Isatuximab for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: review of key subgroup analyses from the Phase III ICARIA-MM study.

In the Phase III ICARIA-MM study (NCT02990338), the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone led to increased progression-free survival and improved response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. There is an unmet treatment need, particularly among patients with poor prognoses, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, those who have renal impairment, those who are elderly and those who are refractory to prior lines of treatment. In this review, the subgroup analyses from the ICARIA-MM study, representing subpopulations with poor prognostic factors, are discussed. Overall, the addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone improved progression-free survival and disease response rates across different subgroups, regardless of prognostic factor.

Lay abstract Currently, the majority of patients with multiple myeloma are not cured, and current treatments may not be helpful for patients with poor prognoses, including those with high-risk chromosomal changes, those who have impaired kidney function, those who are elderly and those who are refractory to prior treatments. In this review, we will discuss the benefits of the combination of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in these difficult-to-treat patients.

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma according to prior lines of treatment and refractory status: ICARIA-MM subgroup analysis.

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) experience several relapses, and become refractory to successive therapies. In the ICARIA-MM trial (NCT02990338), isatuximab plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with RRMM. This subgroup analysis of ICARIA-MM assessed the treatment benefit of isatuximab by prior lines of therapy and refractory status. A total of 307 patients were randomized to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 154) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (n = 153). Isatuximab (10 mg/kg intravenously) was given weekly in the first 28-day cycle, then every other week. Standard pomalidomide-dexamethasone doses were given. PFS was assessed by prior lines and refractory status. Overall, 102 (66 %) patients receiving isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone and 101 (66 %) patients receiving pomalidomide-dexamethasone had received 2-3 prior lines; 52 (34 %) and 52 (34 %) had received >3 prior lines, respectively. Median PFS was higher with isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone for patients who received 2-3 prior lines of therapy (12.3 vs. 7.8 months) and >3 prior lines of therapy (9.4 vs. 4.3 months). Median PFS was higher with isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone for patients who were lenalidomide-refractory (11.4 vs. 5.6 months), lenalidomide-refractory at last line (11.6 vs. 5.7 months), refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) (11.4 vs. 5.6 months), and double-refractory (11.2 vs. 4.8 months). Overall response rate (ORR) in patients receiving isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone was 59.0 % versus 31.4 % in lenalidomide-refractory; 60.2 % versus 32.2 % in PI-refractory; and 58.6 % versus 29.9 % in double-refractory patients. Isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone improved PFS and ORR regardless of prior lines of therapy or refractory status, consistent with the benefit in the overall population.

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds a specific epitope on the human CD38 receptor and has antitumour activity via multiple mechanisms of action. In a previous phase 1b study, around 65% of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma achieved an overall response with a combination of isatuximab with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to determine the progression-free survival benefit of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study at 102 hospitals in 24 countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Eligible participants were adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged ≥75 years), or pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified according to the number of previous lines of treatment (2-3 vs >3) and age (<75 years vs ≥75 years). Treatments were assigned based on a permuted blocked randomisation scheme with a block size of four. The isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group received isatuximab intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the first 28-day cycle, then on days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide on days 1 to 21 in each cycle, and oral or intravenous dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Dose reductions for adverse reactions were permitted for pomalidomide and dexamethasone, but not for isatuximab. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by an independent response committee and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02990338. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, we randomly assigned 307 patients to treatment: 154 to isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone, and 153 to pomalidomide-dexamethasone. At a median follow-up of 11·6 months (IQR 10·1-13·9), median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·9-13·9) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group versus 6·5 months (4·5-8·3) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group; hazard ratio 0·596, 95% CI 0·44-0·81; p=0·001 by stratified log-rank test. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade; isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone vs pomalidomide-dexamethasone) were infusion reactions (56 [38%] vs 0), upper respiratory tract infections (43 [28%] vs 26 [17%]), and diarrhoea (39 [26%] vs 29 [20%]). Adverse events with a fatal outcome were reported in 12 patients (8%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group and 14 (9%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group. Deaths due to treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (<1%) in the isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection). INTERPRETATION: The addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide-dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Isatuximab is an important new treatment option for the management of relapsed and refractory myeloma, particularly for patients who become refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone versus pomalidomide/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: ICARIA Phase III study design.

Treatment for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains an unmet need. Isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody has shown efficacy and tolerability as a monotherapy and combination therapy in Phase I/II studies in RRMM. Here, we describe the design of the Phase III ICARIA-MM study (NCT02990338) which will evaluate isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide (Pom) and low-dose dexamethasone (dex) (Pom/dex) versus Pom/dex alone in RRMM. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. Response will be determined by an independent response review committee using IMWG criteria (2016) and safety will be assessed throughout. Approximately 300 patients (150 in each arm) are expected to enroll. The first patient was recruited in January 2017 and accrual is ongoing.

Aflibercept Plus FOLFIRI vs. Placebo Plus FOLFIRI in Second-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Post Hoc Analysis of Survival from the Phase III VELOUR Study Subsequent to Exclusion of Patients who had Recurrence During or Within 6 Months of Completing Adjuvant Oxaliplatin-Based Therapy.

The aim of this post hoc analysis of the VELOUR study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00561470) was to investigate the treatment effect of adding aflibercept to second-line infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had failed any prior oxaliplatin-containing regimen. Adjuvant rapid relapsers (ARR), who were enrolled directly following relapse during or within 6 months of completion of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 124, including 17 patients who also received bevacizumab as part of their adjuvant therapy), were excluded from the original VELOUR intention-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 1226). After exclusion of the ARR, overall survival (OS) in the ITT minus ARR (ITT-ARR) population (N = 1102) was longer in the aflibercept plus FOLFIRI arm than in the placebo plus FOLFIRI arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.90; median survival difference 1.87 months]. In the subgroup of patients assigned to the prior bevacizumab stratum at randomization, OS was numerically longer in the aflibercept plus FOLFIRI arm than in the placebo plus FOLFIRI arm (HR 0.81; 95 % CI 0.63-1.04; median survival difference 2.14 months). Comparison of the post hoc analysis results with the primary analysis from VELOUR suggests that the inclusion of the directly enrolled ARR may have understated the aflibercept treatment benefit for both bevacizumab-pretreated and bevacizumab-naïve patients in the strictly second-line setting although no definitive conclusion may be inferred. The benefit associated with the addition of aflibercept to second-line FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC was observed whatever the timing of first-line disease progression. There were no unexpected safety concerns.

Ombrabulin plus cisplatin versus placebo plus cisplatin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas after failure of anthracycline and ifosfamide chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ombrabulin (AVE8062) disrupts the vasculature of established tumours and has shown preclinical synergistic anti-tumour activity when combined with cisplatin. In this phase 3 trial, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ombrabulin plus cisplatin compared with placebo plus cisplatin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. METHODS: We did this multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study at 44 centres in ten countries. Patients aged 18 years and older with metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and who had previously received treatment with anthracycline and ifosfamide were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous infusion of ombrabulin 25 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or intravenous infusion of placebo plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Patients were allocated to treatment using a permuted blocks randomisation scheme (block size of four) via an interactive voice-response system, and stratified by histological subtype. Patients, medical staff, study investigators, and individuals who handled and analysed the data were masked to treatment assignment. Our primary endpoint was median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done on all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is now closed, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00699517. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2008, and April 26, 2012, we randomly assigned 355 patients to ombrabulin plus cisplatin (n=176) or placebo plus cisplatin (n=179). Median duration of follow-up was 27·9 (IQR 20·9-33·2) in the placebo group and 30·5 months (20·7-37·6) in the ombrabulin group. Progression-free survival was slightly, but significantly, improved in the ombrabulin group compared with the placebo group (median 1·54 months [95% CI 1·45-2·69] vs 1·41 [1·38-1·58] months; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·59-0·98]; p=0·0302). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred more frequently in individuals in the ombrabulin group than in those in the placebo group and included neutropenia (34 [19%] in the ombrabulin group vs 14 [8%] in the placebo group) and thrombocytopenia (15 [8%] vs six [3%] for placebo). Adverse events leading to death occurred in 18 patients in the ombrabulin group and 10 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The combination of ombrabulin and cisplatin significantly improved progression-free survival; however, it did not show a sufficient clinical benefit in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas to support its use as a therapeutic option. Predictive biomarkers are needed for the rational clinical development of tumour vascular-disrupting drugs for soft-tissue sarcomas. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Larotaxel with Cisplatin in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial tract or bladder cancer: a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial (CILAB).

BACKGROUND: This open-label, randomized phase III trial evaluated larotaxel/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment for locally advanced (T4b) or metastatic urothelial tract or bladder cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized to larotaxel 50 mg/m(2) with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks (larotaxel/cisplatin) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 with cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks (gemcitabine/cisplatin). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The trial was prematurely closed following the sponsor's decision to stop clinical development of larotaxel (n = 337 randomized). The larotaxel dose was reduced to 40 mg/m(2) and cisplatin to 60 mg/m(2) following a data monitoring committee safety review of the first 97 patients. At the time of analysis, the median OS was 13.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-17.1] with larotaxel/cisplatin and 14.3 months (95% CI 10.5 to not reached) with gemcitabine/cisplatin [hazard ratio (HR) 1.21; 95% CI 0.83-1.76; p = 0.33]. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 months (95% CI 4.1-6.2) with larotaxel/cisplatin and 7.6 months (95% CI 6.6-9.1) with gemcitabine/cisplatin (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.24-2.25). More myelosuppression was observed with gemcitabine/cisplatin. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in OS. Although the trial was closed prematurely, PFS appeared worse with larotaxel/cisplatin, suggesting that larotaxel/cisplatin does not improve outcomes versus cisplatin/gemcitabine.

Aflibercept and Docetaxel versus Docetaxel alone after platinum failure in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, controlled phase III trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept), a recombinant human fusion protein targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, with or without docetaxel in platinum-pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 913 patients were randomly assigned to (ziv-)aflibercept 6 mg/kg intravenous (IV; n = 456) or IV placebo (n = 457), both administered every 3 weeks and in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Other efficacy outcomes, safety, and immunogenicity were also assessed. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were balanced between arms; 12.3% of patients had received prior bevacizumab. (Ziv-)Aflibercept did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.17; stratified log-rank P = .90). The median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.6 months) for (ziv-)aflibercept and 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.9 months) for placebo. In exploratory analyses, median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.6 months) for (ziv-)aflibercept versus 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 4.3 months) for placebo (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P = .0035); overall response rate was 23.3% of evaluable patients (95% CI, 19.1% to 27.4%) in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm versus 8.9% (95% CI, 6.1% to 11.6%; P < .001) in the placebo arm. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurring more frequently in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm versus the placebo arm were neutropenia (28.0% v 21.1%, respectively), fatigue (11.1% v 4.2%, respectively), stomatitis (8.8% v 0.7%, respectively), and hypertension (7.3% v 0.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The addition of (ziv-)aflibercept to standard docetaxel therapy did not improve OS. In exploratory analyses, secondary efficacy end points did seem to be improved in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm. The study regimen was associated with increased toxicities, consistent with known anti-VEGF and chemotherapy-induced events.

Estimation of the exposure of the French population to the BSE agent: comparison of the 1980-95 consumption of beef products containing mechanically recovered meat in France and the UK, by birth cohort and gender.

Assuming that human exposure to BSE was through beef mechanically recovered meat (MRM) consumed as burgers and other meat products, we estimated the French consumption of different food items containing beef MRM, and compared these consumptions for French and British populations. To estimate consumption of meat products containing bovine MRM, we used dietary data from national individual and household food surveys conducted between 1980 and 1995. After reconciliation of consumption data between the available surveys and calendar year adjustments, we simulated consumption of one-thousandth of the French population. Consumption was estimated by birth cohort and gender, and for the periods 1980-89 and 1990-95 separately. Data showed that burgers (including manufactured minced meat) represented around 75-80% of the individual consumption of meat products containing MRM, and that consumption of burgers increased by 40% over the 1980-95 period. In all age groups, consumption was higher in males than in females. In both genders, the 1940-69 birth cohort had the highest mean consumption of burgers and other beef products containing MRM. Similar findings have been reported for the UK population. Estimated consumption of bovine MRM per calendar year increased markedly over the study period, concomitantly with an increase of bovine carcasses imported from the UK. Comparison of the 1980-1995 pattern of bovine MRM consumption in the UK and France indicated thatthis consumption peaked later in France than in the UK. This difference might result in different temporal pattern of vCJD incidence.