Ixazomib plus daratumumab and dexamethasone: Final analysis of a phase 2 study among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Novel therapies have improved outcomes for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, but most ultimately relapse, making treatment decisions for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients increasingly challenging. We report the final analysis of a single-arm, phase 2 study evaluating the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib combined with daratumumab and dexamethasone (IDd; NCT03439293). Sixty-one RRMM patients (ixazomib/daratumumab-naïve; 1-3 prior therapies) were enrolled to receive IDd (28-day cycles) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Median age was 69 years; 14.8% of patients had International Staging System stage III disease; 14.8% had received three prior therapies. Patients received a median of 16 cycles of IDd. In 59 response-evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 64.4%; the confirmed ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (primary endpoint) was 30.5%. Rates of ≥VGPR in patient subgroups were: high-risk cytogenetics (n = 15, 26.7%), expanded high-risk cytogenetics (n = 24, 29.2%), aged ≥75 years (n = 12, 16.7%), lenalidomide-refractory (n = 21, 28.6%), and prior PI/IMiD therapy (n = 58, 31.0%). With a median follow-up of 31.6 months, median progression-free survival was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval: 10.1-23.7). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 54.1% of patients; 44.3% had serious TEAEs; TEAEs led to dose modifications/reductions/discontinuations in 62.3%/36.1%/16.4%. There were five on-study deaths. Any-grade and grade ≥3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 18.0% and 1.6% of patients. Quality of life was generally maintained throughout treatment. IDd showed a positive risk-benefit profile in RRMM patients and was active in clinically relevant subgroups with no new safety signals.

Randomized Phase 2 Studies of Checkpoint Inhibitors Alone or in Combination With Pegilodecakin in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC (CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2).

INTRODUCTION: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been approved to treat metastatic NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI suggested promising efficacy in phase 1 IVY, providing rationale for randomized phase 2 trials CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2. METHODS: CYPRESS 1 (N = 101) and CYPRESS 2 (N = 52) included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 and first-line/second-line metastatic NSCLC, respectively, without known EGFR/ALK mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1; control arms received pembrolizumab (CYPRESS 1) or nivolumab (CYPRESS 2); experimental arms received pegilodecakin + CPI. Patients had programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of greater than or equal to 50% (CYPRESS 1) or 0% to 49% (CYPRESS 2). Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory end points included immune activation biomarkers. RESULTS: Median follow-up for CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2 was 10.0 and 11.6 months, respectively. Results for pegilodecakin + pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 47% versus 44% (OR = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-2.5); median PFS 6.3 versus 6.1 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.937, 95% CI: 0.54-1.625); and median OS 16.3 months versus not reached (HR = 1.507, 95% CI: 0.708-3.209). Results per blinded independent central review were consistent. Treatment discontinuation rate owing to adverse events (AEs) doubled in the experimental arm (32% versus 15%). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (62% versus 19%) included anemia (20% versus 0%) and thrombocytopenia (12% versus 2%). Results for pegilodecakin + nivolumab versus nivolumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 15% versus 12% (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.3-5.9); median PFS 1.9 versus 1.9 months (HR = 1.006, 95% CI: 0.519-1.951); and median OS 6.7 versus 10.7 months (HR = 1.871, 95% CI: 0.772-4.532). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (70.4% versus 16.7%) included anemia (40.7% versus 0%), fatigue (18% versus 0%), and thrombocytopenia (14.8% versus 0%). Biomarker data suggested activation of immunostimulatory signals of interleukin-10R pathway in pegilodecakin-containing arms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of biological effect in peripheral blood, adding pegilodecakin to CPI did not improve ORR, PFS, or OS, in first-line/second-line NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI has been found to have overall higher toxicity compared with CPI alone, leading to doubling of treatment discontinuation rate owing to AEs.

Association of diurnal blood pressure pattern with risk of hospitalization or death in men with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: An altered diurnal blood pressure (BP) pattern has been linked to the risk of developing heart failure (HF). We tested whether an altered diurnal BP pattern is associated with adverse outcomes (death or hospitalization for HF exacerbation) in patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 118 patients with HF were enrolled from a tertiary care HF clinic and followed for death or HF hospitalization for up to 4 years; 24-hour ambulatory BP was monitored. Forty patients (34%) had a normal BP dipping pattern (night-day ambulatory BP ratio < 0.9), 44 patients (37%) had a nondipping pattern (0.9 < or = night-day ambulatory BP ratio < 1.0), and 34 patients (29%) had a reverse dipping BP pattern (night-day ambulatory BP ratio > or = 1.0). A total of 39 patients had an adverse outcome. Adverse outcome rates were the lowest in dippers and the highest in reverse dippers (log rank P = .052). Predictors of adverse outcomes, selected on the basis of log likelihood contrast, were as follows: New York Heart Association functional class (hazard ratio [HR] 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-3.44), anemia (HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.23-5.08), and dipping status (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.08-2.50). CONCLUSION: In addition to other traditional predictors, BP dipping status may be an important prognostic factor in HF.