Efficacy and safety of isatuximab plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible/with no immediate intent for autologous stem cell transplantation.

Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have lower survival rates and may benefit from frontline regimens that include novel agents. This Phase 1b study (NCT02513186) evaluated preliminary efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, combined with bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Isa-VRd) in patients with NDMM ineligible for/with no intent for immediate ASCT. Overall, 73 patients received four 6-week induction cycles of Isa-VRd, then maintenance with Isa-Rd in 4-week cycles. In the efficacy population (n = 71), the overall response rate was 98.6%, with 56.3% achieving a complete response or better (sCR/CR), and 36/71 (50.7%) patients reaching minimal residual disease negativity (10-5 sensitivity). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 79.5% (58/73) of patients but TEAEs leading to permanent study treatment discontinuation were reported in 14 (19.2%) patients. Isatuximab PK parameters were within the previously reported range, suggesting that VRd does not alter the PK of isatuximab. These data support additional studies of isatuximab in NDMM, such as the Phase 3 IMROZ study (Isa-VRd vs VRd).

Isatuximab in combination with cemiplimab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Given the incurable nature of multiple myeloma (MM), efforts are made to improve the efficacy of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies via combinations with other potentially synergistic therapies. This Phase 1/2 trial (NCT03194867) was designed to determine whether cemiplimab (anti-PD-1) enhances the anti-myeloma activity of isatuximab (anti-CD38) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), to confirm the feasibility of the combination, determine its efficacy, and further evaluate its safety. METHODS: Patients received isatuximab 10 mg/kg once weekly for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks (Isa), or isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus cemiplimab 250 mg every 2 (Isa + CemiQ2W) or every 4 weeks (Isa + CemiQ4W). RESULTS: Overall, 106 patients with RRMM treated with a median of 4 prior lines were included; 25.5% had high-risk cytogenetics, 63.2% were refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, 26.4% were previously exposed to daratumumab, and 84.0% were refractory to their last treatment line. There were no major changes in the safety or pharmacokinetic profile of isatuximab with the addition of cemiplimab. As assessed by investigators, four patients (11.8%) in the Isa arm, nine patients (25.0%) in the Isa + CemiQ2W arm, and eight patients (22.2%) in the Isa + CemiQ4W arm were responders. Though response rates were numerically higher in cemiplimab-containing arms, differences were not statistically significant and did not translate to improved progression-free or overall survival after a median follow-up of 9.99 months. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a marginal benefit by adding cemiplimab to isatuximab, despite demonstration of target engagement, without additional observed safety issues.