim: The aims of this study were to assess i) the clinical epidemiology of incident ITP adults; ii) the use of first-line treatments in this population; and iii) the factors associated with the initial use of intravenous (IV) corticosteroids (CS) and of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in a real-life setting. This study was carried out on behalf of the French national center for autoimmune cytopenia and the French national center for rare diseases in immunohematology. Methods: Study population was the patients included between June 2013 and December 2014 in the CARMEN (Cytopénies Auto-immunes : Registre Midi-PyréneEN) multicenter registry. This multicenter registry is carried out on behalf of the French national center for autoimmune cytopenia and the French national center for rare diseases in immunohematology. The originalities of this registry are: the prospective follow-up of newly diagnosed ITPs, aimed at completeness of recording in the French Midi-Pyrénées region, South of France (3 million inhabitants), and the detailed recording of ITP treatment exposures. All the physicians in charge of ITP patients in the region, belonging to the netwotk of the regional center for autoimmune cytopenia, prospectively follow every patient newly diagnosed for ITP during routine visit or hospital stay. ITP is defined in accordance with French guidelines: platelet count <150 x 109/L and exclusion of other causes of thrombocytopenia. In this study, we assessed the clinical epidemiology at ITP onset, as well as ITP treatment use during the week following the diagnosis. Logistic regression models were performed to assess the factors associated with the use of IV CS and of IVIg. The following covariates were included: age, gender, Charlson's comorbidity score, secondary vs. primary ITP, bleeding score and platelet count. Results: Out of 121 newly diagnosed ITP, 113 patients were followed in the region and gave informed consent. Median age was 65 years (range: 18-95). Half of the patients were female, 24 (21.3%) had a secondary ITP, 57 (50.4%) had a Charlson's score ≥1, median platelet count was 17 x109/L (range: 1-126); 57 (50.9%) had bleeding symptoms, including 2 severe gastro-intestinal tract and 1 intracranial bleeding. Median Khellaf's bleeding score was 5 (range: 0-35). Twenty-five (21.4%) patients had another autoimmune disease (mostly: Hashimoto's thyroiditis, n=6, Sjögren syndrome, n=5, Evans syndrome, n=3) and 23 (20.3%) experienced an infection within the six weeks before ITP onset (including 8 influenza-like and 3 gastro-enteritis like syndromes, the others being various bacterial infections). Sixty-eight (60.2%) patients were treated during the week following the diagnosis. Among them, 66 (98.5%) received CS (median dose: 0.99 mg/kg/d), including 21 (31.3%) IV CS, 29 (43.3%) IVIg, 8 (11,9%) platelet transfusion, 2 romiplostim and 1 rituximab. The factors associated with the use of IV CS were secondary ITP (OR: 5.91; 95% CI: [1.78-19.71]) and Khellaf's bleeding score >8 (OR: 4.09; 95% CI [0.96-17.35]). Those associated with the use of IVIg were Khellaf's bleeding score >8 (OR: 7.30; 95% CI [1.36-32.27]) and platelet count <10 x 109/L (OR: 3.95; 95% CI [1.77-13.29]). Conclusions: This prospective cohort of newly diagnosed ITP adults confirms that severe bleeding is rare at ITP onset. Associated autoimmune diseases and recent infections are frequent. IVIg and IV CS were frequently used, particularly in case of severe bleeding. Disclosures Godeau: Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Adoue:LFB: Other: Symposium presentations ; OCTAPHARMA: Other: Symposium presentations ; ACTELION: Other: Symposium presentations ; PFIZER: Other: Symposium presentations ; AMGEN: Other: Symposium presentations ; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Other: Symposium presentations.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Of Rituximab For The Treatment Of Immune Thrombocytopenia In Adults

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1681-1681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaan Chugh ◽  
Donald Arnold ◽  
Wendy Lim ◽  
Mark A. Crowther ◽  
Saeed Darvish-Kazem
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Platelet Count ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Immune Thrombocytopenia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Count Response

Abstract Background Rituximab, a monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody is commonly used to treat immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of rituximab are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to determine a more precise estimate of the effect of rituximab on platelet count response in adults with ITP. Methods We searched MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1980), and the Cochrane database using the MeSH terms antibodies, monoclonal, and purpura thrombocytopenia idiopathic and the textwords rituximab, rituxan, mabthera, and immune thrombocytopenic purpura. In duplicate, two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, abstracted data and assessed each study for methodological quality. Results We identified 4 RCTs (n=360) that met our eligibility criteria. Each trial compared rituximab to placebo combined with other ITP treatments, including dexamethasone, or standard of care. Each trial enrolled non-splenectomized patients only. The likelihood of achieving a platelet count >100 x109/L at 6 months was greater with rituximab than placebo (relative risk [RR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.76). More patients receiving rituximab achieved a platelet count greater than 50 x109/L at 6 months (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18-1.80) compared to placebo. Rituximab was not associated with a reduction in the risk of any bleeding (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55-4.04) or an increase in the risk of infection (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.74-2.38). Conclusions Rituximab is associated with a modest increase in the likelihood of achieving a platelet count greater than >100 x109/L at 6 months compared to placebo. No significant reduction in bleeding or increased risk of infection was observed at 6 months. Randomized trials were generally small, with relatively short follow-up. Large pragmatic multicenter comparative trials are needed to examine durability of response over a longer period of follow-up. Disclosures: Arnold: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding. Lim:Leo Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crowther:Asahi Kasai: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxter: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Viropharma: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Routine Use of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin in 7+3-Based Inductions for All "Non-Adverse" Risk AML

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 36-37
Author(s):  
Gavin Hui ◽  
Abdullah Ladha ◽  
Edna Cheung ◽  
Caroline Berube ◽  
Steven Coutre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Myeloablative Conditioning ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Monosomy 7

Introduction: The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to 7+3 chemotherapy for newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been shown to significantly improve event-free survival (EFS) for cytogenetically favorable-risk AML, with marginal benefit for intermediate-risk AML, and no benefit for cytogenetically adverse-risk AML. Of note, with the exception of mutated FLT3-ITD, little is known about the impact of GO in ELN 2017-defined genotypically adverse-risk AML, and a recent randomized trial found no EFS benefit for 7+3+GO in patients (pts) with genotypically favorable-risk, NPM1-mutated AML. Since 2017, our institution incorporated GO into 7+3-based inductions for all "non-adverse" risk AML pts, as defined by wild-type FLT3 and no abnormalities on rapid FISH analysis for del(5q)/monosomy 5, del(7q)/monosomy 7, and del(20q). We report our experience treating all pts with "non-adverse" risk AML-as defined by this algorithm-with 7+3+GO. Methods: An institutional database was queried in order to identify all pts ≥18 years old who received 7+3-based chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML between 2017 and 2020; pts who received the FDA-approved fractionated dose of GO were included in the analysis. Data collection included demographic variables, karyotype/FISH, targeted PCR analyses, and multigene NGS panels for AML-related mutations including, but not limited to, mutations in FLT3, NPM1, CEBPA, TP53, RUNX1, and ASXL1. Outcome data included response to induction, relapse, and death, as well as hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) rates, conditioning regimens, and post-transplant complications. Results: Between January 2017 and July 2020, 96 pts received 7+3-based induction at our institution. Of these, 29 (30%) received 7+3 in combination with GO. Median age at diagnosis was 46 years (range 23-66), with 17 (59%) males. Sixteen (55%) pts had ELN favorable-risk AML (5 [31%] by cytogenetics and 11 [69%] by genotype), 6 (21%) pts had ELN intermediate-risk AML, and 7 (24%) pts had ELN adverse-risk AML (4 [57%] by cytogenetics and 3 [43%] by genotype). Median time from diagnosis to start of induction was 4 days (range 0-43). For cytogenetically adverse-risk pts, median time from diagnostic bone marrow biopsy to receipt of adverse karyotype results was 8 days (7-14). Median time from start of induction to receipt of multigene NGS results for all pts was 15 days (3-32). Overall, 22 (76%) pts achieved remission. All genotypically adverse-risk pts (1 with mutated TP53 and 2 with mutated RUNX1) were refractory to induction, while 3 of 4 (75%) cytogenetically adverse-risk pts (1 with t(6;9), 1 with monosomy 7, and 2 with 11q23 abnormalities) achieved remission. Eight of the 29 (28%) pts proceeded to HCT, including 4 adverse-risk pts. Of the adverse-risk pts, all received myeloablative conditioning prior to HCT and 3 (75%) developed veno-occlusive disease (VOD), with 2 (50%) requiring defibrotide therapy. In favorable/intermediate-risk pts, 4 (18%) proceeded to HCT (2 intermediate-risk pts in first remission and 2 favorable-risk pts in second remission). Of these, 2 (50%) received myeloablative conditioning and 1 (25%) developed VOD. At last follow-up, 23 of 29 pts (79%) remained alive, with a median overall survival not reached (range 1-29 months) and a median EFS of 20 months (9-31). The percentage of ELN favorable-, intermediate-, and adverse-risk pts who remained event-free at last follow-up was 75%, 33%, and 43%, respectively. Discussion: This single-center, retrospective cohort describes the outcomes of pts with "non-adverse" risk AML who received induction chemotherapy with 7+3+GO according to a pre-defined algorithm. Using this algorithm, 30% of all pts receiving 7+3-based inductions received GO. Of these, nearly 25% were ultimately found to have adverse-risk AML as defined by ELN 2017 criteria, largely driven by long turn-around times for karyotyping and NGS multigene panel results. No patient with genotypically adverse-risk AML by ELN criteria responded to induction chemotherapy, and 75% of cytogenetically adverse-risk pts who proceeded to HCT developed VOD. Routine use of 7+3+GO induction outside of the context of cytogenetically favorable-risk AML remains controversial, and further study is needed to define the role of GO, particularly for pts with ELN genotypically adverse-risk AML. Table Disclosures Gotlib: Blueprint Medicines Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Chair of the Response Adjudication Committee and Research Funding, Research Funding; Deciphera: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: co-chair of the Study Steering Committee and Research Funding. Liedtke:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Muffly:Adaptive: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Servier: Research Funding. Mannis:AbbVie, Agios, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech: Consultancy; Glycomimetics, Forty Seven, Inc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Treating Acute Leukemia during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Latin American Registry

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Author(s):  
Roberta Demichelis ◽  
Martha Alvarado ◽  
Jule F Vasquez ◽  
Nancy Delgado ◽  
Cynthia Gómez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Acute Leukemia ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Latin American Countries

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire world. Health systems have been affected in such a way that patients with diseases other than COVID-19 have suffered serious consequences. In Latin America, the disease has emerged in a fragile system with more disparities, making our patients more vulnerable. Acute leukemia patients have a high risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Various expert recommendations have emerged with the aim of minimizing the risk of COVID-19 without affecting leukemia-related outcomes. However, multiple logistical issues tangentially associated with the pandemic have also appeared, potentially limiting the quality of management of these patients. The objective of this study was to register treatment modifications associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and its short-term consequences in Latin American countries. Methods We included patients older than 14 years, from 14 centers of 4 Latin American countries (Mexico, Peru, Guatemala and Panama), with the diagnosis of acute leukemia, who were on active treatment since the first case of COVID-19 was documented in each country. We documented their baseline characteristics and followed the patients prospectively until July 15, were data-cutoff for this pre-planned analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the incidence of COVID-19 disease and its complications. Secondary outcomes included treatment and consult modifications, and cause of death during the study period. Logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Results We recorded the information of 635 patients: 58.1% Ph-negative ALL, 25.7% AML, 9% APL and 7.2% Ph+ALL. The median age was 35 years (14-90 years); 58.8% were consideredf high-risk patients. The majority were on CR (68.3%) receiving consolidation or maintenance therapy, while 14.5% were newly diagnosed and 17.2% with relapsed/refractory disease. The majority (91.8%) were treated in centers that were also receiving COVID-19 patients, 40.2% in centers were patients could not be electively hospitalized for leukemia treatment because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-pandemic led to treatment-modifications in 40.8% of the cases. Reasons for modifications were associated with logistical issues (22.4%), medical decisions (15.1%) or patient choice (3.3%). The most frequent modification was chemotherapy delay (17.3%) followed by regimen modification (13.4%) and dose-reductions (10.1%). (Figure 1) 83 patients (13.1%) developed COVID-19 disease, the majority mild-moderate disease (54.2%), 27.7% severe disease and 18.1% critically ill; 27.7% required mechanical ventilation and 37.7% died from COVID-19 disease, representing 4.9% of the entire cohort. We identify as risk factors for COVID-19 disease the presence of active leukemia (newly diagnosed or relapsed) (OR 3.46 [95% CI: 2.16-5.5], p&lt;0.001), high-risk leukemia (OR 1.63 [95% CI: 1.54-4.52], p&lt;0.001) and being treated in a center were elective hospitalization was possible (OR 2.17 [95% CI 1.29-3.67], p=0.004). Treatment modifications, appointment prolongations or the use of virtual consultation were not associated with a reduction in the risk of COVID-19. On the other hand, 16.7% of patients died during period analyzed due to leukemia (57.5%), COVID-19 (29.2%) or treatment related-mortality (13.2%). Independent factors associated with mortality were AML vs. ALL (OR 1.89 [95% CI: 1.12-3.18], p=0.016), relapsed-refractory disease (OR 8.34 [95% CI: 4.83-14.41], p&lt;0.001), induction/consolidation vs. maintenance therapy (OR 2.20 [95% CI: 1.25-3.18], p&lt;0.001) and the use of virtual consultation (OR 0.35 [95% CI: 0.13-0.94] p=0.037). (Table 1) Discussion/Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant modifications in the standard of care treatment of patients with acute leukemia. The incidence of COVID-19 disease in acute leukemia patients was considerable and more than a third of the patients with acute leukemia and COVID-19 disease died. Despite a short-follow up, 16.7% of the patients died and leukemia-related deaths were the most frequent. In low- and middle-income countries with fragile health systems, the collateral damage for patients with acute leukemia may be just as important as the direct consequences of COVID-19. Disclosures Alvarado: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau. De la Peña-Celaya:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Perez:Roche: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gomez-Almaguer:Amgen: 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; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

ENESTnd Update: Continued Superiority of Nilotinib Versus Imatinib In Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia In Chronic Phase (CML-CP)

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 207-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy P. Hughes ◽  
Andreas Hochhaus ◽  
Giuseppe Saglio ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Saengsuree Jootar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Clonal Evolution ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Superior Efficacy ◽  
Rate Of Progression

Abstract Abstract 207 Background: Results from the phase 3, international, randomized ENESTnd trial have demonstrated the superior efficacy of nilotinib over imatinib with significantly higher rates of major molecular response (MMR), complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), and with significantly lower rates of progression to AP/BC on treatment. Here, we present data with a median follow-up of 18 months. Methods: 846 CML-CP patients were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (bid) (n=282), nilotinib 400 mg bid (n=281), and imatinib 400 mg once daily (n=283). Primary endpoint was MMR (≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS) rate “at” 12 months, as previously presented. Key secondary endpoint was durable MMR at 24 months. Other endpoints assessed at 24 months include progression to AP/BC (with and without clonal evolution), event-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). Results: With a median follow-up of 18 months, the overall best MMR rate was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (66%, P < .0001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (62%, P < .0001) compared with imatinib (40%). Superior rates of MMR were observed in both nilotinib arms compared with the imatinib arm across all Sokal risk groups (Table). The overall best rate of BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.0032% (equivalent to complete molecular response, CMR) was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (21%, P < .0001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (17%, P < .0001) compared with imatinib (6%). The overall best CCyR rate was superior for nilotinib 300 mg bid (85%, P < .001) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (82%, P=.017) compared with imatinib (74%). The superior efficacy of nilotinib was further demonstrated using the 2009 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 12-month milestone in which fewer patients had suboptimal response or treatment failure on nilotinib 300 mg bid (2%, 3%) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (2%, 2%) vs imatinib (11%, 8%). Rates of progression to AP/BC on treatment were significantly lower for nilotinib 300 mg bid (0.7%, P=.006) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (0.4%, P=.003) compared with imatinib (4.2%). The rate of progression on treatment was also significantly lower for nilotinib when including clonal evolution as a criteria for progression (Table). There were fewer CML-related deaths on nilotinib 300 mg bid (n=2), and 400 mg bid (n=1) vs imatinib (n=8). Estimated OS rate (including data from follow-up after discontinuation) at 18 months was higher for nilotinib 300 mg bid (98.5%, P=.28) and nilotinib 400 mg bid (99.3%, P=.03) vs imatinib (96.9%). Both drugs were well-tolerated. Discontinuations due to adverse events or laboratory abnormalities were lowest for nilotinib 300 mg bid (7%) compared with nilotinib 400 mg bid (12%) and imatinib (9%). With longer follow up there has been minimal change in the occurrence of AEs. Minimum 24-month follow-up data for all patients will be presented. Conclusions: With longer follow-up, nilotinib was associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to AP/BC on treatment and lower rates of suboptimal response or treatment failure vs imatinib. Nilotinib resulted in fewer CML-related deaths and a higher OS rate vs imatinib. Nilotinib induced superior rates of MMR, CMR, and CCyR vs imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Taken together, these data support nilotinib as a new standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed CML. Disclosures: Hughes: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Hochhaus:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. le Coutre:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Reiffers:Novartis: Research Funding. Pasquini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Clark:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gallagher:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Haque:Novartis: Employment. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

A Phase III Study to Compare Melphalan, Prednisone, Lenalidomide (MPR) Versus Melphalan 200 Mg/m2 and Autologous Transplantation (MEL200) In Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3573-3573 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Izhar Hardan ◽  
Giovannino Ciccone ◽  
Alessandra Larocca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Chromosomal Abnormalities ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Cd34 Cells ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Best Responses

Abstract Abstract 3573 Background: In this randomized study we question the role of HDT, when new drugs are incorporated in the conventional treatment or in the autologous transplant setting in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Aims: To compare melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide (MPR) with tandem melphalan (200 mg/m2) (MEL200) in MM patients younger than 65 years. Methods: The induction treatment consisted of four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg d 1–21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg d 1,8,15,22) (Rd). Cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF was used to mobilize stem cells. As consolidation, patients were randomized to MPR (N=202) [six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/k g d 1–4), prednisone (2 mg/kg d 1–4) and lenalidomide (10 mg d 1–21))] or MEL200 (N=200)[tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support]. All patients were also randomized to receive either aspirin or low-molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) as thromboprophylaxis during Rd and MPR. Primary study endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. Results: From november 2007 to july 2009, 402 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic MM younger than 65 years of age were recruited and randomized. All patients enrolled were stratified according to International Staging System (ISS) (stages 1 and 2 vs stage 3) and age (<60 vs ≥60 years). Results: On an intention to treat basis, best responses after Rd induction, were: partial response (PR) rate was 87%, very good partial response (VGPR) rate was 52%, including 13% complete responses (CR). The median yields of stem cells harvested was 8.7 ×106 CD34+ cells/Kg; 91% of patients collected the minimum dose of 4×106/kg CD34+ cells. As of August 10th, 257 patients are evaluable for response after at least 3 cycles of MPR (124) and after the first MEL200 (133); best responses to consolidation: in the MPR group, the VGPR rate was 60% including 20% CR; in the MEL200 group the VGPR rate was 58% including 25% CRs. No differences in responses were reported according to chromosomal abnormalities, such as del13, t(4;14), t(14;16) or del17p. After a median follow-up of 14 months, the projected 2-year PFS and OS were similar in the two groups (table). The achievement of at least VGPR after consolidation was a predictive factor of longer PFS in both groups: in the MEL200 group, the 2-year PFS was 92% for patients with at least VGPR vs 70% for those with PR (p<.0001); in the MPR group 86% vs 61% respectively (p<.0001). MPR and MEL200 were equally effective in patients with chromosomal abnormalities (2-year PFS was 71% vs 77%; p=.39) or ISS 3 (2-year PFS was 58% vs 66%; p=.48). Induction with Rd was well tolerated: the most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (8%), anemia (7%), infections (4%) and skin rash (5%). The incidence of thromboembolic events was similar in patients randomized to aspirin (2%) or low molecular weight heparin (1%) as thromboprophylaxis (p=.45). During consolidation, the incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia (97% vs 32%;p <.001), thrombocytopenia (59% vs 5%; p<.001), infections (10% vs 1%, p<.001) and gastrointestinal (15% vs 1%, p<.001) complications was higher in MEL200 patients. Conclusion: Our study confirms the efficacy and safety of Rd induction. Both MPR and MEL200 improved the quality of response, achieved by Rd induction. At present, PFS and OS are not significantly different in the two groups, but longer follow-up is needed. These data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janseen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria. Patriarca:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Caravita:Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janseen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Rituximab Plus Three Cycles of Dexamethasone In the Treatment of Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP): a Pilot Study.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3697-3697
Author(s):  
Rebecca Elstrom ◽  
Soo Y. Lee ◽  
James B. Bussel
Keyword(s):  
Platelet Count ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Abstract 3697 Introduction: Rituximab has been a useful treatment for patients with ITP; many hundreds of patients have been treated. 30–40% of patients will achieve a complete remission (CR: platelet count >150 × 109/l) with initial treatment and, of this group, the CR will last at least a year in almost all patients. However, emerging data suggests that at least 40% of these patients in CR will relapse between 1 and 3 years from initial treatment suggesting that long-term “cures” only occur in 20% of the initial patients. Therefore it would be desirable if CR's could be achieved in more patients and especially if these would be durable in more than 20%. One approach would be to use rituximab maintenance, however it results in suppression of B-cells for more than 2 years. Dexamethasone has also been used to achieve “cure” in ITP especially in adults at or near diagnosis. Cheng's study suggested that approximately 50% of patients would achieve a long-term response with only one 4-day cycle of high dose (40 mg/day) dexamethasone (N Engl J Med, 2003). A follow up study from GIMEMA suggested that 3–4 cycles of dexamethasone would be better than 1 cycle (Blood, 2007). Finally, Zaja's study suggested that rituximab plus one cycle of dexamethasone was superior to dexamethasone alone with a > 50% CR rate at 6 months (Blood, 2010). Therefore, we elected to perform a pilot study to explore the combination of rituximab with three cycles of dexamethasone at 14 day intervals. Methods: Patients with ITP with platelet counts < 30,000 off therapy and in need of treatment were enrolled. The standard dose (4 infusions of 375mg/m2) rituximab was given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 and dexamethasone 40 mg (adjusted for size) on days 1–4, 15–18, and 29–32. Results: Fourteen patients between the ages of 4 and 53 years with ITP were treated with rituximab and dexamethasone (R&D) (Table 1). All had received previous steroid therapy as well as other treatments. The median platelet count was 40,000 at initiation of rituximab (range 7,000-230,000); several patients with low counts started with dexamethasone prior to initiating Rituximab to sustain their counts during initial treatment. Patients received rituximab weekly for between 2 and 4 doses and dexamethasone for either 2 or 3 courses at intervals between 1 and 8 weeks (median 2 week intervals). A summary of the results is shown in table 2 demonstrating short-lived platelet increases in response to dexamethasone in almost all patients. With short follow up, there were 7 CR's, 3 PR's and 4 NR's. If this was divided by duration of ITP prior to R&D, there were 4 CR's and 1 NR for ≤ 12 months and 3 CR, 3 PR, and 3 NR for > 12 months. More of the children who were treated had chronic disease than did adults explaining their apparently poorer response. Observed toxicities included hyperglycemia, grade 1 and 2 liver function abnormalities, weight gain, and 1 episode of colitis requiring hospitalization. Three patients opted to skip the third cycle of dexamethasone. Conclusion: A regimen of rituximab + 2–3 courses of dexamethasone is active in patients with pretreated ITP with appreciable but usually manageable toxicity. It appears to yield superior results if administered to patients within one year of diagnosis. This combination merits further exploration in a prospective clinical trial. Disclosures: Bussel: Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ligand: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cangene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding.

Consolidation with Vtd Significantly Improves the Complete Remission (CR) Rate Following Vtd Induction and Single Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (auto) in Multiple Myeloma (MM).

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3096-3096
Author(s):  
Xavier Leleu ◽  
Benjamin Hebraud ◽  
Guillemette Fouquet ◽  
Murielle Roussel ◽  
Denis Caillot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Relapse Rate ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
The Other ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Induction Regimen

Abstract Abstract 3096 Background. Several studies have demonstrated the impact of VTd on response rates and PFS either as induction or consolidation regimen. However there are limitations to these studies, especially that no data is available regarding the role of VTd consolidation in the context of bortezomib-triple based VTd induction regimen followed by a single auto. At completion of therapy, the response rate (ORR, PR and better) was 89%, VGPR+CR rate 74%, CR rate 29%, relapse rate and median PFS was 53% and 26 months (median F-up 32 months) in the VTd arm of the phase 3 IFM2007-02 trial conducted for newly diagnosed MM (Moreau et al, Blood 2012). In this study, only a minority of patients had received a consolidation or maintenance. On the other hand, Cavo et al. (Blood 2012) reported 97.5%, 92%, 61%, 39% 3-year progression and 62% estimated 5-year PFS (F-up 43 months) respectively in the VTd arm. VTd was given as induction before and consolidation after double auto in this upfront GIMEMA phase 3 trial (Cavo et al, Lancet 2010). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of VTd as consolidation therapy in the context of VTd as induction regimen followed by a single auto (VTd-auto-VTd regimen). Method. This study has included a first group of 121 newly diagnosed MM from 2009 to 2011 across 9 IFM centers. Patients were to be eligible for auto upfront, aged less than 65 and treated with VTd-auto-VTd regimen. The second cohort included MM treated with VTd-auto without consolidation from the IFM2007-02 trial (n=76). A third cohort comprised MM that received upfront a triplet Vd-based combination induction (VCd, VRd) -auto without consolidation (n = 40). Results. In the whole study, the median age was 56 years, the sex ratio was 1,49, 50% had ISS 2 and 3, 22% had adverse FISH [t(4;14); del17p] (similar in the 3 groups). Overall, the ORR was identical in the 3 cohorts at completion of therapy, 104 (86%), 72 (94%) and 32 (80%) for the cohort 1 to 3, respectively. Nevertheless, the CR rate was significantly greater in patients that received a consolidation (cohort 1), as compared to the cohorts 2 and 3 that did not receive any consolidation, 59 (53%) vs. 26 (34%) and 13 (32.5%), respectively (p=0.0001). Interestingly, the CR rates were identical at the end of the induction in the 3 cohorts, 13%, 15% and 22.5%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 25 months, the incidence rate of relapse was significantly greater in the cohort 2 and 3 versus 1, further demonstrating the importance of the consolidation, 25 (21%), 42 (55%) and 13 (32.5%) patients (p=0.0001), respectively; and 9 (8%), 6 (8%) and 8 (20%) had died in cohorts 1 to 3 (p=0.07). The median (95%CI) PFS was not reached in cohort 1, and was 32 (28;36) months and 30 (26;33) months in cohort 2 and 3, respectively. Importantly, 54.5%, 32% and 32% of patients were free of relapse at 32 months in the 3 cohorts, respectively. Similar data were obtained for TTP. The median (95%CI) OS was not significantly different in cohorts 1 to 3, although not reached for the first 2 cohorts and 38 (33;43) months for the 3rdcohort. The 3-year survival was 84%, 91% and 76%, respectively (p=ns). A longer follow up will certainly demonstrate greater survival end points benefit in favor for consolidation. The safety profile of the cohort that contained a consolidation was superimposable to that of the remaining 2 cohorts without consolidation. The incidence rate of hematological EIs of grade 3 and 4 was 4%, 6% and 8% in the 3 cohorts (p=ns), respectively. The incidence rate of neuropathy grade 1–2 and 3–4 was 5% and 2% in the cohort 1 with consolidation, but only 1% occurred during the consolidation. This data compares favorably to the 3% reported in the cohort 2 (Moreau et al. Blood 2012). We have also observed 9 (9%) thromboembolic events (TE), 8 of venous type and 1 arterial. None of them happened during the consolidation, and again, this incidence rate if superimposable to that reported in the IFM2007-02 vTd cohort. Conclusion. This study showed an impressive increase in CR rate in relation to the consolidation that translated into a lower relapse rate. This study also demonstrated that the VTd regimen, used both as induction and consolidation, in the context of a single auto upfront in MM, significantly contributed to improve clinical outcomes with an acceptable toxicity profile. VTd-auto-VTd compared very favorably to the other upfront protocols, and may become in the near future a standard of care in newly diagnosed patients with Myeloma. Disclosures: Leleu: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; LeoPharma: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Pomalidomide. Roussel:celgene: Honoraria; janssen: Honoraria. Facon:onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Attal:celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients Treated With Lenalidomide Induction and Maintenance Show a Low Incidence Of Second Primary Malignancies (SPMs)

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2074-2074
Author(s):  
Annamaria Brioli ◽  
Charlotte Pawlyn ◽  
Walter Gregory ◽  
Samantha Hinsley ◽  
Samantha Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Introduction New drugs have significantly improved the outcome of MM patients (pts) increasing both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Among new drugs lenalidomide (LEN) due to its oral availability and favourable toxicity profile is an attractive option both as an induction and as a maintenance treatment, with different studies demonstrating its effectiveness. Long term therapy with LEN, however, has been associated with an increased risk of developing SPMs. Aims We are conducting a large phase III study to evaluate the use of LEN as induction and/or as maintenance therapy. The primary end points of the study are OS and PFS. Secondary end points are response and toxicity. Methods Pts are treated following an intensive or a non intensive pathway based on their eligibility for high dose Melphalan (HDM) and stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and are randomised to receive induction therapy with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone combined with either LEN (CRD) or thalidomide (CTD). Pts failing to achieve an optimal response are randomised to receive additional therapy with cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone and bortezomib (CVD) or no extra therapy. Pts with minimal or no response will automatically receive further therapy with CVD. A randomisation between LEN maintenance and no maintenance is also performed. Data on the occurrence of SPMs are being routinely collected as part of safety assessment during all protocol phases and follow up. Analyses were performed on treatment actually received. Results As per cut off of the 23rd July, 2371 pts have undergone the induction randomisation, of which 2368 are eligible for the safety analysis; 794 pts entered maintenance randomisation. The median follow up is 1.36 years from initiation of the study and 1.06 years from maintenance randomisation. Localised skin cancer other than melanoma were considered as non-invasive SPMs. At the time of the present analysis 17 SPMs have been reported with a cumulative incidence rate of 0.7% (cumulative rate of 0.6% for invasive SPMs and 0.1% for non-invasive SPMs); four additional patients, reported as having a SPM, were excluded, after central review of the data, either due to a previous history of malignancy or because of the evidence of a pre-existing tumour other than MM at the time of study entry. The median age at the time of SPMs development is 72 years (range 61-92), and the median time from trial entry to development of SPMs is 11 months (range 2.1-27.0). The most common SPMs reported were squamous cell carcinoma (4 pts, 2 invasive and 2 non invasive), breast cancer (3 pts), colon cancer (2 pts) and prostate cancer (2 pts). No haematological SPM has so far been reported. One patient, treated according to the intensive arm with LEN both as induction and maintenance, was reported as having a suspect myelodysplasia (MDS) due to anaemia and thrombocytopenia 2.7 months after entering the maintenance randomisation. No clear histological sign of MDS was found and the values improved after stopping maintenance treatment; these data fit with treatment related toxicity and not with the development of a MDS, and the patient was excluded from this analysis. Ten out of 17 SPMs developed during maintenance treatment or follow up phase, with 7 patients having received LEN maintenance. Median time from maintenance randomisation to SPMs development is 7 months (range 2-20.6 months). The remaining 7 were diagnosed during or immediately after induction. About half of the patients (8/17) were randomised to receive LEN induction; 3 patients received LEN both as induction and as maintenance. Interestingly only one of those 3 pts had been treated according to the intensive arm. With a median follow up of 1.36 years the estimated incidence rate at 1 and 2 years are 0.70% (95% CI .40-1.22)and 1.17% (95% CI .70-1.96) respectively (Figure 1). Conclusions Our data do not confirm previous findings of an excess risk of SPMs in association with the use of LEN and HDM in presenting patients, with 12/17 pts developing SPMs treated on the non intensive pathway that does not contain HDM. Most importantly only 0.4% of the patients enrolled within the intensive pathway developed a SPM, with only 2 of them receiving LEN maintenance. Longer follow up will help to further elucidate the risk of LEN associated SPMs. On behalf of the NCRI Haemato-Oncology subgroup Disclosures: Brioli: Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: The presentation include the use of Lenalidomide as induction and as maintenance treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Cook:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyer Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Morgan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: 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; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document