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

Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (Suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 896-896
Author(s):  
Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini ◽  
Michael W. Deininger ◽  
Michael J. Mauro ◽  
Charles Chuah ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

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

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

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 801-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Cervantes ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Dietger Niederwieser ◽  
Andres Sirulnik ◽  
Viktoriya Stalbovskaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Extension Phase ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

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

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Receiving Triplet Therapy in the Connect MM® Disease Registry

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4229-4229
Author(s):  
Jatin J. Shah ◽  
Rafat Abonour ◽  
Mohit Narang ◽  
Jayesh Mehta ◽  
Howard R. Terebelo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Triplet Regimen

Abstract Introduction: Triplet therapies are used for treatment (Tx) of both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Actual patterns and outcomes of Tx are not fully understood. Connect MM® is the first and largest multicenter, US-based, prospective observational cohort study designed to characterize Tx patterns and outcomes for pts with NDMM. This analysis describes demographic and disease characteristics of pts who received triplet Tx as an induction regimen and for whom transplant was or was not intended. The analysis explores the relationship of these factors with overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints. Patients and Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 y with NDMM within 60 days of diagnosis were eligible for enrollment regardless of disease severity, medical history, or comorbidities. Data including transplant intent (yes/no) was collected at baseline; follow-up data was collected quarterly thereafter. Based on the initial intent, 2 groups were identified: patients with intent to transplant who received transplant (TT) and pts with no intent to transplant who did not receive a transplant (NT). Triplet Tx was defined as the combination of ≥ 3 concurrent therapeutic agents in the first course of Tx (within 56 days of study entry). KM analysis adjusted for age was conducted for OS. Because decisions on use of transplant and triplet therapy are influenced by multiple factors, a multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the contribution of the triplet therapy (yes/no) to OS and was adjusted for other variables, including age, comorbidities, and ISS staging. Results: Between September 2009 and December 2011, 1493 pts were enrolled. This analysis was on 1436 pts: 650 pts with transplant intent and 786 pts without transplant intent. The data cutoff date was November 30, 2014, and the median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 33.8 mos. Of pts with transplant intent, 451 (69%) received transplant (TT) and 199 (31%) did not. Of pts without transplant intent, 62 (8%) received transplant and 724 (92%) did not (NT). The abstract focuses on TT and NT groups only. NT pts tended to be older and have more advanced ISS staging and higher β2-microglobulin levels than TT pts (Table). The most common triplet regimen given during the first course treatment (within 56 days) was lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd). RVd was administered to 34% of the NT pts (76/225) and 59% of the TT pts (152/257). The most common non-triplet regimen was bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), which was given to 31% of NT pts (156/499) and 38% of TT pts (73/194). Within the NT group, pts given triplet Tx had a lower risk of death than those who did not receive triplet Tx (P = .0013). The multivariable analysis found triplet Tx to be associated with a 36% reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50-0.82]; P = .001). ISS disease stage (HR = 1.43 [95% CI, 1.21-1.69]; P < .001) and history of diabetes (HR = 1.38 [95% CI, 1.08-1.78]; P = .012) were negative prognostic factors for OS. Within the TT group, pts who received triplet Tx did not attain an OS benefit (P = .8993), and no baseline characteristics were significantly associated with OS. These results may be limited by other factors not considered that may have influenced physicians' choice of treatment, including the use of maintenance therapy and a short follow-up period of 33.8 months. Conclusions: Triplet Tx as a first regimen is associated with longer OS in pts without transplant intent who did not receive a transplant. RVd and Vd were the most common first Tx regimens, respectively. Continued follow-up of these pts and enrollment of an additional cohort will provide additional data with mature follow-up. Table 1. Table 1. Disclosures Shah: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Array: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: 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; Millenium: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abonour:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Narang:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Mehta:Celgene Corporation: Speakers Bureau. Terebelo:Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacylics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gasparetto:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Honoraria, Other: Export Board Committee, Speakers Bureau. Toomey:Celgene: Consultancy. Hardin:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Srinivasan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larkins:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nagarwala:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rifkin:Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 679-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Martinelli ◽  
Hervé Dombret ◽  
Patrice Chevallier ◽  
Oliver G. Ottmann ◽  
Nicola Goekbuget ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Philadelphia Chromosome ◽  
Pcr Amplification ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
T315i Mutation ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

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

Nilotinib Versus Imatinib in Patients (pts) with Newly Diagnosed Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive (Ph+) Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase (CML-CP): ENESTnd 36-Month (mo) Follow-up

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 452-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Saglio ◽  
Philipp D. LeCoutre ◽  
Ricardo Pasquini ◽  
Saengsuree Jootar ◽  
Hirohisa Nakamae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Philadelphia Chromosome ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 452FN2 Background: In ENESTnd, pts treated with nilotinib demonstrated higher and faster rates of major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS), deeper molecular response (MR4, ≤ 0.01%IS and MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), and complete cytogenetic responses (CCyR) along with significantly lower rates of progression to AP/BC and fewer CML-related deaths compared with imatinib by 12 and 24 mo. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up of 24 mo; however, efficacy and safety data based on considerably longer follow-up of ≥ 36 mo will be presented. As demonstrated in IRIS and other imatinib trials, most pts who progress on imatinib do so within the first 3 years of therapy. Thus, this 36-mo update of ENESTnd will be important to further verify the benefits of nilotinib in newly-diagnosed pts. Methods: 846 adult pts with newly-diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg BID (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (QD) (n = 283). MMR, MR4, MR4.5, time to progression to AP/BC on treatment, progression-free survival (PFS) on treatment, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: By 24 mo, both doses of nilotinib demonstrated significantly higher rates of MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 vs imatinib (Table). Nilotinib-treated pts achieved median BCR-ABLIS levels of 0.09% (300 mg BID) and 0.10% (400 mg BID) by 12 mo, while this level of reduction was not observed before 24 mo on imatinib. More pts with CCyR achieved MMR at 12 and 24 mo with either dose of nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). Regardless of Sokal risk, rates of MMR and MR4.5 were higher for nilotinib at both doses vs imatinib (Table). Progression to AP/BC (excluding clonal evolution [CE]) on treatment was significantly lower for nilotinib vs imatinib (2 pts and 3 pts with nilotinib 300 mg BID [P = .0059] and 400 mg BID [P =.0196]), respectively vs 12 pts with imatinib). After achieving CCyR, 4 pts treated with imatinib progressed to AP/BC and 2 pts treated with nilotinib 400 mg BID progressed after achieving both CCyR and MMR (1 also achieved MR4). No pt who achieved MR4.5 progressed at any time. All but 1 pt who progressed to AP/BC on treatment were in the intermediate and high Sokal risk groups; 1 pt treated with nilotinib 400 mg BID progressed in the low Sokal risk group who had an E255V mutation at progression. When considering progression events of pts after discontinuation of treatment, an additional 7, 2, and 6 events (excluding CE) were observed with nilotinib 300 mg BID, nilotinib 400 mg BID and imatinib, respectively. Twice as many pts had emergent mutations on imatinib (n = 20) vs nilotinib (n = 10 on 300 mg BID; n = 8 on 400 mg BID). At 24 mo, OS remained similar in all groups, but there were fewer CML-related deaths in both nilotinib 300 mg BID (5 pts) and nilotinib 400 mg BID (3 pts) arms vs imatinib (10 pts). Both drugs were well tolerated and few new adverse events (AEs) and lab abnormalities were observed between 12- and 24-mo of follow-up. Nilotinib 300 mg BID had the fewest discontinuations due to AEs/lab abnormalities (9% vs 13% and 10% with nilotinib 400 mg BID and imatinib, respectively). Conclusions: With a minimum follow-up of 24 mo, nilotinib continued to demonstrate superiority vs imatinib with faster and deeper molecular responses and a significantly decreased risk of progression. These data support the use of nilotinib as a standard of care option in newly-diagnosed adult pts with Ph+ CML-CP. Disclosures: Saglio: Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Nilotinib is a safe and effective treatment for patients with CML. LeCoutre:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Pasquini:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Nakamae:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Flinn:nOVARTIS: Research Funding. Hochhaus:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hughes:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larson:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gallagher:Novartis: Employment. Yu:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Blakesley:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment. Kim:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding.

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

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 409-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valeria Santini ◽  
Antonio Almeida ◽  
Aristoteles Giagounidis ◽  
Stephanie Gröpper ◽  
Anna Jonasova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

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

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

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 463-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Steensma ◽  
Uwe Platzbecker ◽  
Koen Van Eygen ◽  
Azra Raza ◽  
Valeria Santini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Transfusion Independence ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Rbc Transfusion

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

Nilotinib Shows Safety and Efficacy in Older Patients (≥ 65 years) with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase Comparable with That in Younger Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase: Results From ENESTnd,

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 3768-3768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Larson ◽  
Udomsak Bunworasate ◽  
Anna G. Turkina ◽  
Stuart L. Goldberg ◽  
Pedro Dorlhiac-Llacer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Chronic Phase ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 3768 Background: Data from the phase 3, randomized multicenter ENESTnd trial have demonstrated the superiority of nilotinib over imatinib after 24 months (mo) of follow-up, with significantly higher rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR), and significantly lower rates of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC). The current subanalysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (Nil300) and nilotinib 400 mg twice daily (Nil400) in older (≥ 65 years [yrs] at study entry) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP) with a minimum follow-up of 24 mo. Methods: In ENESTnd, 846 pts stratified by Sokal risk score were randomized 1:1:1 to Nil300 (n = 282), Nil400 (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (n = 283). Pts with impaired cardiac function or ECOG performance status > 2 were excluded. Rates of CCyR and MMR by 24 mo, progression to AP/BC on treatment, and safety were evaluated according to age group (< 65 vs ≥ 65 yrs) in the 2 nilotinib arms. Safety data are reported for any pt who received ≥ 1 dose of nilotinib (n = 279, Nil300; n = 277, Nil400). Results: 36 pts (13%) and 28 pts (10%) were ≥ 65 yrs old in the Nil300 and Nil400 arms, respectively. Of the pts aged ≥ 65 yrs, 51/64 (80%) had an ECOG performance status of 0 at baseline and 60/64 (94%) had intermediate or high Sokal risk scores. Of the older pts, 8 (22%) on Nil300 and 6 (21%) on Nil400 had type 2 diabetes at baseline. CCyR rates by 24 mo were 83% and 68% among older pts treated with Nil300 and Nil400, respectively, and 87% for pts aged < 65 yrs in each nilotinib arm. By 24 mo, MMR was achieved by 72% and 61% of older pts on Nil300 and Nil400, respectively; in pts aged < 65 yrs, the respective rates were 71% and 67%. All 5 pts who progressed to AP/BC on treatment (2 on Nil300 and 3 on Nil400) were aged < 65 yrs. The frequency of grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events (AEs) was low in older pts; no pts had grade 3/4 neutropenia and only 1 older pt reported grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in each nilotinib arm (Table). Transient, asymptomatic lipase elevations were reported in 11% and 16% of older pts treated with Nil300 and Nil400, and 7% of younger pts in each arm. Hyperglycemia occurred in 23% and 16% of older pts on Nil300 and Nil400, respectively, and 4% of younger pts in each arm; regardless of age, no pt discontinued study due to hyperglycemia. Among the 12 older pts with grade 3/4 hyperglycemia (8 on Nil300; 4 on Nil400), 9 pts had type 2 diabetes at baseline. There were no QTcF increases of > 60 msec from baseline in older pts and 3 in nilotinib-treated pts < 65 yrs old (1 on Nil300; 2 on Nil400). QTcF prolongation of > 500 msec did not occur in any pt treated with nilotinib on study. Periodic echocardiograms were done, and there were no decreases of > 15% in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline in any pt treated with nilotinib on study. There were 4 cases of ischemic heart disease reported in older pts (1/35 [3%] on Nil300; 3/25 [12%] on Nil400) and 7 cases in pts < 65 yrs of age (4/244 [2%] on Nil300; 3/252 [1%] on Nil400). No sudden deaths occurred on study. Discontinuation occurred in approximately 25% of older and younger pts with Nil300, of which, 6% and 9%, respectively, were due to AEs/lab abnormalities. Discontinuation from study with Nil400 was 46% in older pts and 19% in younger pts; of which, 36% and 10% were due to AEs/lab abnormalities. Conclusions: Older pts treated with nilotinib demonstrated high rates of cytogenetic and molecular responses and low rates of progression. Nilotinib was generally well tolerated by older pts. In older pts, Nil300 had numerically higher rates of CCyR and MMR and was generally better tolerated (as evidenced by fewer AEs and discontinuations) vs Nil400. These data support the use of Nil300 in older pts with newly diagnosed CML-CP. Disclosures: Larson: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bunworasate:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Research Funding. Turkina:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Goldberg:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Research Funding. Dorlhiac-Llacer:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Saglio:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hochhaus:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hoenekopp:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment, Equity Ownership. Blakesley:Novartis Pharmaceutical: Employment. Yu:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gallagher:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Clark:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hughes:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

A Pivotal Phase 2 Trial of Ponatinib in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) and Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (Ph+ALL) Resistant or Intolerant to Dasatinib or Nilotinib, or with the T315I BCR-ABL Mutation: 12-Month Follow-up of the PACE Trial

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 163-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge E. Cortes ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Javier Pinilla-Ibarz ◽  
Philipp le Coutre ◽  
Ron Paquette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Cytogenetic Response ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Abstract 163 Background: Despite progress in Ph+ leukemia therapy, patients who experience failure of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and those with the T315I BCR-ABL mutation have limited treatment options. Ponatinib is an oral TKI developed using computational and structure-based design with optimal binding to the BCR-ABL active site. At clinically achievable concentrations, ponatinib demonstrated potent in vitro activity against native BCR-ABL and all BCR-ABL mutants tested, including T315I. The efficacy and safety of ponatinib (45 mg orally once daily) in patients with Ph+ leukemia were evaluated in a phase 2, international, open-label clinical trial. Methods: 449 patients resistant or intolerant (R/I) to dasatinib or nilotinib or with the T315I mutation confirmed at entry were enrolled and assigned to 1 of 6 cohorts: chronic phase (CP)-CML R/I (N=203), CP-CML T315I (N=64), accelerated phase (AP)-CML R/I (N=65), AP-CML T315I (N=18), blast phase (BP)-CML/Ph+ALL R/I (N=48), BP-CML/Ph+ALL T315I (N=46). Five patients (3 CP-CML, 2 AP-CML) without confirmed T315I and not R/I to dasatinib or nilotinib were treated, but not assigned to a cohort; they were included in safety analyses. The primary endpoint was major cytogenetic response (MCyR) at any time within 12 months for CP-CML and major hematologic response (MaHR) at any time within 6 months for advanced Ph+ leukemia. The trial is ongoing. Data as of 23 July 2012 are reported: median follow-up 11 (0.1 to 21) months; minimum follow-up 9 months. Results: Median age was 59 (18–94) yrs; 53% were male. Median time from diagnosis to ponatinib was 6 (0.3–28) yrs. Patients were heavily pretreated: 96% received prior imatinib, 84% dasatinib, 65% nilotinib; median number of prior TKIs was 3, with 53% exposed to all 3 approved TKIs. In patients previously treated with dasatinib or nilotinib (N=427), 88% had a history of resistance and 12% were purely intolerant to dasatinib or nilotinib. Best prior response to most recent dasatinib or nilotinib was 26% MCyR or better in CP-CML, and 23% MaHR or better in advanced Ph+ leukemia. Frequent BCR-ABL mutations confirmed at entry were: 29% T315I, 8% F317L, 4% E255K, 4% F359V, 3% G250E. No mutations were detected in 44%. The primary endpoint response rates (see Table) in each cohort exceeded the prespecified statistical criteria for success. In CP-CML and AP-CML R/I (the 3 largest cohorts), 95% CIs exceeded the prespecified response rate. Median time to response (for responders) was 84 days in CP-CML, 112 days in AP-CML, 55 days in BP-CML/Ph+ALL. Responses were durable; the estimated (Kaplan-Meier) probability of responders maintaining the primary endpoint at 1 yr was 91% in CP-CML, 42% in AP-CML, 35% in BP-CML/Ph+ALL. In CP-CML, 46% had complete cytogenetic response and molecular response rates were 32% MMR, 20% MR4, and 12% MR4.5. Response rates were higher in patients exposed to fewer prior TKIs and those with shorter disease duration. Similar response rates were observed in patients with and without BCR-ABL mutations. In CP-CML, response rates were higher in those with T315I; however, a post hoc analysis found that presence of T315I was not a predictor of response. Instead, the difference in response rate was explained by T315I patients' younger age, shorter duration of leukemia, and exposure to less prior therapy. At the time of analysis, 52% of patients remained on therapy (66% CP-CML). The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were progression (18%) and AEs (12%). The most common drug-related AEs were thrombocytopenia (36%), rash (33%), and dry skin (31%). Pancreatitis was the most common drug-related SAE (5%); however, it occurred early and was managed with dose modification (1 patient discontinued due to pancreatitis). Conclusions: Ponatinib has substantial activity and is generally well tolerated in these heavily pretreated Ph+ leukemia patients who have limited available treatment options. Data with a minimum follow-up of 12 months will be presented. Disclosures: Cortes: Novartis, BMS, ARIAD, Pfizer, and Chemgenex: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kim:Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, ARIAD, Il-Yang: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Pinilla-Ibarz:Novartis, BMS: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. le Coutre:Novartis and BMS: Honoraria. Paquette:ARIAD: Consultancy. Chuah:Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Nicolini:Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Apperley:Novartis, Bristol Myers-Squibb, and ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Talpaz:Deciphera: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abruzzese:BMS, Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rea:Bristol Myers-Squibb, Novartis, and Teva: Honoraria. Baccarani:ARIAD, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Muller:ARIAD: Consultancy. Wong:MolecularMD Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lustgarten:ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rivera:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Clackson:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Turner:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Haluska:ARIAD: Employment, Equity Ownership. Guilhot:ARIAD: Honoraria. Hochhaus:ARIAD, Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hughes:Novartis, BMS, ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldman:Novartis, Bristol Myers-Squibb, and Amgen: Honoraria. Shah:ARIAD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Briston-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Kantarjian:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

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

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 800-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Ruben A. Mesa ◽  
Jason Gotlib ◽  
Richard S. Levy ◽  
Vikas Gupta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Survival Advantage ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

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

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

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1026-1026 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Tisdale ◽  
Julie Kanter ◽  
Markus Y. Mapara ◽  
Janet L. Kwiatkowski ◽  
Lakshmanan Krishnamurti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Cd34 Cells ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document