Daratumumab-based quadruplet therapy for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with high cytogenetic risk.

In the MASTER study (NCT03224507), daratumumab+carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-KRd) demonstrated promising efficacy in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In GRIFFIN (NCT02874742), daratumumab+lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved outcomes for transplant-eligible NDMM. Here, we present a post hoc analysis of patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs; del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], t[14;20], or gain/amp[1q21]). Among 123 D-KRd patients, 43.1%, 37.4%, and 19.5% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Among 120 D-RVd patients, 55.8%, 28.3%, and 10.8% had 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs. Rates of complete response or better (best on study) for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs were 90.6%, 89.1%, and 70.8% for D-KRd, and 90.9%, 78.8%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. At median follow-up (MASTER, 31.1 months; GRIFFIN, 49.6 months for randomized patients/59.5 months for safety run-in patients), MRD-negativity rates as assessed by next-generation sequencing (10-5) were 80.0%, 86.4%, and 83.3% for 0, 1, or ≥2 HRCAs for D-KRd, and 76.1%, 55.9%, and 61.5% for D-RVd. PFS was similar between studies and superior for 0 or 1 versus ≥2 HRCAs: 36-month PFS rates for D-KRd were 89.9%, 86.2%, and 52.4%, and 96.7%, 90.5%, and 53.5% for D-RVd. These data support the use of daratumumab-containing regimens for transplant-eligible NDMM with HCRAs; however, additional strategies are needed for ultra-high-risk disease (≥2 HRCAs). Video Abstract.

Health-related quality of life in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone: Patient-reported outcomes from GRIFFIN.

In the phase 2 GRIFFIN trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02874742), daratumumab added to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) alone in transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module 20-item (QLQ-MY20), and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) tools on day 1 of cycles 1, 2, and 3; on day 21 of cycle 4 (end of induction therapy); on day 1 of cycle 5; on day 21 of cycle 6 (end of posttransplant consolidation therapy); and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of maintenance therapy. Meaningful improvements from baseline were seen in most of the PRO scales with both treatments after consolidation and were sustained for at least 2 years of maintenance treatment. Large reductions from baseline (~20 points) were especially observed in pain symptoms for both treatment groups, although these were numerically higher for patients receiving D-RVd during the majority of the time points. In addition, improvements in key scales, such as global health status, fatigue symptoms, and physical functioning, were also seen with both D-RVd and RVd. These improvements in health-related quality of life contribute to the totality of evidence supporting the improvement in clinical outcomes such as response rates and PFS with D-RVd in induction, consolidation, and maintenance therapy in TE patients with NDMM.

Post hoc analysis of daratumumab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in Black patients from final data of the GRIFFIN study.

Due in part to racial disparities and underrepresentation in clinical studies, optimal therapies for Black patients with multiple myeloma remain undefined. This final analysis of GRIFFIN by race showed that the addition of daratumumab (D) to lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) provides clinical benefit among both Black and White transplant-eligible newly diagnosed patients compared with RVd alone. However, Black patients were more likely to discontinue ≥1 drug due to treatment-emergent adverse events. In summary, these findings suggest a benefit of D-RVd front-line therapy among Black and White patients and underscore the importance of equitable treatment access for all patients.

Daratumumab for patients with myeloma with early or late relapse after initial therapy: subgroup analysis of CASTOR and POLLUX.

ABSTRACT: High-risk multiple myeloma (MM) is often defined based on cytogenetic abnormalities, but patients who relapse early after initial therapy are considered a functional high-risk group. In the phase 3 CASTOR and POLLUX studies, daratumumab plus bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-Vd) or lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), regardless of cytogenetic risk, and achieved higher rates of complete response or better (≥CR) and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity vs that with Vd/Rd alone in relapsed/refractory MM. Post hoc analyses of CASTOR and POLLUX evaluated patient subgroups with 1 prior line of therapy based on timing of progression/relapse (early or late) after initiation of first line of therapy. PFS consistently favored the daratumumab-containing regimens across subgroups using both a 24- and 18-month early-relapse cutoff. In the CASTOR/POLLUX pooled data set, daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 65% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48; P < .0001) in the early-relapse (<24 months) subgroup and by 65% (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47; P < .0001) in the late-relapse (≥24 months) subgroup. OS also favored the daratumumab-containing regimens in both the early-relapse (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.86; P = .0036) and late-relapse (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.93; P = .0183) subgroups in the pooled population using a 24-month cutoff. Rates of ≥CR and MRD negativity (10-5) were higher with daratumumab vs control, regardless of progression/relapse timing. Although daratumumab is unable to fully overcome the adverse prognosis of early relapse, our results support the use of daratumumab for patients with 1 prior line of therapy, including for those who progress/relapse early after initial therapy and are considered to have functional high-risk MM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02136134 (CASTOR) and #NCT02076009 (POLLUX).

Addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (GRIFFIN): final analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) in the GRIFFIN study improved the stringent complete response rate by the end of consolidation in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the findings of the predefined final analysis. METHODS: GRIFFIN was an open-label, randomised, active-controlled, phase 2 trial done in 35 research centres in the USA. Patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with measurable disease by M protein or free light chain, were aged 18-70 years, had an ECOG performance score of 0-2, and were eligible for autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to four D-RVd or RVd induction cycles, autologous HSCT, two D-RVd or RVd consolidation cycles, and lenalidomide with or without daratumumab maintenance therapy for 2 years. Patients received 21-day cycles of oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-14), subcutaneous bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), oral dexamethasone (40 mg weekly) with or without intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg weekly, cycles 1-4; day 1, cycles 5-6). Maintenance therapy (28-day cycles) was oral lenalidomide (10 mg on days 1-21) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg intravenously every 4 or 8 weeks, or 1800 mg subcutaneously monthly). Patients could continue lenalidomide maintenance after study treatment completion. The primary endpoint was stringent complete response rate by the end of consolidation in the response-evaluable population, and has already been reported. Here we report updated stringent complete response rates and secondary outcomes including progression-free survival and overall survival. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02874742) and ended on April 8, 2022. FINDINGS: Between Dec 20, 2016, and April 10, 2018, 104 patients were randomly assigned to the D-RVd group and 103 were randomly assigned to the RVd group; most patients were White (85 [82%] in the D-RVd group and 76 [74%] in the RVd group) and male (58 [56%] in the D-RVd group and 60 [58%] in the RVd group). At a median follow-up of 49·6 months (IQR 47·4-52·1), D-RVd improved rates of stringent complete response (67 [67%] of 100] vs 47 [48%] of 98]; odds ratio 2·18 [95% CI 1·22-3·89], p=0·0079), and 4-year progression-free survival was 87·2% (95% CI 77·9-92·8) for D-RVd versus 70·0% (95% CI 55·9-80·3) for RVd, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·45 (95% CI 0·21-0·95, p=0·032) for risk of disease progression or death with D-RVd. Median overall survival was not reached for either group (HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·31-2·56], p=0·84). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events in the D-RVd versus RVd groups were neutropenia (46 [46%] of 99 vs 23 [23%] of 102), lymphopenia (23 [23%] vs 23 [23%]), leukopenia (17 [17%] vs eight [8%]), thrombocytopenia (16 [16%] vs nine [9%]), pneumonia (12 [12%] vs 14 [14%]), and hypophosphataemia (ten [10%] vs 11 [11%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 46 (46%) of 99 patients in the D-RVd group and in 53 (52%) of 102 patients in the RVd group. One patient in each treatment group reported a treatment-emergent adverse event that resulted in death (bronchopneumonia in the D-RVd group; cause unknown in the RVd group); neither was related to study treatment. No new safety concerns occurred with maintenance therapy. INTERPRETATION: Addition of daratumumab to RVd improved the depth of response and progression-free survival in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. These results justify further evaluation in phase 3 studies. FUNDING: Janssen Oncology.

Impact of cytogenetic abnormalities on treatment outcomes in patients with amyloid light-chain amyloidosis: subanalyses from the ANDROMEDA study.

BACKGROUND: Cytogenetic abnormalities are common in patients with amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis; some are associated with poorer outcomes. This post hoc analysis of ANDROMEDA evaluated the impact of certain cytogenetic abnormalities on outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis were randomised 1:1 to daratumumab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (D-VCd) or VCd. Outcomes were evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with t(11;14), amp1q21, del13q14, and del17p13. RESULTS: Overall, 321 patients had cytogenetic testing (D-VCd, n = 155; VCd, n = 166); most common abnormalities were t(11;14) and amp1q21. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months, haematologic complete response rates were higher with D-VCd vs VCd across all cytogenetic subgroups and organ response rates were numerically higher with D-VCd vs VCd across most subgroups. Point estimates for hazard ratio of major organ deterioration-PFS and -EFS favoured D-VCd over VCd for all cytogenetic subgroups. Deep haematologic responses (involved minus uninvolved free light chains [FLC] <10 mg/L or involved FLC ≤20 mg/L) were seen in more patients with D-VCd than VCd in all ITT and t(11;14) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of D-VCd as standard of care in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis regardless of cytogenetic abnormalities.

Stem Cell Mobilization Yields with Daratumumab- and Lenalidomide-Containing Quadruplet Induction Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Findings from the MASTER and GRIFFIN Trials.

For eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), standard of care includes induction therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Daratumumab as monotherapy and in combination treatment is approved across multiple lines of therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), and lenalidomide is an effective and commonly used agent for induction and maintenance therapy in MM. However, there is concern that lenalidomide and daratumumab given as induction therapy might impair mobilization of stem cells for ASCT. Therefore, we assessed stem cell mobilization in patients following frontline induction therapy in the MASTER and GRIFFIN phase 2 clinical studies by examining stem cell mobilization yields, apheresis attempts, and engraftment outcomes for patients from each study. Adult transplantation-eligible patients with NDMM received induction therapy consisting of daratumumab plus carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-KRd) for four 28-day cycles in the single-arm MASTER trial or lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) with or without daratumumab (D) for four 21-day cycles in the randomized GRIFFIN trial, followed by stem cell mobilization and ASCT in both studies. Institutional practice differed regarding plerixafor use for stem cell mobilization; the strategies were upfront (ie, planned plerixafor use) or rescue (ie, plerixafor use only after mobilization parameters indicated failure with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] alone). Descriptive analyses were used to summarize patient characteristics, stem cell mobilization yields, and engraftment outcomes. In MASTER, 116 D-KRd recipients underwent stem cell mobilization and collection at a median of 24 days after completing induction therapy. In GRIFFIN, 175 patients (D-RVd, n = 95; RVd, n = 80) underwent mobilization at a median of 27 days after completing D-RVd induction therapy and 24 days after completing RVd induction therapy. Among those who underwent mobilization and collection, 7% (8 of 116) of D-KRd recipients, 2% (2 of 95) of D-RVd recipients, and 6% (5 of 80) of RVd recipients did not meet the center-specific minimally required CD34+ cell yield in the first mobilization attempt; however, nearly all collected sufficient stem cells for ASCT on remobilization. Among patients who underwent mobilization, plerixafor use, either upfront or as a rescue strategy, was higher in patients receiving D-KRd (97%; 112 of 116) and D-RVd (72%; 68 of 95) compared with those receiving RVd (55%; 44 of 80). The median total CD34+ cell collection was 6.0 × 106/kg (range, 2.2 to 13.9 × 106/kg) after D-KRd induction, 8.3 × 106/kg (range, 2.6 to 33.0 × 106/kg) after D-RVd induction, and 9.4 × 106/kg (range, 4.1 to 28.7 × 106/kg) after RVd induction; the median days for collection were 2, 2, and 1, respectively. Among patients who underwent mobilization, 98% (114 of 116) of D-KRd patients, 99% (94 of 95) of D-RVd patients, and 98% (78 of 80) of RVd patients underwent ASCT using median CD34+ cell doses of 3.2 × 106/kg, 4.2 × 106/kg, and 4.8 × 106/kg, respectively. The median time to neutrophil recovery was 12 days in all 3 treatment groups across the 2 trials. Because both trials used different criteria to define platelet recovery, data on platelet engraftment using the same criteria are not available. Four cycles of daratumumab- and lenalidomide-based quadruplet induction therapy had a minimal impact on stem cell mobilization and allowed predictable stem cell harvesting and engraftment in all patients who underwent ASCT. Upfront plerixafor strategy may be considered, but many patients were successfully collected with the use of G-CSF alone or rescue plerixafor.

Switching to daratumumab SC from IV is safe and preferred by patients with multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Two phase 3 studies demonstrated superior efficacy of intravenous daratumumab (DARA IV) plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (ALCYONE) or lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd; MAIA) versus standard-of-care regimens for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In these studies, patients could switch from DARA IV to subcutaneous daratumumab (DARA SC) while receiving daratumumab monotherapy in ALCYONE (as of Cycle 11) or daratumumab plus Rd in MAIA. The phase 3 COLUMBA study demonstrated noninferiority of DARA SC to DARA IV. DARA SC reduced administration time, allowing patients to spend less time in healthcare settings, a relevant practical consideration for patient care in the COVID-19 pandemic/settings of limited healthcare resources. METHODS: DARA SC 1800 mg was administered every 4 weeks, per approved dosing schedules. We evaluated safety and patient-reported experience (ALCYONE only) among patients who switched from DARA IV to DARA SC. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients in ALCYONE and 135 in MAIA switched to DARA SC. Three (2.2%; MAIA) patients reported injection-site reactions, all of which were mild. No infusion-related reactions occurred with DARA SC. In ALCYONE, >80% of patients preferred DARA SC over DARA IV. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 5.3% of patients in ALCYONE and 25.9% in MAIA; one (0.7%; MAIA) patient experienced a TEAE with an outcome of death. CONCLUSION: For transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, DARA SC (monotherapy/with Rd) was safe and preferred over DARA IV. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02195479/NCT02252172.

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Analysis of vascular thrombotic events in the GRIFFIN study.

Patients with multiple myeloma are at increased risk of vascular thromboembolic events (VTEs). This post hoc analysis evaluated VTEs in the randomised phase 2 GRIFFIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874742) that investigated lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) ± daratumumab (D). Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) received D-RVd/RVd induction, high-dose therapy and ASCT, D-RVd/RVd consolidation and up to 2 years of lenalidomide maintenance therapy ± D. VTE prophylaxis was recommended (at least aspirin, ≥162 mg daily) in accordance with International Myeloma Working Group guidelines. In the safety population (D-RVd, n = 99; RVd, n = 102), VTEs occurred in 10.1% of D-RVd patients and 15.7% of RVd patients; grade 2-4 VTEs occurred in 9.1% and 14.7%, respectively. Median time to the first onset of VTE was longer for D-RVd versus RVd patients (305 days vs 119 days). Anti-thrombosis prophylaxis use was similar between arms (D-RVd, 84.8% vs RVd, 83.3%); among patients with VTEs, prophylaxis use at time of first VTE onset was 60.0% for D-RVd and 68.8% for RVd. In summary, the addition of daratumumab to RVd did not increase the incidence of VTEs, but the cumulative VTE incidence was relatively high in this cohort and anti-thrombotic prophylaxis use was suboptimal.

Daratumumab Improves Depth of Response and Progression-free Survival in Transplant-ineligible, High-risk, Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with high-risk, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (HR-NDMM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) have limited first-line treatment options. Recent meta-analyses evaluating the impact of incorporating daratumumab in the backbone regimen on progression-free survival (PFS) have found mixed results in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pooled analysis of patient-level data for ASCT-ineligible patients with HR-NDMM [ie, del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16)] from the MAIA and ALCYONE trials; stratified by study identifier and adjusting for cytogenetic abnormality subtype, baseline performance status, International Staging System stage, myeloma type, and renal impairment; was conducted. Impact of daratumumab on PFS and rates of complete response or better (≥CR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR, very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), and overall response (ORR) was compared to control. RESULTS: Among 101 patients in the daratumumab and 89 patients in the control cohort, median follow-up was 43.7 months. Daratumumab reduced the risk of progression or death by 41% (adjusted hazard ratio for PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.59 [0.41-0.85]) versus control. At 36 months, the estimated proportion of patients who did not progress and were still alive was 41.3% in the daratumumab and 19.9% in the control cohort. Rates of ≥CR (41.6% vs. 22.5%), MRD-negative CR (24.8% vs. 5.6%), ≥VGPR (75.2% vs. 46.1%), and ORR (92.1% vs. 74.2%) were higher for daratumumab versus control. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that incorporation of daratumumab in frontline treatment regimens reduced the risk of progression or death and improved response rates among ASCT-ineligible HR-NDMM patients.

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: frailty subgroup analysis of MAIA.

In the phase 3 MAIA study of patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd). We present a subgroup analysis of MAIA by frailty status. Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit, intermediate, non-frail (fit + intermediate), or frail. Of the randomized patients (D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369), 396 patients were non-frail (D-Rd, 196 [53.3%]; Rd, 200 [54.2%]) and 341 patients were frail (172 [46.7%]; 169 [45.8%]). After a 36.4-month median follow-up, non-frail patients had longer PFS than frail patients, but the PFS benefit of D-Rd versus Rd was maintained across subgroups: non-frail (median, not reached [NR] vs 41.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; P < 0.0001) and frail (NR vs 30.4 months; HR, 0.62; P = 0.003). Improved rates of complete response or better and minimal residual disease (10-5) negativity were observed for D-Rd across subgroups. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event in non-frail and frail patients was neutropenia (non-frail, 45.4% [D-Rd] and 37.2% [Rd]; frail, 57.7% and 33.1%). These findings support the clinical benefit of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in MAIA, regardless of frailty status.

A plain language summary of daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone in transplant-eligible Black patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the GRIFFIN study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a publication about Black participants of the GRIFFIN clinical study that was published in Blood Cancer Journal in April 2022. The GRIFFIN clinical study looked at the treatment combination of daratumumab plus a standard therapy for multiple myeloma (called RVd therapy, which stands for lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) in adult patients who had not been treated before for multiple myeloma and so were considered to have newly diagnosed multiply myeloma. Multiple myeloma is a blood cancer of plasma cells. Based on the participants' age, medical history, and indicators of good general health, the participants in the GRIFFIN study were also eligible to receive autologous stem cell transplant as part of their therapy. This summary describes results for the Black participants of the GRIFFIN clinical study who received daratumumab plus RVd therapy (called D-RVd) to see if D-RVd therapy is better than RVd therapy at reducing the amount of multiple myeloma cancer cells in a patient's body. WHY DID THE RESEARCHERS EVALUATE THE RESULTS FOR BLACK PATIENTS IN THE GRIFFIN STUDY?: Due to racial disparities leading to historically low representation of minority groups in clinical studies, optimal treatments are not defined for Black patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Since previously published results from the overall population in the GRIFFIN study indicated that D-RVd therapy was better than RVd therapy, the researchers wanted to determine if this was also the case among Black participants. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Out of 207 participants in the GRIFFIN study, 15% (32 participants) were Black and 78% (161 participants) were White. In both Black and White participants, D-RVd therapy reduced the amount of myeloma cancer cells more than RVd therapy. Additionally, D-RVd and RVd therapy had similar safety results for Black and White participants. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: This analysis of GRIFFIN by race shows that Black people benefit from the daratumumab-containing D-RVd therapy as much as White people. Additionally, D-RVd therapy had similar safety results to RVd therapy for both Black and White people. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02874742 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Sustained minimal residual disease negativity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and the impact of daratumumab in MAIA and ALCYONE.

In patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% in MAIA (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and 58% in ALCYONE (daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease and response to therapy. MRD-negativity status and durability were assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE. MRD assessments using next-generation sequencing (10-5) occurred for patients achieving complete response (CR) or better and after at least CR at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months from the first dose. Progression-free survival (PFS) by MRD status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were analyzed in the intent-to-treat population and among patients achieving at least CR. In MAIA (D-Rd, n = 368; lenalidomide and dexamethasone [Rd], n = 369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n = 350; bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [VMP], n = 356), the median duration of follow-up was 36.4 and 40.1 months, respectively. MRD-negative status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were associated with improved PFS, regardless of treatment group. However, daratumumab-based therapy improved rates of MRD negativity lasting ≥6 months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%) and ≥12 months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%), both of which translated to improved PFS vs control groups. In a pooled analysis, patients who were MRD negative had improved PFS vs patients who were MRD positive. Patients with NDMM who achieved MRD-negative status or sustained MRD negativity had deep remission and improved clinical outcomes. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02252172 (MAIA) and #NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

Results of the daratumumab monotherapy early access treatment protocol in patients from Brazil with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

ABSTRACT Introduction: Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody with established efficacy and safety in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report results of an early access protocol (EAP) of daratumumab monotherapy for RRMM in a cohort of Brazilian patients. Methods: Patients with RRMM and ≥3 prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), or who were double refractory to both a PI and IMiD received daratumumab, 16 mg/kg, intravenously weekly for 8 weeks, biweekly for 16 weeks, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss of clinical benefit, or study conclusion or if daratumumab became available with reimbursement. Results: Forty-nine patients received ≥1 dose of daratumumab. The median (range) duration of treatment was 6.4 (0.3-11.8) months, with a median (range) of 8 (1-13) treatment cycles. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 38.8% of patients, most frequently neutropenia and pneumonia (10.2% each). Seven (14.3%) patients discontinued treatment due to TEAEs; 3 patients discontinued due to daratumumab-related TEAEs. Serious TEAEs occurred in 38.8% of patients. Infusion-related reactions were reported in 25 (51.0%) patients, were primarily grade 1/2, and the majority (23 patients) occurred during the first infusion. Twenty (40.8%) patients achieved a partial response or better; median progression-free survival was 8.25 (95% confidence interval, 5.55-17.54) months. Conclusion: In this EAP, daratumumab monotherapy in Brazilian patients showed a safety and efficacy profile consistent with clinical studies of daratumumab monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02477891.

Daratumumab Plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone Versus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone in Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Frailty Subgroup Analysis of ALCYONE.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 ALCYONE study, daratumumab plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) versus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (VMP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. We present a subgroup analysis of ALCYONE by patient frailty status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Frailty assessment was performed retrospectively using age, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Patients were classified as fit (0), intermediate (1), or frail (≥2); a nonfrail category combined fit and intermediate patients. RESULTS: Among randomized patients (D-VMP, n = 350; VMP, n = 356), 391 (55.4%) were nonfrail (D-VMP, 187 [53.4%]; VMP, 204 [57.3%]) and 315 (44.6%) were frail (163 [46.6%]; 152 [42.7%]). After 40.1-months median follow-up, nonfrail patients had longer PFS and OS than frail patients, but benefits of D-VMP versus VMP were maintained across subgroups: PFS nonfrail (median, 45.7 vs. 19.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0001), frail (32.9 vs. 19.5 months; HR, 0.51; P < .0001); OS nonfrail (36-month rate, 83.6% vs. 74.5%), frail (71.4% vs. 59.0%). Improved greater than or equal to complete response and minimal residual disease (10-5)-negativity rates were observed for D-VMP versus VMP across subgroups. The 2 most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (nonfrail: 39.2% [D-VMP] and 42.4% [VMP]; frail: 41.3% and 34.4%) and thrombocytopenia (nonfrail: 32.8% and 36.9%; frail: 36.9% and 39.1%). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the clinical benefit of D-VMP in transplant-ineligible NDMM patients enrolled in ALCYONE, regardless of frailty status.

Clinical Utility of Wearable Sensors and Patient-Reported Surveys in Patients With Schizophrenia: Noninterventional, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Relapse in schizophrenia may be preceded by early warning signs of biological, sensory, and clinical status. Early detection of warning signs may facilitate intervention and prevent relapses. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the feasibility of using wearable devices and self-reported technologies to identify symptom exacerbation correlates and relapse in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: In this observational study, patients with schizophrenia were provided with remote sensing devices to continuously monitor activity (Garmin vivofit) and sleep (Philips Actiwatch), and smartphones were used to record patient-reported outcomes. Clinical assessments of symptoms (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) were performed biweekly, and other clinical scales on symptoms (Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia, Calgary Depression Scale), psychosocial functioning, physical activity (Yale Physical Activity Survey), and sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) were assessed every 4 weeks. Patients were observed for 4 months, and correlations between clinical assessments and aggregated device metrics data were assessed using a mixed-effect model. An elastic net model was used to predict the clinical symptoms based on the device features. RESULTS: Of the 40 patients enrolled, 1 patient relapsed after being stable with evaluable postbaseline data. Weekly patient-reported outcomes were moderately correlated with psychiatric symptoms (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score, r=0.29; Calgary Depression Scale total score, r=0.37; and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, r=0.3). In the elastic net model, sleep and activity features derived from Philips Actigraph and Garmin vivofit were predictive of the sitting index of the Yale Physical Activity Survey and sleep duration component of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. On the basis of the combined patient data, a high percentage of data coverage and compliance (>80%) was observed for each device. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that wearable devices and smartphones could be effectively deployed and potentially used to monitor patients with schizophrenia. Furthermore, metrics-based prediction models can assist in detecting earlier signs of symptom changes. The operational learnings from this study may provide insights to conduct future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02224430; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02224430.

Daratumumab Monotherapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results of an Early Access Treatment Protocol in Europe and Russia.

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38. Despite the demonstrated benefit of daratumumab in multiple myeloma, not all patients have access to commercially available daratumumab. Here we report a pooled analysis of patients from the UK, Spain, Italy, and Russia enrolled in an open-label, early access treatment protocol (EAP) that provided daratumumab (16 mg/kg) monotherapy to patients with heavily pre-treated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: Intravenous daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered to patients who had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), or who were double refractory to both a PI and an IMiD. Safety and patient-reported outcomes data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients received ≥ 1 dose of daratumumab. The median duration of daratumumab exposure was 4.2 (range 0.03-24.1) months, with a median number of 13 (range 1-37) infusions. The overall response rate was 33.1%, and the median progression-free survival was 4.63 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 60.1% of patients, of which the most common were thrombocytopenia (18.8%), anemia (11.9%), and neutropenia (11.6%). The most common serious adverse events were pneumonia (4.4%) and pyrexia (4.1%). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 45.1% of patients. The median change from baseline in all domains of patient-reported outcome instruments (European Quality of Life Five Dimensions Questionnaire [EQ-5D-5L], European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] Quality of Life Questionnaire [QLQ-C30], and EORTC Multiple Myeloma Module [QLQ-MY20]) was generally 0 or close to 0. CONCLUSION: These EAP results are consistent with those from previous trials of daratumumab monotherapy and confirm its safety in patients from Europe and Russia with heavily pre-treated RRMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02477891.

Daratumumab plus RVd for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: final analysis of the safety run-in cohort of GRIFFIN.

The phase 2 GRIFFIN study of daratumumab plus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (D-RVd) for transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma included a safety run-in phase followed by a randomized phase. The ongoing randomized phase has met its prespecified primary end point of an improved stringent complete response (sCR) rate after consolidation for D-RVd (reported elsewhere). Final analysis of the safety run-in cohort is reported herein and provides longer follow-up (median, 40.8 months) encompassing daratumumab plus lenalidomide (D-R) maintenance therapy. Patients in the safety run-in cohort (N = 16) received 4 induction cycles (D-RVd), high-dose melphalan supported by autologous stem cell transplant, 2 consolidation cycles (D-RVd), and 24 months of maintenance (D-R). By the end of consolidation, all patients had responded, with a best response of sCR in 9 (56.3%) patients; 8 (50.0%) patients were minimal residual disease (MRD) negative (10‒5 threshold). After maintenance, 15 (93.8%) patients had achieved a best response of sCR, and 13 (81.3%) patients were MRD (10‒5) negative. Estimated 36-month progression-free and overall survival rates were 78.1% and 93.8%, respectively. One death from progressive disease occurred in the patient who did not achieve sCR. Observed safety profiles were consistent with daratumumab and RVd. With >3 years of median follow-up, D-RVd achieved durable responses that deepened with D-R maintenance. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02874742.

Greater treatment satisfaction in patients receiving daratumumab subcutaneous vs. intravenous for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: COLUMBA clinical trial results.

PURPOSE: The phase III COLUMBA study evaluated daratumumab (DARA) intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report patient-reported satisfaction with therapy (SWT) in COLUMBA. METHODS: DARA IV or DARA SC was administered weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks (cycles 7 +). Patients completed a modified version of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ) at weekly (cycles 1-2) and monthly (cycles 3 +) intervals and at the end of treatment. Results for each item and the SWT domain score were summarized using descriptive statistics. The distribution of responses for individual items was calculated for each assessment. The proportion of patients for whom SWT domain score change from first assessment met or exceeded the minimally important difference (MID) of 5.9 points was calculated at each assessment time point. RESULTS: Two-hundred fifty-nine patients were randomized to DARA IV and 263 to DARA SC. Mean scores for SWT domain questions were high and largely positive during treatment. Responses indicating positive perceptions of therapy were given by a numerically greater proportion of patients in the DARA SC group than the DARA IV group for most questions. Changes from the first assessment in SWT domain scores met or exceeded the MID for an average of ~ 40% of patients. CONCLUSION: In COLUMBA, modified CTSQ results suggest patients in the DARA SC group were more satisfied with their cancer therapy than those in the DARA IV group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03277105. Registered September 8, 2107.