Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Therapy Guided by Measurable Residual Disease.

BACKGROUND: The combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as compared with chemoimmunotherapy. Whether ibrutinib-venetoclax and personalization of treatment duration according to measurable residual disease (MRD) is more effective than fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab (FCR) is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial involving patients with untreated CLL, we compared ibrutinib-venetoclax and ibrutinib monotherapy with FCR. In the ibrutinib-venetoclax group, after 2 months of ibrutinib, venetoclax was added for up to 6 years of therapy. The duration of ibrutinib-venetoclax therapy was defined by MRD assessed in peripheral blood and bone marrow and was double the time taken to achieve undetectable MRD. The primary end point was progression-free survival in the ibrutinib-venetoclax group as compared with the FCR group, results that are reported here. Key secondary end points were overall survival, response, MRD, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were randomly assigned to the ibrutinib-venetoclax group or the FCR group. At a median of 43.7 months, disease progression or death had occurred in 12 patients in the ibrutinib-venetoclax group and 75 patients in the FCR group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.24; P<0.001). Death occurred in 9 patients in the ibrutinib-venetoclax group and 25 patients in the FCR group (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.67). At 3 years, 58.0% of the patients in the ibrutinib-venetoclax group had stopped therapy owing to undetectable MRD. After 5 years of ibrutinib-venetoclax therapy, 65.9% of the patients had undetectable MRD in the bone marrow and 92.7% had undetectable MRD in the peripheral blood. The risk of infection was similar in the ibrutinib-venetoclax group and the FCR group. The percentage of patients with cardiac serious adverse events was higher in the ibrutinib-venetoclax group than in the FCR group (10.7% vs. 0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: MRD-directed ibrutinib-venetoclax improved progression-free survival as compared with FCR, and results for overall survival also favored ibrutinib-venetoclax. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others; FLAIR ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN01844152; EudraCT number, 2013-001944-76.).

First-Line Venetoclax Combinations in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of venetoclax plus anti-CD20 antibodies as first-line treatment in fit patients (i.e., those with a low burden of coexisting conditions) with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been lacking. METHODS: In a phase 3, open-label trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, fit patients with CLL who did not have TP53 aberrations to receive six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab) or 12 cycles of venetoclax-rituximab, venetoclax-obinutuzumab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib. Ibrutinib was discontinued after two consecutive measurements of undetectable minimal residual disease or could be extended. The primary end points were undetectable minimal residual disease (sensitivity, <10-4 [i.e., <1 CLL cell in 10,000 leukocytes]) as assessed by flow cytometry in peripheral blood at month 15 and progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 926 patients were assigned to one of the four treatment regimens (229 to chemoimmunotherapy, 237 to venetoclax-rituximab, 229 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 231 to venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib). At month 15, the percentage of patients with undetectable minimal residual disease was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 80.6 to 91.1) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (92.2%; 97.5% CI, 87.3 to 95.7) than in the chemoimmunotherapy group (52.0%; 97.5% CI, 44.4 to 59.5; P<0.001 for both comparisons), but it was not significantly higher in the venetoclax-rituximab group (57.0%; 97.5% CI, 49.5 to 64.2; P = 0.32). Three-year progression-free survival was 90.5% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group and 75.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.32; 97.5% CI, 0.19 to 0.54; P<0.001). Progression-free survival at 3 years was also higher with venetoclax-obinutuzumab (87.7%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.42; 97.5% CI, 0.26 to 0.68; P<0.001), but not with venetoclax-rituximab (80.8%; hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% CI, 0.53 to 1.18; P = 0.18). Grade 3 and grade 4 infections were more common with chemoimmunotherapy (18.5%) and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib (21.2%) than with venetoclax-rituximab (10.5%) or venetoclax-obinutuzumab (13.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Venetoclax-obinutuzumab with or without ibrutinib was superior to chemoimmunotherapy as first-line treatment in fit patients with CLL. (Funded by AbbVie and others; GAIA-CLL13 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02950051; EudraCT number, 2015-004936-36.).

Fixed-duration pirtobrutinib plus venetoclax with or without rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL: the phase 1b BRUIN trial.

ABSTRACT: Pirtobrutinib is a highly selective, noncovalent (reversible) Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi). Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were treated with fixed-duration pirtobrutinib plus venetoclax (PV) or pirtobrutinib plus venetoclax and rituximab (PVR) in this phase 1b trial. Prior covalent BTKi therapy was allowed, but not prior treatment with venetoclax. Patients were assigned to receive PV (n = 15) or PVR (n = 10) for 25 cycles. Most patients (68%) had received prior covalent BTKi therapy. At the data cutoff date, the median time on study was 27.0 months for PV and 23.3 months for PVR. Overall response rates were 93.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.1-99.8) for PV and 100% (95% CI, 69.2-100.0) for PVR, with 10 complete responses (PV: 7; PVR: 3). After 12 cycles of treatment, 85.7% (95% CI, 57.2-98.2) of PV and 90.0% (95% CI, 55.5-99.7) of PVR patients achieved undetectable minimal residual disease (<10-4) in peripheral blood. Progression-free survival at 18 months was 92.9% (95% CI, 59.1-99.0) for PV patients and 80.0% (95% CI, 40.9-94.6) for PVR patients. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during the 5-week assessment period. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) for all patients included neutropenia (52%) and anemia (16%). AEs led to dose reduction in 3 patients and discontinuation in 2. In conclusion, fixed-duration PV or PVR was well tolerated and had promising efficacy in patients with R/R CLL, including patients previously treated with a covalent BTKi. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03740529.

Ibrutinib as part of risk-stratified treatment for posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder: the phase 2 TIDaL trial.

ABSTRACT: Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a rare complication of solid organ transplantation, and cytotoxic chemotherapy is associated with treatment-related morbidity and mortality. Current treatment takes a sequential, risk-stratified approach, and patients with low-risk disease after initial immunotherapy can avoid escalation to immunochemotherapy. TIDaL is a prospective, single-arm phase 2 trial investigating the activity and tolerability of ibrutinib combined with risk-stratified therapy for first-line treatment of PTLD. Eligible patients were adults with newly diagnosed CD20+ B-cell PTLD after solid organ transplant and performance status 0 to 2. Initial treatment comprised 49 days of ibrutinib 560 mg once daily, with 4 doses of weekly rituximab. Treatment response on interim scan and baseline International Prognostic Index were used to allocate patients to either a low-risk arm (who continued ibrutinib, alongside 4 further doses of 3-weekly rituximab) or high-risk (escalation to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone [R-CHOP] immunochemotherapy, with ibrutinib continuing in patients aged <65 years). The primary outcome was complete response on interim scan, achieved by 11 of 38 patients (29%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15-46). This did not reach the prespecified threshold for clinically significant activity. Secondary outcomes included allocation to the low-risk arm (41% of patients), 2-year progression-free survival (58%; 95% CI, 44-76), and 2-year overall survival (76%; 95% CI, 63-91). Adverse events were mostly hematological, gastrointestinal, and infective. Although TIDaL does not support adding ibrutinib into first-line treatment of PTLD, increasing the proportion of patients who can be treated without cytotoxic chemotherapy remains an important aim of future research. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #ISRCTN32667607.

Polatuzumab Vedotin in Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is typically treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). However, only 60% of patients are cured with R-CHOP. Polatuzumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD79b, which is ubiquitously expressed on the surface of malignant B cells. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, international phase 3 trial to evaluate a modified regimen of R-CHOP (pola-R-CHP), in which vincristine was replaced with polatuzumab vedotin, as compared with standard R-CHOP, in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL. Patients 18 to 80 years of age were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive six cycles of either pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP, plus two cycles of rituximab alone. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 879 patients underwent randomization: 440 were assigned to the pola-R-CHP group and 439 to the R-CHOP group. After a median follow-up of 28.2 months, the percentage of patients surviving without progression was significantly higher in the pola-R-CHP group than in the R-CHOP group (76.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 72.7 to 80.8] vs. 70.2% [95% CI, 65.8 to 74.6] at 2 years; stratified hazard ratio for progression, relapse, or death, 0.73 by Cox regression; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95; P = 0.02). Overall survival at 2 years did not differ significantly between the groups (88.7% [95% CI, 85.7 to 91.6] in the pola-R-CHP group and 88.6% [95% CI, 85.6 to 91.6] in the R-CHOP group; hazard ratio for death, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.37; P = 0.75). The safety profile was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or high-risk DLBCL, the risk of disease progression, relapse, or death was lower among those who received pola-R-CHP than among those who received R-CHOP. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; POLARIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03274492.).

Ibrutinib plus Bendamustine and Rituximab in Untreated Mantle-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may have clinical benefit when administered in combination with bendamustine and rituximab and followed by rituximab maintenance therapy in older patients with untreated mantle-cell lymphoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients 65 years of age or older to receive ibrutinib (560 mg, administered orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects) or placebo, plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and rituximab (375 mg per square meter). Patients with an objective response (complete or partial response) received rituximab maintenance therapy, administered every 8 weeks for up to 12 additional doses. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by the investigators. Overall survival and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Among 523 patients, 261 were randomly assigned to receive ibrutinib and 262 to receive placebo. At a median follow-up of 84.7 months, the median progression-free survival was 80.6 months in the ibrutinib group and 52.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.96; P = 0.01). The percentage of patients with a complete response was 65.5% in the ibrutinib group and 57.6% in the placebo group (P = 0.06). Overall survival was similar in the two groups. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during treatment was 81.5% in the ibrutinib group and 77.3% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Ibrutinib treatment in combination with standard chemoimmunotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival. The safety profile of the combined therapy was consistent with the known profiles of the individual drugs. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and Pharmacyclics; SHINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776840.).

Polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated DLBCL: an Asia subpopulation analysis from the phase 3 POLARIX trial.

In the phase 3 POLARIX study in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, polatuzumab vedotin combined with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) with similar safety. Patients were randomized 1:1 to 6 cycles of Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP plus 2 cycles of rituximab alone. For registration of POLARIX in China, consistency of PFS in an Asia subpopulation (defined as ≥50% of the risk reduction in PFS expected in the global population) was evaluated. Overall, 281 patients were analyzed: 160 patients from Asia in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of the global study and 121 from an ITT China extension cohort. Of these, 141 were randomized to Pola-R-CHP and 140 to R-CHOP. At data cutoff (28 June 2021; median follow-up 24.2 months), PFS met the consistency definition with the global population, and was superior with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-1.03). Two-year PFS was 74.2% (95% CI, 65.7-82.7) and 66.5% (95% CI, 57.3-75.6) with Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, respectively. Safety was comparable between Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, including rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs; 72.9% vs 66.2%, respectively), serious AEs (32.9% vs 32.4%), grade 5 AEs (1.4% vs 0.7%), AEs leading to study treatment discontinuation (5.0% vs 7.2%), and any-grade peripheral neuropathy (44.3% vs 50.4%). These findings demonstrate consistent efficacy and safety of Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP in the Asia and global populations in POLARIX. This trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home as # NCT03274492.

Safety and efficacy of tafasitamab with or without lenalidomide added to first-line R-CHOP for DLBCL: the phase 1b First-MIND study.

Anti-CD19 immunotherapy tafasitamab is used in combination with lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Open-label, phase 1b, First-MIND study assessed safety and preliminary efficacy of tafasitamab + R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) ± lenalidomide as first-line therapy in patients with DLBCL. From December 2019 to August 2020, 83 adults with untreated DLBCL (International Prognostic Index 2-5) were screened and 66 were randomly assigned (33 per arm) to R-CHOP-tafasitamab (arm T) or R-CHOP-tafasitamab-lenalidomide (arm T/L) for 6 cycles. Primary end point was safety; secondary end points included end-of-treatment (EoT) overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate. All patients had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event, mostly grade 1 or 2. Grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred, respectively, in 57.6% and 12.1% (arm T) and 84.8% and 36.4% (arm T/L) of patients. Nonhematologic toxicities occurred at similar rates among arms. R-CHOP mean relative dose intensity was ≥89% in both arms. EoT ORR was 75.8% (CR 72.7%) in arm T and 81.8% (CR 66.7%) in arm T/L; best ORR across visits was 90.0% and 93.9%. Eighteen-month duration of response and of CR rates were 72.7% and 74.5% (arm T) and 78.7% and 86.5% (arm T/L); 24-month progression-free and overall survival rates were 72.7% and 90.3% (arm T) and 76.8% and 93.8% (arm T/L). Manageable safety and promising signals of efficacy were observed in both arms. Potential benefit of adding tafasitamab + lenalidomide to R-CHOP is being investigated in phase 3 frontMIND (NCT04824092). This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04134936.

Tabelecleucel for allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell or solid organ transplant recipients with Epstein-Barr virus-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease after failure of rituximab or rituximab and chemotherapy (ALLELE): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Survival in Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease following haematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) or solid organ transplant (SOT) is poor after failure of initial therapy, indicating an urgent need for therapies for this ultra-rare disease. With recent EU marketing authorisation, tabelecleucel is the first off-the-shelf, allogeneic, EBV-specific T-cell immunotherapy to receive approval for treatment of relapsed or refractory EBV-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease. We aimed to determine the clinical benefit of tabelecleucel in patients with relapsed or refractory EBV-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease following HSCT or SOT. METHODS: In this global, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial, eligible patients (of any age) had biopsy-proven EBV-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, disease that was relapsed or refractory to rituximab after HSCT and rituximab with or without chemotherapy after SOT, and partially HLA-matched and appropriately HLA-restricted tabelecleucel available. Patients received tabelecleucel administered intravenously at 2 × 106 cells per kg on days 1, 8, and 15 in 35-day cycles and are assessed for up to 5 years for survival post-treatment initiation. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. All patients who received at least one dose of tabelecleucel were included in safety and efficacy analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03394365, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: From June 27, 2018, to Nov 5, 2021, 63 patients were enrolled, of whom 43 (24 [56%] male and 19 [44%] female) were included, 14 had prior HSCT, 29 had SOT. Seven (50%, 95% CI 23-77) of 14 participants in the HSCT group and 15 (52%, 33-71) of 29 participants in the SOT group had an objective response, with a median follow-up of 14·1 months (IQR 5·7-23·9) and 6·0 months (1·8-18·4), respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were disease progression (in four [29%] of 14 in HSCT and eight [28%] of 29 in SOT) and decreased neutrophil count (in four [29%] of 14 in HSCT and four [14%] of 29 in SOT). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 23 (53%) of 43 patients and fatal treatment-emergent adverse events in five (12%); no fatal treatment-emergent adverse event was treatment-related. There were no reports of tumour flare reaction, cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, transmission of infectious diseases, marrow rejection, or infusion reactions. No events of graft-versus-host disease or SOT rejection were reported as related to tabelecleucel. INTERPRETATION: Tabelecleucel provides clinical benefit in patients with relapsed or refractory EBV-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, for whom there are no other approved therapies, without evidence of safety concerns seen with other adoptive T-cell therapies. These data represent a potentially transformative and accessible treatment advance for patients with relapsed or refractory disease with few treatment options. FUNDING: Atara Biotherapeutics.

First-line venetoclax combinations versus chemoimmunotherapy in fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (GAIA/CLL13): 4-year follow-up from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis report of the GAIA/CLL13 trial, we found that venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib improved undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD) rates and progression-free survival compared with chemoimmunotherapy in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. However, to our knowledge, no data on direct comparisons of different venetoclax-based combinations are available. METHODS: GAIA/CLL13 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study conducted at 159 sites in ten countries in Europe and the Middle East. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a life expectancy of at least 6 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status of 0-2, a cumulative illness rating scale score of 6 or lower or a single score of 4 or lower, and no TP53 aberrations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), with a computer-generated list stratified by age, Binet stage, and regional study group, to either chemoimmunotherapy, venetoclax-rituximab, venetoclax-obinutuzumab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib. All treatments were administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group received six cycles of treatment, with patients older than 65 years receiving intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m2, days 1-2), whereas patients aged 65 years or younger received intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2, days 1-3) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2, days 1-3). Intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2, day 1 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2, day 1 of cycles 2-6) was added to chemotherapy. In the experimental groups, patients received daily venetoclax (400 mg orally) for ten cycles after a 5-week ramp-up phase starting on day 22 of cycle 1. In the venetoclax-rituximab group, intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2, day 1 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2, day 1 of cycles 2-6) was added. In the obinutuzumab-containing groups, obinutuzumab was added (cycle 1: 100 mg on day 1, 900 mg on day 2, and 1000 mg on days 8 and 15; cycles 2-6: 1000 mg on day 1). In the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group, daily ibrutinib (420 mg orally, from day 1 of cycle 1) was added until undetectable MRD was reached in two consecutive measurements (3 months apart) or until cycle 36. The planned treatment duration was six cycles in the chemoimmunotherapy group, 12 cycles in the venetoclax-rituximab and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and between 12 and 36 cycles in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group. Coprimary endpoints were the undetectable MRD rate in peripheral blood at month 15 for the comparison of venetoclax-obinutuzumab versus standard chemoimmunotherapy and investigator-assessed progression-free survival for the comparison of venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib versus standard chemoimmunotherapy, both analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment) with a split α of 0·025 for each coprimary endpoint. Both coprimary endpoints have been reported elsewhere. Here we report a post-hoc exploratory analysis of updated progression-free survival results after a 4-year follow-up of our study population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02950051, recruitment is complete, and all patients are off study treatment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2016, and Oct 13, 2019, 1080 patients were screened and 926 were randomly assigned to treatment (chemoimmunotherapy group n=229; venetoclax-rituximab group n=237; venetoclax-obinutuzumab group n=229; and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group n=231); mean age 60·8 years (SD 10·2), 259 (28%) of 926 patients were female, and 667 (72%) were male (data on race and ethnicity are not reported). At data cutoff for this exploratory follow-up analysis (Jan 31, 2023; median follow-up 50·7 months [IQR 44·6-57·9]), patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group had significantly longer progression-free survival than those in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·47 [97·5% CI 0·32-0·69], p<0·0001) and the venetoclax-rituximab group (0·57 [0·38-0·84], p=0·0011). The venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group also had a significantly longer progression-free survival than the chemoimmunotherapy group (0·30 [0·19-0·47]; p<0·0001) and the venetoclax-rituximab group (0·38 [0·24-0·59]; p<0·0001). There was no difference in progression-free survival between the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib and venetoclax-obinutuzumab groups (0·63 [0·39-1·02]; p=0·031), and the proportional hazards assumption was not met for the comparison between the venetoclax-rituximab group versus the chemoimmunotherapy group (log-rank p=0·10). The estimated 4-year progression-free survival rate was 85·5% (97·5% CI 79·9-91·1; 37 [16%] events) in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group, 81·8% (75·8-87·8; 55 [24%] events) in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, 70·1% (63·0-77·3; 84 [35%] events) in the venetoclax-rituximab group, and 62·0% (54·4-69·7; 90 [39%] events) in the chemoimmunotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was neutropenia (114 [53%] of 216 patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group, 109 [46%] of 237 in the venetoclax-rituximab group, 127 [56%] of 228 in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, and 112 [48%] of 231 in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group). Deaths determined to be associated with study treatment by the investigator occurred in three (1%) patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group (n=1 due to each of sepsis, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, and Richter's syndrome), none in the venetoclax-rituximab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab groups, and four (2%) in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (n=1 due to each of acute myeloid leukaemia, fungal encephalitis, small-cell lung cancer, and toxic leukoencephalopathy). INTERPRETATION: With more than 4 years of follow-up, venetoclax-obinutuzumab and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib significantly extended progression-free survival compared with both chemoimmunotherapy and venetoclax-rituximab in previously untreated, fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, thereby supporting their use and further evaluation in this patient group, while still considering the higher toxicities observed with the triple combination. FUNDING: AbbVie, Janssen, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Humoral immune response and safety of Sars-Cov-2 vaccine in people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: For the past three years, the pandemic has had a major effect on global public health, mainly on those with underlying medical conditions, such as people living with Multiple Sclerosis. Vaccination among this group is of great importance, and the long-term impacts of vaccination and its safety on the health of these patients will continue to be revealed. Therefore, risks related to vaccination and immune response need to be assessed. The objective here was to characterize the immune response, short-term safety, and the effects of multiple variables on these factors after COVID-19 vaccination (mainly Sinopharm) among people with Multiple Sclerosis. We assessed the short-term safety and humoral SARS-COV-2 anti-RBD IgG response using a data collection form and Immunoassay, respectively. RESULTS: No severe adverse events or MS relapse was observed. Myalgia/body pain (26.7%), low-grade fever (22.2%), and mild headache (15.6%) were the most common adverse events. The use and type of vaccine influenced the frequency of side effects with a p-value < 0.0001. Regarding immune response, patients on rituximab and fingolimod had a lower antibody titer compared to other medications. With a significant difference, hybrid immunity (p-value: 0.047) and type of DMTs (p-value: 0.017) affected the humoral response. CONCLUSION: There is a low incidence of serious adverse effects, MS worsening or relapse after COVID-19 vaccination, and mainly, side effects are similar to that of the general population. It appears that treatment with various disease-modifying therapies does not induce or worsen the post-vaccination side effects, although some, including Rituximab and fingolimod, may affect the immunity induced after vaccination.

Indolent lymphoma care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

The treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period are unclear. This was a retrospective population-based study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (follow-up to 31 March 2022). The primary outcome was treatment pattern; secondary outcomes were death, toxicities, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visit, hospitalization) and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations. We identified 4143 patients (1079 pandemic, 3064 prepandemic), with a median age of 69 years. In both time periods, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR) was the most frequently prescribed regimen. During the pandemic, fewer patients received R maintenance or completed the full 2-year course (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001). Patients treated during the pandemic had less healthcare utilization (ED visit aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68, 0.88, p < 0.0001; hospitalization aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.0067) and complications (infection aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82, p < 0.0001; febrile neutropenia aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94, p = 0.020), with no difference in death. Independent of vaccination, active rituximab use was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Despite similar front-line regimen use, healthcare utilization and admissions for infection were less in the pandemic cohort.

Evaluation of clinical parameters and biomarkers in older, untreated mantle cell lymphoma patients receiving bendamustine-rituximab.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is clinically and biologically heterogeneous. While various prognostic features have been proposed, none currently impact therapy selection, particularly in older patients, for whom treatment is primarily dictated by age and comorbidities. Herein, we undertook a comprehensive comparison of clinicopathological features in a cohort of patients 60 years and older, uniformly treated with bendamustine and rituximab, with a median survival of >8 years. The strongest prognostic indicators in this cohort were a high-risk call by a simplified MCL international prognostic index (s-MIPI) (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 1.65-6.68 compared to low risk), a high-risk call by MCL35 (HR: 10.34, 95% CI: 2.37-45.20 compared to low risk) and blastoid cytology (HR: 4.21, 95% CR: 1.92-9.22 compared to classic). Patients called high risk by both the s-MIPI and MCL35 had the most dismal prognosis (HR: 11.58, 95% CI: 4.10-32.72), while those with high risk by either had a moderate but clinically relevant prognosis (HR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.49-5.82). A robust assay to assess proliferation, such as MCL35, along with stringent guidelines for cytological evaluation of MCL, in combination with MIPI, may be a strong path to risk-stratify older MCL patients in future clinical trials.

The impact of CHOP versus bendamustine on bone mineral density in patients with indolent lymphoma enrolled in the GALLIUM study.

Standard CHOP treatment includes a high cumulative dose of prednisone, and studies have shown increased fracture risk following CHOP. It is unclear whether reductions in bone mineral density (BMD) are caused by glucocorticoids or by the combination with chemotherapy. Our objective was to determine the effect of obinutuzumab (G)/rituximab (R)-bendamustine versus G/R-CHOP on BMD in follicular lymphoma patients. Patients in this GALLIUM post hoc study were ≥60 years old and in complete remission at induction treatment completion (ITC), following treatment with G or R in combination with bendamustine or CHOP. To assess BMD, Hounsfield units (HU) were measured in lumbar vertebra L1 on annual computed tomography. Furthermore, vertebral compression fractures were recorded. Of 173 patients included, 59 (34%) received CHOP and 114 (66%) received bendamustine. At baseline, there was no difference in HU between groups. The mean HU decrease from baseline to ITC was 27.8 after CHOP and 17.3 after bendamustine, corresponding to a difference of 10.4 (95% CI: 3.2-17.6). Vertebral fractures were recorded in 5/59 patients receiving CHOP and in 2/114 receiving bendamustine. CHOP was associated with a significant greater decrease in BMD and more frequent fractures. These results suggest that prophylaxis against BMD loss should be considered.

Hypogammaglobulinemia and Infection Events in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases Treated with Rituximab: 10 Years Real-Life Experience.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate predictors of hypogammaglobulinemia (HGG) and severe infection event (SIE) in patients with autoimmune disease (AID) receiving rituximab (RTX) therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted in a tertiary medical center in China. Predictors of HGG or SIE were assessed using Cox analysis. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis was applied to examine the correlation between glucocorticoid (GC) maintenance dose and SIE. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were included in this study, with a cumulative follow-up time of 698.28 person-years. Within the study population, 117 patients were diagnosed with connective tissue disease, 75 patients presented with ANCA-associated vasculitis, and 27 patients exhibited IgG4-related disease. HGG was reported in 63.3% of the patients, where an obvious decline in IgG and IgM was shown three months after RTX initiation. The rate of SIE was 7.2 per 100 person-years. An increase in the GC maintenance dose was an independent risk factor for both hypo-IgG (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12, p = 0.003) and SIE (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.1, p = 0.004). Further RCS analysis identified 7.48 mg/d prednisone as a safe threshold dose for patients who underwent RTX treatment to avoid a significantly increased risk for SIE. CONCLUSION: HGG was relatively common in RTX-treated AID patients. Patients with chronic lung disease or who were taking ≥ 7.5 mg/d prednisone during RTX treatment were at increased risk for SIE and warrant attention from physicians.

Rituximab versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in Patients with Pemphigus Vulgaris.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil are used to treat pemphigus vulgaris, but they have not been adequately compared in clinical trials. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with moderate-to-severe pemphigus vulgaris in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous rituximab (1000 mg on days 1, 15, 168, and 182) or oral mycophenolate mofetil (2 g per day), in addition to an oral glucocorticoid administered on the same tapering schedule in the two groups. The primary end point was sustained complete remission at week 52, defined as the healing of lesions with no new active lesions, as reflected by a Pemphigus Disease Area Index (PDAI) activity score of 0 (on a scale of 0 to 250, with higher scores indicating greater disease severity), for at least 16 weeks without the use of glucocorticoids. Secondary end points were the cumulative dose of glucocorticoids, the number of disease flares, and the change from baseline in the score on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater impairment). RESULTS: Of the 135 patients who underwent randomization, 67 were assigned to receive rituximab and 68 to receive mycophenolate mofetil. The primary outcome was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population: 62 patients in the rituximab group and 63 in the mycophenolate mofetil group. The median PDAI activity scores at baseline were 22.7 in the rituximab group and 18.3 in the mycophenolate mofetil group. At week 52, sustained complete remission was observed in 25 patients (40%) in the rituximab group and in 6 (10%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group (difference, 31 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15 to 45; P<0.001). The mean cumulative glucocorticoid dose during the 52-week treatment period was 3545 mg in the rituximab group and 5140 mg in the mycophenolate mofetil group (difference, -1595 mg; 95% CI, -2838 to -353; P<0.001). There were 6 disease flares in the rituximab group and 44 in the mycophenolate mofetil group (adjusted rate ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.29; P<0.001). The mean change in DLQI score was -8.87 points and -6.00 points, respectively (difference, -2.87 points; 95% CI, -4.58 to -1.17; P = 0.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 15 of 67 patients (22%) in the rituximab group and in 10 of 68 (15%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group. CONCLUSIONS: Rituximab was superior to mycophenolate mofetil in producing sustained complete remission at 52 weeks in patients with pemphigus vulgaris. Rituximab resulted in a greater reduction in glucocorticoid use than mycophenolate mofetil, but more patients in the rituximab group had serious adverse events. Further trials are needed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil beyond 52 weeks of treatment. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; PEMPHIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02383589.).

Vemurafenib plus Rituximab in Refractory or Relapsed Hairy-Cell Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Hairy-cell leukemia (HCL) is a CD20+ indolent B-cell cancer in which a BRAF V600E kinase-activating mutation plays a pathogenetic role. In clinical trials involving patients with refractory or relapsed HCL, the targeting of BRAF V600E with the oral BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib led to a response in 91% of the patients; 35% of the patients had a complete response. However, the median relapse-free survival was only 9 months after treatment was stopped. METHODS: In a phase 2, single-center, academic trial involving patients with refractory or relapsed HCL, we assessed the safety and efficacy of vemurafenib (960 mg, administered twice daily for 8 weeks) plus concurrent and sequential rituximab (375 mg per square meter of body-surface area, administered for 8 doses over a period of 18 weeks). The primary end point was a complete response at the end of planned treatment. RESULTS: Among the 30 enrolled patients with HCL, the median number of previous therapies was 3. A complete response was observed in 26 patients (87%) in the intention-to-treat population. All the patients who had HCL that had been refractory to chemotherapy (10 patients) or rituximab (5) and all those who had previously been treated with BRAF inhibitors (7) had a complete response. Thrombocytopenia resolved after a median of 2 weeks, and neutropenia after a median of 4 weeks. Of the 26 patients with a complete response, 17 (65%) were cleared of minimal residual disease (MRD). Progression-free survival among all 30 patients was 78% at a median follow-up of 37 months; relapse-free survival among the 26 patients with a response was 85% at a median follow-up of 34 months. In post hoc analyses, MRD negativity and no previous BRAF inhibitor treatment correlated with longer relapse-free survival. Toxic effects, mostly of grade 1 or 2, were those that had previously been noted for these agents. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, a short, chemotherapy-free, nonmyelotoxic regimen of vemurafenib plus rituximab was associated with a durable complete response in most patients with refractory or relapsed HCL. (Funded by the European Research Council and others; HCL-PG03 EudraCT number, 2014-003046-27.).

Short-term effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide for life-threatening ANCA-associated vasculitis: a propensity score analysis of the real-world nationwide database.

OBJECTIVES: Life-threatening antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) with rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis (RPGN) and/or alveolar haemorrhage (AH) has a poor prognosis. Rituximab (RTX) is as effective as cyclophosphamide (CY) in remission induction therapy; however, the effectiveness and safety of RTX have not been established in life-threatening AAV. This study aimed to investigate the short-term effectiveness and safety of RTX in life-threatening AAV with RPGN and/or AH. METHODS: Between April 2018 and March 2020, cases treated with systemic glucocorticoids and RTX or intravenous CY (IVCY) was extracted from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. Effectiveness was evaluated by in-hospital mortality and severe renal dysfunction requiring haemodialysis (HD) at discharge. Safety was evaluated by the in-hospital incidence of infections. The propensity score (PS) for RTX was estimated. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression with adjustment for PS were conducted to estimate the association of RTX with outcomes. RESULTS: From 16 001 612 hospitalised records, 687 life-threatening AAV cases were extracted. No significant difference in in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.80) was found between the groups. Although the RTX group had a lower risk of fungal infections (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.45; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.84) and pneumocystis pneumonia (aOR 0.58; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.00), they might have an increased risk of severe renal dysfunction requiring HD at discharge (aOR 2.58; 95% CI 1.02 to 6.91). CONCLUSIONS: In life-threatening AAV, RTX has similar short-term effectiveness on mortality to IVCY. Although RTX might have a lower risk of fungal infections and pneumocystis pneumonia, the short-term renal prognosis might be inferior to IVCY.

Rituximab as maintenance therapy for ANCA-associated vasculitides: pooled analysis and long-term outcome of 277 patients included in the MAINRITSAN trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of azathioprine (AZA), 18-month fixed-schedule rituximab (RTX), 18-month tailored RTX and 36-month RTX in preventing relapses in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis who achieved a complete remission after induction therapy. Patients treated with 36-month RTX received either a fixed or a tailored regimen for the first 18 months and a fixed regimen for the last 18 months (36-month fixed/fixed RTX and 36-month tailored/fixed RTX, respectively). METHODS: The Maintenance of Remission using Rituximab in Systemic ANCA-associated Vasculitis (MAINRITSAN) trials sequentially compared: 18-month fixed-schedule RTX versus AZA (MAINRITSAN); 18-month fixed-schedule RTX versus 18-month tailored-RTX (MAINRITSAN2); and extended therapy to 36 months with four additional RTX infusions after MAINRITSAN2 versus placebo (MAINRITSAN3). Patients were then followed prospectively through month 84 and their data were pooled to analyse relapses and adverse events. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival at month 84. RESULTS: 277 patients were enrolled and divided in 5 groups: AZA (n=58), 18-month fixed-schedule RTX (n=97), 18-month tailored-RTX (n=40), 36-month tailored/fixed RTX (n=42), 36-month fixed/fixed RTX (n=41). After adjustment for prognostic factors, 18-month fixed-schedule RTX was superior to AZA in preventing major relapses at month 84 (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.71). The 18-month tailored-RTX regimen was associated with an increased risk of major relapse compared with fixed-schedule regimen (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.43 to 5.96). The risk of major relapse was similar between 36-month fixed/fixed and 18-month fixed-RTX (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: According to these results, it appears that the 84-month remission rate is higher with an 18-month fixed RTX regimen compared with AZA and 18-month tailored RTX. Also, extending RTX to 36 months does not appear to reduce the long-term relapse rate compared with the 18-month fixed RTX regimen. However, as this study was underpowered to make this comparison, further prospective studies are needed to determine the potential long-term benefits of extending treatment in these patients.

Efficacy and safety of avacopan in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis receiving rituximab in a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of avacopan in the subgroup of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis receiving background induction therapy with rituximab in the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial. METHODS: Key efficacy outcomes were remission at week 26 and sustained remission at week 52. Additional outcomes included the Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin to creatinine ratio, health-related quality of life and safety. RESULTS: Of the 330 patients who received study medication, 214 (64.8%) received rituximab (once weekly for 4 weeks), with a mean age of 59.8 years; 163 (76.2%) had renal vasculitis and 125 (58.4%) were newly diagnosed. Remission at week 26 and sustained remission at week 52 were achieved by 83/107 (77.6%) and 76/107 (71.0%) patients in the avacopan group and 81/107 (75.7%) and 60/107 (56.1%) in the prednisone taper group, respectively. The relapse rate, recovery of renal function, speed of reduction in albuminuria and glucocorticoid toxicity favoured the avacopan group. Serious adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 39.3% of patients in the avacopan and prednisone taper groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis receiving rituximab, efficacy of treatment with avacopan compared with a prednisone taper was similar at week 26 and greater at week 52, with a favourable safety profile. In addition, avacopan was associated with improved renal outcomes and lower glucocorticoid toxicity. These results demonstrate the efficacy and safety of avacopan in patients receiving background induction therapy with rituximab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02994927.