Belantamab Mafodotin, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Triplet or quadruplet therapies incorporating proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies have led to prolonged survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; however, most patients have a relapse. Frontline lenalidomide therapy has increased the number of patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease at the time of the first relapse. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (BPd), as compared with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), in lenalidomide-exposed patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Disease response and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients underwent randomization; 155 were assigned to the BPd group, and 147 to the PVd group. At a median follow-up of 21.8 months (range, <0.1 to 39.2), the 12-month estimated progression-free survival with BPd was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63 to 78), as compared with 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with PVd (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73; P<0.001). Data on overall survival were immature. The percentage of patients with a response to treatment (partial response or better) was 77% (95% CI, 70 to 84) in the BPd group and 72% (95% CI, 64 to 79) in the PVd group; 40% (95% CI, 32 to 48) and 16% (95% CI, 11 to 23), respectively, had a complete response or better. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 94% of the patients in the BPd group and 76% of those in the PVd group. Ocular events occurred in 89% of the patients who received BPd (grade 3 or 4 in 43%) and 30% of those who received PVd (grade 3 or 4 in 2%); ocular events in the BPd group were managed with belantamab mafodotin dose modification. Ocular events led to treatment discontinuation in 9% of the patients in the BPd group and in no patients in the PVd group. CONCLUSIONS: Among lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, BPd conferred a significantly greater benefit than PVd with respect to progression-free survival, as well as deeper, more durable responses. Ocular events were common but were controllable by belantamab mafodotin dose modification. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-8 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04484623; EudraCT number, 2018-004354-21.).

Thalidomide for Recurrent Bleeding Due to Small-Intestinal Angiodysplasia.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent bleeding from the small intestine accounts for 5 to 10% of cases of gastrointestinal bleeding and remains a therapeutic challenge. Thalidomide has been evaluated for the treatment of recurrent bleeding due to small-intestinal angiodysplasia (SIA), but confirmatory trials are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of thalidomide for the treatment of recurrent bleeding due to SIA. Eligible patients with recurrent bleeding (at least four episodes of bleeding during the previous year) due to SIA were randomly assigned to receive thalidomide at an oral daily dose of 100 mg or 50 mg or placebo for 4 months. Patients were followed for at least 1 year after the end of the 4-month treatment period. The primary end point was effective response, which was defined as a reduction of at least 50% in the number of bleeding episodes that occurred during the year after the end of thalidomide treatment as compared with the number that occurred during the year before treatment. Key secondary end points were cessation of bleeding without rebleeding, blood transfusion, hospitalization because of bleeding, duration of bleeding, and hemoglobin levels. RESULTS: Overall, 150 patients underwent randomization: 51 to the 100-mg thalidomide group, 49 to the 50-mg thalidomide group, and 50 to the placebo group. The percentages of patients with an effective response in the 100-mg thalidomide group, 50-mg thalidomide group, and placebo group were 68.6%, 51.0%, and 16.0%, respectively (P<0.001 for simultaneous comparison across the three groups). The results of the analyses of the secondary end points supported those of the primary end point. Adverse events were more common in the thalidomide groups than in the placebo group overall; specific events included constipation, somnolence, limb numbness, peripheral edema, dizziness, and elevated liver-enzyme levels. CONCLUSIONS: In this placebo-controlled trial, treatment with thalidomide resulted in a reduction in bleeding in patients with recurrent bleeding due to SIA. (Funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, Gaofeng Clinical Medicine; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02707484.).

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and followed by daratumumab maintenance or observation in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the CASSIOPEIA randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 demonstrated superior depth of response and prolonged progression-free survival with daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) alone as an induction and consolidation regimen in transplant-eligible patients newly diagnosed with myeloma. In CASSIOPEIA part 2, daratumumab maintenance significantly improved progression-free survival and increased minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates versus observation. Here, we report long-term study outcomes of CASSIOPEIA. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA was a two-part, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients done at 111 European academic and community-based centres. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pre-transplant induction and post-transplant consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients who completed consolidation and had a partial response or better were re-randomised (1:1) to intravenous daratumumab maintenance (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks) or observation for 2 years or less. An interactive web-based system was used for both randomisations, and randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks of four. Stratification factors for the first randomisation (induction and consolidation phase) were site affiliation, International Staging System disease stage, and cytogenetic risk status. Stratification factors for the second randomisation (maintenance phase) were induction treatment and depth of response in the induction and consolidation phase. The primary endpoint for the induction and consolidation phase was the proportion of patients who achieved a stringent complete response after consolidation; results for this endpoint remain unchanged from those reported previously. The primary endpoint for the maintenance phase was progression-free survival from second randomisation. Efficacy evaluations in the induction and consolidation phase were done on the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent first randomisation, and efficacy analyses in the maintenance phase were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned at the second randomisation. This analysis represents the final data cutoff at the end of the study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22, 2015 and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were randomly assigned to D-VTd (n=543) or VTd (n=542); between May 30, 2016 and June 18, 2018, 886 were re-randomised to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation (n=444). At the clinical cutoff date, Sept 1, 2023, median follow-up was 80·1 months (IQR 75·7-85·6) from first randomisation and 70·6 months (66·4-76·1) from second randomisation. Progression-free survival from second randomisation was significantly longer in the daratumumab maintenance group than the observation-alone group (median not reached [95% CI 79·9-not estimable (NE)] vs 45·8 months [41·8-49·6]; HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·40-0·59]; p<0·0001); benefit was observed with D-VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus D-VTd with observation (median not reached [74·6-NE] vs 72·1 months [52·8-NE]; 0·76 [0·58-1·00]; p=0·048) and VTd with daratumumab maintenance versus VTd with observation (median not reached [66·9-NE] vs 32·7 months [27·2-38·7]; 0·34 [0·26-0·44]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The long-term follow-up results of CASSIOPEIA show that including daratumumab in both the induction and consolidation phase and the maintenance phase led to superior progression-free survival outcomes. Our results confirm D-VTd induction and consolidation as a standard of care, and support the option of subsequent daratumumab monotherapy maintenance, for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology, and Janssen Research & Development.

The lymphocyte/monocyte ratio predicts the efficacy of isatuximab plus pomalidomide in multiple myeloma patients.

BACKGROUND: Isatuximab, an anti-CD38 antibody, has been widely used in treatments for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Despite its high efficacy, not all patients achieve a lasting therapeutic response with isatuximab. OBJECTIVE: We tried to identify biomarkers to predict the effectiveness of isatuximab by focusing on the host's immune status before treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the cases of 134 relapsed/refractory MM patients in the Kansai Myeloma Forum database who had received only a first isatuximab treatment. RESULTS: Among the 134 patients, an isatuximab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Isa-PD) regimen, isatuximab, carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Isa-KD) regimen and isatuximab and/or dexamethasone (Isa-D) regimen were used in 112, 15 and 7 patients, respectively. The median age at treatment, number of prior treatment regimens, and progression-free survival (PFS) were 71, 6, and 6.54 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the PFS under the Isa-PD regimen was longer in patients with higher lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR ≥ 4), fewer prior treatment regimens (< 6), and no use of prior daratumumab treatment. The OS under the Isa-PD regimen was longer in patients with higher white blood cell counts (WBC counts ≥ 3000/µL) and higher LMR. The PFS under the Isa-D regimen was longer in patients with fewer prior treatment regimens in univariate analysis, but no parameters were correlated with PFS/OS under the Isa-KD regimen. CONCLUSION: We found that the patients with higher LMR (≥ 4) could obtain longer PFS and OS under the Isa-PD regimen. Other cohort studies of isatuximab treatment might be necessary to substantiate our results.

Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: final overall survival analysis.

The primary and prespecified updated analyses of ICARIA-MM (clinicaltrial gov. Identifier: NCT02990338) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and a benefit in overall survival (OS) was reported with the addition of isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, to pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report the final OS analysis. This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study included patients who had received and failed ≥2 previous therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Between January 10, 2017, and February 2, 2018, 307 patients were randomized (1:1) to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Isa-Pd; N=154) or Pd (N=153), stratified based on age (<75 vs. ≥75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2-3 vs. >3). At data cutoff for the final OS analysis after 220 OS events (January 27, 2022), median follow-up duration was 52.4 months. Median OS was 24.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3-31.3) with Isa-Pd and 17.7 months (95% CI: 14.4- 26.2) with Pd (hazard ratio=0.78; 95% CI: 0.59-1.02; 1-sided P=0.0319). Despite subsequent daratumumab use in the Pd group and its potential benefit on PFS in the first subsequent therapy line, median PFS2 was significantly longer with Isa-Pd versus Pd (17.5 vs. 12.9 months; log-rank 1-sided P=0.0091). In this analysis, Isa-Pd continued to be efficacious and well tolerated after follow-up of approximately 52 months, contributing to a clinically meaningful, 6.9-month improvement in median OS in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Carfilzomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone are safe and effective in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: final report of the single-arm, multicenter, phase II ALLG MM018/AMN002 study.

This multicenter, phase II study of the Australasian Lymphoma and Leukemia Group and the Asian Myeloma Network investigated fixed-duration (18-month) treatment with carfilzomib (K), thalidomide (T), and dexamethasone (d) (KTd) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma who had received one to three prior lines of therapy. Patients received induction with up to 12 28-day cycles of carfilzomib (20 mg/m2 intravenously in cycle 1 on days 1 and 2, then 56 mg/m2 [36 mg/m2 for patients ≥75 years] from day 8 onwards), thalidomide 100 mg orally in the evening and weekly dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients ≥75 years). During maintenance, thalidomide was omitted, while carfilzomib was continued on days 1, 2, 15, and 16 with fortnightly dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, duration of response, safety, and tolerability. Ninety-three patients (median age 66.3 years [range, 41.9-84.5]) were enrolled and followed up for a median of 26.4 months (range, 1.6-54.6). The median progression-free survival was 22.3 months (95% confidence interval: 15.7-25.6) and the 2-year progression-free survival was 46.3% (95% confidence interval: 35.1-52.8). The median overall survival was not reached and the 2-year overall survival was 73.8% (95% confidence interval: 62.9-81.9). The overall response rate was 88% (73% had a very good partial response or better). There was no difference in the depth of response, progression-free survival or overall survival comparing Asian and non-Asian cohorts (P=0.61). The safety profile of KTd was consistent with that of each individual drug. KTd is well tolerated and effective in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma irrespective of Asian or non-Asian ethnicity and provides an alternative treatment option, particularly in circumstances in which the use of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) is limited by access, cost, or renal impairment.

Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended follow-up of a multicenter, retrospective real-world experience with 321 cases outside of controlled clinical trials.

The ELOQUENT-3 trial demonstrated the superiority of the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloPd) in terms of efficacy and safety, compared to Pd in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), who had received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. The present study is an 18-month follow-up update of a previously published Italian real-life RRMM cohort of patients treated with EloPd. This revised analysis entered 319 RRMM patients accrued in 41 Italian centers. After a median follow-up of 17.7 months, 213 patients (66.4%) experienced disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 7.5 and 19.2 months, respectively. The updated multivariate analysis showed a significant reduction of PFS benefit magnitude both in advanced International Staging System (ISS) (II and III) stages and previous exposure to daratumumab cases. Instead, advanced ISS (II and III) stages and more than 2 previous lines of therapy maintained an independent prognostic impact on OS. Major adverse events included grade three-fourths neutropenia (24.9%), anemia (13.4%), lymphocytopenia (15.5%), and thrombocytopenia (10.7%), while infection rates and pneumonia were 19.3% and 8.7%, respectively. A slight increase in the incidence of neutropenia and lymphocytopenia was registered with longer follow-up. In conclusion, our real-world study still confirms that EloPd is a safe and possible therapeutic choice for RRMM. Nevertheless, novel strategies are desirable for those patients exposed to daratumumab.

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in real-world: The retrospective IMAGE study.

BACKGROUND: IMAGE is a retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in early access programs (EAPs) in France with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) receiving isatuximab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Isa-Pd). METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with RRMM who received ≥1 dose of Isa under the EAPs between July 29, 2019 and August 30, 2020 were included. Effectiveness endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates. Verbatim terms for adverse events (AEs) were coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities and not graded for severity. RESULTS: A total of 294 and 299 patients were included in the effectiveness and safety populations, respectively. IMAGE included patients who received one prior line of treatment (10.2%) and were daratumumab-refractory (19.1%). At median follow-up of 14.2 months, median PFS in the effectiveness population was 12.4 months (95% CI 9.0-15.0). Overall response and very good partial response rates were 46.3% and 27.9%, respectively. Subgroup analyses reflected similar results. In the safety population, 26.4% of patients reported at least one AE; the most common any-grade AE was neutropenia (9.4%). CONCLUSION: IMAGE demonstrated Isa-Pd had meaningful effectiveness in median PFS and depth of response and no new safety signals in a real-world context, consistent with clinical trial results.

Efficacy and safety of daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone versus daratumumab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone in daratumumab-naïve relapsed multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study to analyze the safety and efficacy of DPd versus DKd in daratumumab naïve RRMM patients treated in real-world practice. RESULTS: A total of 187 patients with RRMM were included in the analysis; 128 patients received DPd, and 59 patients received DKd. A vast majority (80%) of patients had lenalidomide refractory disease and nearly 50% had bortezomib refractory disease. The overall response and complete response rates were 76% and 34% in the DPd group versus 80% and 51% in the DKd group, respectively. With a median follow up of 36 months for the entire patient population, median PFS and OS in the DPd versus DKd groups were 12, 12, 37, and 35 months, respectively. The most common grade 3+ adverse events in the DPd versus DKd groups were neutropenia (32% vs. 7%), anemia (14% vs. 10%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 15%), and cardiovascular events (4% vs. 15%), respectively. Both DPd and DKd appeared to be a safe and effective treatment options for RRMM. CONCLUSIONS: While there were more cytopenias associated with DPd and more cardiovascular side effects with DKd, there were no significant differences in the survival outcomes with these two regimens.

Efficacy and safety of apremilast in pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: 16-week results from SPROUT, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approved systemic treatment options are limited for pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of apremilast over 16 weeks in pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis. METHODS: SPROUT (NCT03701763) was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of apremilast in patients aged 6-17 years with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] ≥12, body surface area ≥10%, static Physician Global Assessment [sPGA] ≥3) inadequately controlled by/inappropriate for topical therapy. Patients were stratified by age group and randomized (2:1) to apremilast (20 or 30 mg BID based on weight) or placebo for 16 weeks, followed by apremilast extension to 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of 245 patients randomized (apremilast: 163; placebo: 82), 221 (90%) completed the double-blind phase (apremilast: 149; placebo: 72). Significantly more patients achieved sPGA response and ≥75% reduction in PASI with apremilast than placebo, regardless of baseline age, weight, or disease severity. No new safety signals were observed. LIMITATIONS: Sample size of subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in global disease activity and skin involvement were significantly greater in pediatric patients treated with apremilast versus placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the known apremilast safety profile.

Immunomodulator adherence in multiple myeloma patients with lower socioeconomic status: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Poor adherence to oral chemotherapy adversely impacts clinical outcomes and escalates overall healthcare costs. Despite barriers to medication adherence, a significant gap remains in assessing adherence to oral chemotherapy among multiple myeloma (MM) patients with lower socioeconomic status. Hence, our study aims to evaluate immunomodulator adherence in MM patients at a county hospital, primarily serving underrepresented and indigent individuals with low socioeconomic status across the greater Houston area. METHODS: Inclusion criteria composed of patients diagnosed with MM, aged at least 18 years, and treated with lenalidomide or pomalidomide-two widely used immunomodulators-for a minimum of 2 months or having two or more records of dispensation between May 2019 and May 2021. Adherence was gauged using an adjusted version of the medication possession ratio (MPR). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were enrolled, yielding a mean MPR value of 88% (SD, ± 18.9). Of these, 43 patients (69.3%) demonstrated adherence with an MPR of ≥ 0.90. A significant difference was found in treatment duration between the adherent (mean 8.8 months; SD, ± 7.2) and non-adherent (mean 13.4 months; SD, ± 7.9) groups (p = 0.027). Notably, race/ethnicity demonstrated a significant difference (p = 0.048), driven by disparities in African American and Hispanic representation across adherence levels. CONCLUSION: In summary, our findings highlight race and treatment duration to be predictors of immunomodulator adherence among MM patients with lower socioeconomic status. Further research is imperative to devise and test innovative interventions aimed at enhancing medication adherence, thereby contributing to improved survival and healthcare quality in this population.

Efficacy and safety of piclidenoson in plaque psoriasis: Results from a randomized phase 3 clinical trial (COMFORT-1).

OBJECTIVE: A3 adenosine receptor (A3AR) is overexpressed in the skin and peripheral blood mononuclear cells of psoriasis patients. We investigated the efficacy/safety of piclidenoson (CF101), an orally bioavailable A3AR agonist that inhibits IL-17 and IL-23 production in keratinocytes, in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: The randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind phase 3 COMFORT-1 trial randomized patients (3:3:3:2) to piclidenoson 2 mg BID, piclidenoson 3 mg BID, apremilast 30 mg BID or placebo. At Week 16, patients in the placebo arm were re-randomized (1:1:1) to piclidenoson 2 mg BID, piclidenoson 3 mg BID or apremilast 30 mg BID. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from baseline (PASI-75) at Week 16 versus placebo. RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study medication (safety population). The efficacy analysis population for the primary end point included 426 patients (piclidenoson 2 mg BID, 127; piclidenoson 3 mg BID, 103; apremilast, 118; placebo, 78). Piclidenoson at 2 and 3 mg BID exhibited similar efficacy. The primary end point was met with the 3 mg BID dose: PASI 75 rate of 9.7% versus 2.6% for piclidenoson versus placebo, p = 0.037. The PASI responses with piclidenoson continued to increase throughout the study period in a linear manner. At week 32, analysis in the per-protocol population showed that a greater proportion of patients in the piclidenoson 3 mg BID arm (51/88, 58.0%) achieved improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Disability Index (PDI) compared to apremilast (59/108, 55.1%), and the test for noninferiority trended towards significance (p = 0.072). The safety/tolerability profile of piclidenoson was excellent and superior to apremilast. CONCLUSIONS: Piclidenoson demonstrated efficacy responses that increased over time alongside a favourable safety profile. These findings support its continued clinical development as a psoriasis treatment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03168256).

Adhesive capsaicin 8% patch for improved control of pain caused by chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with multiple myeloma: A single-centre, seven-case series.

BACKGROUND: Capsaicin is a highly selective agonist of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1. The adhesive capsaicin patch provides a high capsaicin concentration (8%) directly in the painful area - its efficacy in benign peripheral neuropathic pain (diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia) has recently been described in the literature. However, there is scant evidence of its efficacy in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). This is a concern for patients with multiple myeloma, who suffer from peripheral neuropathic pain induced by first-line treatments (bortezomib or thalidomide). AIM: To describe improved control of CIPN in patients with multiple myeloma using adhesive capsaicin 8% patch. METHODS: We opted for a retrospective observational case series. Between October 2017 and October 2020, we collected clinical data from adult multiple myeloma patients affected by CIPN who were administered the capsaicin 8% patch in our palliative care outpatient clinic. We compiled Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) scores, patients' medication needs and performance status before and after patch application. RESULTS: Two women and five men with an average age of 62.85 years received bortezomib. Two patients (28.57% of the sample) also received thalidomide. The average NPRS score before patch application was 6.42/10. Five of the seven patients (71.42%) received a mean daily oral morphine dose of 52.85 mg/day, five (71.42%) received gabapentinoids and one (14.28%) received antidepressants. The average NPRS score decreased to 4/10 seven days after patch application, while the mean daily oral morphine dose remained stable. Performance status improved slightly in two patients (28.57%) and remained stable in the rest. One patient (14.28%) required an extra analgesic dose during patch application. CONCLUSIONS: Capsaicin 8% patch application appears to reduce pain intensity in patients with multiple myeloma suffering from CIPN.

Formulation characterization of lecithin organogel as topical drug delivery system for psoriasis: In-vitro permeation and preclinical evaluation.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory and proliferative skin disease that causes pathological skin changes and has a substantial impact on the quality of patient life. Apremilast was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as an oral medication for psoriasis and is beneficial in mild to moderate conditions for chronic usage. However, 5%-7% of withdrawals were reported due to severe side effects. To address the issue, a localized drug delivery strategy via the topical route may be a viable approach. However, poor physicochemical properties make it vulnerable to passing through the skin, requiring a specialized drug delivery system to demonstrate its full potential via a topical route like lecithin organogel. The formulation was optimized by screening the suitable lecithin type and non-polar solvents based on the gel formation ability of lecithin and the solubility of apremilast in the solvent. The pseudo-ternary diagram was used to optimize the water content required to form the gel. The optimized gel was found to be shear thinning characterized for rheological parameters, in-vitro diffusion studies, and in-vitro skin distribution studies. Preclinical studies in Imiquimod-induced mice showed a better reduction in severity index, cytokine levels, and epidermal hyperplasia from the lecithin organogel group compared to the apremilast oral administration and marketed standard topical gel group. Based on these results, lecithin organogel can be considered a promising approach to deliver molecules like apremilast by topical route in psoriatic-like conditions.

Isatuximab as monotherapy and combined with dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

This phase 2 study evaluated isatuximab as monotherapy or combined with dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Patients had RRMM refractory to an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI) or had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy incorporating an IMiD and PI. Patients received isatuximab either as monotherapy (20 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 [once weekly] of cycle 1 followed by 20 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles; Isa group) or in combination with dexamethasone (40 mg/d [20 mg/d in patients aged ≥75 years] once weekly; Isa-dex group). Treated patients (N = 164) had received a median of 4 (range, 2-10) prior treatment lines. Patients received a median of 5 (1-24) and 7 (1-22) treatment cycles; at data cutoff, 13 (11.9%) of 109 and 15 (27.3%) of 55 patients remained on treatment in the Isa and Isa-dex arms, respectively. Overall response rate (primary efficacy end point) was 23.9% in the Isa arm and 43.6% in the Isa-dex arm (odds ratio, 0.405; 95% confidence interval, 0.192-0.859; P = .008). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.9 and 18.9 months for Isa, and 10.2 and 17.3 months for Isa-dex. Infusion reactions (mostly grade 1/2) and hematologic abnormalities were the most common adverse events. There was a similar incidence of grade 3 or higher infections in both groups (22.0% and 21.8%). In conclusion, addition of dexamethasone to isatuximab increased response rates and survival outcomes with no detrimental effect on safety. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01084252.

A randomized phase 2 trial of pomalidomide in subjects failing prior therapy for chronic graft-versus-host disease.

Steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is a therapeutic challenge. Sclerotic skin manifestations are especially difficult to treat. We conducted a randomized phase 2 clinical trial (#NCT01688466) to determine the safety, efficacy, and preferred dose of pomalidomide in persons with moderate to severe cGVHD unresponsive to corticosteroids and/or subsequent lines of therapy. Thirty-four subjects were randomized to receive pomalidomide 0.5 mg per day orally (n = 17; low-dose cohort) or 2 mg per day at a starting dose of 0.5 mg per day increasing to 2 mg per day over 6 weeks (n = 17; high-dose cohort). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) at 6 months according to the 2005 National Institutes of Health cGVHD Response Criteria. Thirty-two patients had severe sclerotic skin and received a median of 5 (range, 2-10) previous systemic therapies. ORR was 47% (95% confidence interval, 30-65) in the intention-to-treat analyses. All were partial responses, with no difference in ORR between the cohorts. ORR was 67% (45%-84%) in the 24 evaluable subjects at 6 months. Nine had improvement in National Institutes of Health joint/fascia scores (P = .018). Median change from the baseline in body surface area involvement of skin cGVHD was -7.5% (-10% to 35%; P = .002). The most frequent adverse events were lymphopenia, infection, and fatigue. Eight subjects in the high-dose cohort had dose decreases because of adverse events. There was 1 death in the low-dose cohort from bacterial pneumonia. Our data indicate antifibrotic effects of pomalidomide and possible association with increases in concentrations of blood regulatory T-cell and interleukin-2. Pomalidomide 0.5 mg per day is a safe and effective therapy for advanced corticosteroid-refractory cGVHD.

Thrombosis in patients with myeloma treated in the Myeloma IX and Myeloma XI phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

Newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but data are lacking from large prospective cohorts. We present thrombosis outcome data from Myeloma IX (n = 1936) and Myeloma XI (n = 4358) phase 3 randomized controlled trials for NDMM that treated transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible patients before and after publication of thrombosis prevention guidelines. In Myeloma IX, transplant-eligible patients randomly assigned to cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (CVAD) induction had higher risk of VTE compared with patients treated with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) (22.5% [n = 121 of 538] vs 16.1% [n = 89 of 554]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR],1.46; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.11-1.93). For transplant-ineligible patients, those randomly assigned to attenuated CTD (CTDa) induction had a higher risk of VTE compared with those treated with melphalan and prednisolone (MP) (16.0% [n = 68 of 425] vs 4.1% [n = 17 of 419]; aHR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.50-7.20). In Myeloma XI, there was no difference in risk of VTE (12.2% [n = 124 of 1014] vs 13.2% [n = 133 of 1008]; aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.18) or arterial thrombosis (1.2% [n = 12 of 1014] vs 1.5% [n = 15 of 1008]; aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.37-1.70) between transplant-eligible pathways for patients treated with cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD) or CTD. For transplant-ineligible patients, there was no difference in VTEs between attenuated CRD (CRDa) and CTDa (10.4% [n = 95 of 916] vs 10.7% [n = 97 of 910]; aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29). However, arterial risk was higher with CRDa than with CTDa (3.1% [n = 28 of 916] vs 1.6% [n = 15 of 910]; aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.57). Thrombotic events occurred almost entirely within 6 months of treatment initiation. Thrombosis was not associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), apart from inferior OS for patients with arterial events (aHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.08) in Myeloma XI. The Myeloma XI trial protocol incorporated International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) thrombosis prevention recommendations and compared with Myeloma IX, more patients received thromboprophylaxis (80.5% vs 22.3%) with lower rates of VTE for identical regimens (CTD, 13.2% vs 16.1%; CTDa, 10.7% vs 16.0%). However, thrombosis remained frequent in spite of IMWG-guided thromboprophylaxis, suggesting that new approaches are needed.

Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at first relapse in lenalidomide-pretreated myeloma: A subanalysis of OPTIMISMM by clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) by age, renal function, and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with multiple myeloma at first relapse. METHODS: OPTIMISMM was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized study (NCT01734928; N = 559). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Overall, 226 patients had received one prior line of therapy. PVd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in patients aged ≤65 years (median, 22.0 vs 13.1 months; P = .0258) and >65 years (median, 17.6 vs 9.9 months; P = .0369). Median PFS in patients with renal impairment (RI; creatinine clearance <60 mL/min) was 15.1 months with PVd vs 9.5 months with Vd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.34-1.34]). In patients without RI, median PFS was 22.0 vs 13.1 months (HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.76]). In patients with high-risk cytogenetics, median PFS was 14.7 vs 9.9 months (HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.13-1.17]). PVd significantly improved overall response rate vs Vd in all subgroups. The safety profile of PVd was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirmed the benefits of PVd at first relapse, including in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Carfilzomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus autologous transplantation or carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (FORTE): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and 15-16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction-intensification-consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7-55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44-3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9-41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58-72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone. FUNDING: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Maintenance with daratumumab or observation following treatment with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab and autologous stem-cell transplant in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: CASSIOPEIA part 1 showed superior depth of response and significantly improved progression-free survival with daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-VTd) versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) as induction and consolidation in patients with autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT)-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In part 2, we compared daratumumab maintenance versus observation only. METHODS: CASSIOPEIA is a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of patients aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, done in 111 European academic and community practice centres. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction and consolidation with D-VTd or VTd. Patients still on study who had a partial response or better were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to daratumumab 16 mg/kg intravenously every 8 weeks (a reduced frequency compared with standard daratumumab long-term dosing) or observation only for up to 2 years. Stratification factors were induction treatment and depth of response in part 1. The part 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival from second randomisation. This preplanned interim analysis of progression-free survival was done after 281 events and shall be considered the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Sponsor personnel and designees who were involved in the analysis were masked to treatment group until the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the preplanned interim analysis be considered the main analysis of progression-free survival in part 2. Otherwise, treatment assignments were unmasked. The interaction between induction and consolidation and maintenance was tested at a two-sided significance level of 0·05 by a stratified Cox regression model that included the interaction term between maintenance treatment and induction and consolidation treatment. Efficacy analyses were done in the maintenance-specific intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who underwent second randomisation. Safety was analysed in all patients in the daratumumab group who received at least one dose and all patients randomly assigned to observation only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02541383. Long-term follow-up is ongoing and the trial is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2016, and June 18, 2018, 886 patients (458 [84%] of 543 in the D-VTd group and 428 [79%] of 542 in the VTd group) were randomly assigned to daratumumab maintenance (n=442) or observation only (n=444). At a median follow-up of 35·4 months (IQR 30·2-39·9) from second randomisation, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not evaluable [NE]-NE) with daratumumab versus 46·7 months (40·0-NE) with observation only (hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·42-0·68, p<0·0001). A prespecified analysis of progression-free survival results showed a significant interaction between maintenance and induction and consolidation therapy (p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (16 [4%] of 440 patients in the daratumumab group vs eight [2%] of 444 patients in the observation-only group), hypertension (13 [3%] vs seven [2%]), and neutropenia (nine [2%] vs ten [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 100 (23%) patients in the daratumumab group and 84 (19%) patients in the observation-only group. In the daratumumab group, two adverse events led to death (septic shock and natural killer-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma); both were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Daratumumab maintenance every 8 weeks for 2 years significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death compared with observation only. Longer follow-up and other ongoing studies will shed further light on the optimal daratumumab-containing post-ASCT maintenance treatment strategy. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development, the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome, and the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology.