In-class transition from bortezomib-based therapy to IRd is an effective approach in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of in-class transition to all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) following parenteral bortezomib (V)-based induction versus continued V-based therapy in US oncology clinics. Patients & methods: Non-transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) receiving in-class transition to IRd (N = 100; US MM-6), or V-based therapy (N = 111; INSIGHT MM). Results: Following inverse probability of treatment weighting, overall response rate was 73.2% with IRd versus 57.5% with V-based therapy (p < 0.0001). Median duration of treatment was 10.8 versus 5.3 months (p < 0.0001). Overall, 18/24% of patients discontinued IRd/V-based therapy due to adverse events. Conclusion: IRd after V-based induction was associated with significantly improved overall response rate and duration of treatment than continued V-based combination therapy. Clinical Trial Registration: US MM-6: NCT03173092; INSIGHT MM: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

In-class transition (iCT) of proteasome inhibitor-based therapy: a community approach to multiple myeloma management.

Long-term proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatment can improve multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes, but this can be difficult to achieve in clinical practice due to toxicity, comorbidities, and the burden of repeated parenteral administration. US MM-6 (NCT03173092) enrolled transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM to receive all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd; ≤39 cycles or until progression or toxicity) following three cycles of bortezomib-based induction. Primary endpoint: 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary/exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life (QoL), treatment satisfaction, and actigraphy. At datacut, in the fully accrued cohort of 140 patients, median age was 73 years with 42% aged ≥75 and 61% deemed frail; 10% of patients were ongoing on treatment. After a median follow-up of 27 months, the 2-year PFS rate was 71% (95% confidence interval: 61-78). ORR increased from 62% at the end of induction to 80% following in-class transition (iCT) to IRd for a median of 11 months. The 2-year OS rate was 86%. The overall safety profile/actigraphy levels were consistent with previous reports; QoL/treatment satisfaction scores were stable with ongoing therapy. iCT to IRd may allow prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy and a tolerable safety profile, while maintaining QoL.

Comparison of health care costs and resource utilization for commonly used proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-based triplet regimens for the management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-$3,813; P < 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P < 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P < 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

Feasibility of Long-term Proteasome Inhibition in Multiple Myeloma by in-class Transition From Bortezomib to Ixazomib.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing US MM-6 study is investigating in-class transition (iCT) from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral IRd (ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) with the aim of increasing proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatment adherence and duration while maintaining patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and improving outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: US community sites are enrolling non-transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) with no evidence of progressive disease after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based therapy to receive IRd (up to 39 cycles or until progression or toxicity). The patients use mobile or wearable digital devices to collect actigraphy (activity and sleep) data and electronically complete HRQoL, treatment satisfaction and medication adherence questionnaires. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. The key secondary endpoints include response rates and therapy duration. RESULTS: At the data cutoff, 84 patients had been treated (median age 73 years; 44% aged ≥ 75 years; 49% men; 15% Black or African American; and 10% Hispanic or Latino). Of the 84 patients, 62% were continuing therapy. The mean duration of total PI therapy was 10.1 months and for the IRd regimen was 7.3 months. With an 8-month median follow-up, the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 86% (95% confidence interval, 73%-93%) from both the start of bortezomib-based treatment and the start of IRd. The overall response rate was 62% (complete response, 4%; very good partial response, 25%; partial response, 33%) after bortezomib-based induction and 70% (complete response, 26%; very good partial response, 29%; partial response, 15%) after iCT. The IRd safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial data, and HRQoL and treatment satisfaction were maintained. CONCLUSION: The patients included in the US MM-6 study are representative of the real-world US MM population. The use of iCT might permit prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy, without impacting patients' HRQoL or treatment satisfaction.

Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial of response in subjects by cancer type.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, parallel-group trial evaluating fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) found that a single-day, triple-antiemetic fosaprepitant regimen resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR; no vomiting or rescue medication use) in the delayed phase (25-120 h after chemotherapy initiation), compared with a 3-day control regimen ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01594749). As the risk for CINV is dependent on chemotherapy regimen and generally guided by tumor type, this post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of this regimen by cancer subpopulations (gastrointestinal [GI] or colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancers). METHODS: Subjects with confirmed cancer who were naive to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC) and were scheduled to receive intravenous (IV) anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based MEC on the first day of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ondansetron and oral dexamethasone plus either a single IV dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg (fosaprepitant regimen) or placebo (control regimen). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects achieving CR in the delayed phase. CR rates in the overall and acute phases (0-120 h and 0-24 h after MEC initiation, respectively) were assessed as secondary end points. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: CR rates in the delayed phase favored the fosaprepitant regimen over the control regimen across the GI/colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancer subgroups (range, 6.2-22%); similar findings were observed for CR in the overall phase. CR in the acute phase was high for all groups (≥87%). The fosaprepitant regimen was well tolerated in all cancer subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis indicated that a single-day fosaprepitant regimen was effective in preventing CINV in patients receiving MEC, regardless of cancer type. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01594749 , registered May 9, 2012.

Costs Associated with Productivity Loss Among U.S. Patients Newly Diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma Receiving Oral Versus Injectable Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The use of novel drug agents in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has been associated with improved therapeutic outcomes and survival; however, MM continues to pose a significant economic burden on patients and health care systems. Evaluating economic implications of therapies can provide key points of distinctions between available treatment options. Patients with MM may experience productivity loss, including lost days from work or inability to work due to MM symptoms or to undergoing treatment. Although direct costs of illness have been well described in the literature, indirect costs associated with MM are understudied. OBJECTIVE: To compare the extent of disability benefit use and resultant workplace productivity loss among U.S. adult patients with newly diagnosed MM who received oral versus injectable MM therapy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters, Medicare Supplemental Coordination of Benefits, and Health and Productivity Management databases (2008-2015). Workplace absenteeism, as measured by disability benefit use, was evaluated 1 year before and 1 year after first MM diagnosis. Patients receiving only oral chemotherapy were compared with those who received injectable therapy. Absenteeism days and associated costs were compared among study groups using multivariable zero-inflated Poisson regression. RESULTS: The final study cohort included 299 patients with newly diagnosed MM, of whom 73 received oral therapy only and 226 received injectable therapy. Treatment type was a significant predictor of disability benefit use. Patients who received injectable therapy missed an average of 110 work days in the 1 year after diagnosis, compared with 87 for patients receiving only oral therapy (difference of 23 days, 95% CI = 19-26, P < 0.001). Treatment type was also a significant predictor of costs associated with lost productivity. Patients who received injectable therapy experienced productivity loss valued at $18,315, compared with patients who only received oral drug therapy ($14,429). The difference between these estimates was statistically significant ($3,886, 95% CI = $3,540-$4,231, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients newly diagnosed with MM face significant losses in productivity. Patients receiving injectable MM therapy use significantly more disability benefits and incur higher productivity costs, compared with those receiving oral MM therapy. Further studies elucidating the nature of the differences between injectable and noninjectable chemotherapy users are needed. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. Yong and Noga are employees of Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Merola reports personal fees from Millennium Pharmaceuticals during the time of this study.

Evaluation of factors contributing to the response to fosaprepitant in a heterogeneous, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy population: an exploratory analysis of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Fosaprepitant improved prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase III trial (PN031). This post hoc analysis explored factors that may have influenced response. METHODS: Adult subjects (N = 1000) scheduled to receive non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) on day 1 were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single-dose, 150-mg intravenous fosaprepitant regimen or a control regimen. Both regimens included dexamethasone and ondansetron on day 1, with ondansetron continuing through day 3 in the control arm only. Complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rates in the acute, delayed, and overall phases (0-25, 25-120, and 0-120 h, respectively) were analyzed by chemotherapy type (carboplatin-based vs non-carboplatin-based), chemotherapy duration (single-day vs multiple-day), and baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Most subjects received single-day chemotherapeutic regimens (70.6%), which were mainly carboplatin-based (67.6%). CR with fosaprepitant was consistent (76-80%) during the delayed and overall phases in carboplatin-based and non-carboplatin-based subgroups and in subgroups receiving single-day or multiple-day MEC regimens. Treatment effects favored fosaprepitant for the carboplatin-based versus the non-carboplatin-based group during the delayed phase (14.1 vs 6.5%; p = 0.06), and for the single-day versus the multiple-day subgroup during the delayed (13.2 vs 3.2%; p = 0.02) and overall phases (12.8 vs 4.0%; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis confirms that single-dose fosaprepitant is effective for the prevention of CINV in subjects receiving carboplatin or non-carboplatin in both single- and multiple-day non-AC MEC chemotherapy regimens. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01594749.

Prolonged Duration of Therapy Is Associated With Improved Survival in Patients Treated for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Routine Clinical Care in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, an extended therapy duration has been associated with better outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). However, data on how the therapy duration affects the outcomes for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are limited. We conducted a large, retrospective study in the United States to evaluate the effect of the duration of second-line therapy on overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with NDMM from January 2008 to June 2015 were followed up to identify their second-line therapy. The duration of therapy (DOT) and time to next therapy (TTNT), as a proxy for progression-free survival, were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The relationship between the duration of second-line therapy and overall survival was evaluated with a logistic marginal structural model to mitigate the risk of treatment selection and survival bias. RESULTS: A total of 628 NDMM patients developed a relapse after initial therapy. The median DOT for second-line therapy was 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-7.7 months), which was shorter than the corresponding TTNT (median, 15.1 months; 95% CI, 13.4-17.3 months). Each additional month of second-line therapy was associated with a reduced adjusted risk of death at 1 year (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.83; P < .001). CONCLUSION: In a large database capturing a heterogeneous patient population and varied treatment patterns reflecting routine clinical care, we found a clinical benefit for continued longer DOT at first relapse. Despite the emerging paradigm favoring continuous therapy, second-line progression-free survival (utilizing TTNT as the proxy) was more than twofold longer than the DOT. Understanding the barriers to extended DOT could help to improve the outcomes for RRMM patients.

Treating Multiple Myeloma Patients With Oral Therapies.

Recent advances have highlighted the importance of long-term, continuous treatment in multiple myeloma (MM) to improve survival. However, treatment burden continues to negatively impact the real-world duration of MM therapy, and strategies to limit the adverse impact of treatment on patient quality of life are therefore particularly important. Oral MM therapies include the immunomodulatory drugs lenalidomide, thalidomide, and pomalidomide; the alkylating agents melphalan and cyclophosphamide; the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat; the corticosteroids prednisone and dexamethasone; and the proteasome inhibitor ixazomib. The most commonly reported adverse events with these treatments include hematologic events such as thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; the gastrointestinal events nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; venous thrombotic events such as deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism; and events such as rash and peripheral neuropathy. It is important that patients receiving oral therapies at home report symptoms before they become difficult to manage. Appropriate management of these treatment-related adverse events, awareness of both food and drug interactions, and assisting patients with out-of-pocket costs are all important factors in providing efficacious, sustainable, and convenient MM therapy. We outline evidence-based recommendations to provide a practical guide for health care providers addressing the effective management of MM patients receiving oral therapy.

Oral alpha-lipoic acid to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy is frequently a dose-limiting factor in cancer treatment and may cause pain and irreversible function loss in cancer survivors. We tested whether alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) could decrease the severity of peripheral neuropathy symptoms in patients undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Cancer patients 18 years or older were randomly selected to receive either 600 mg ALA or a placebo three times a day orally for 24 weeks while receiving chemotherapy regimens including cisplatin or oxaliplatin. Neuropathy was measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) scale and the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events neurotoxicity grades. Results from timed functional tests and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Seventy of 243 (29 %) patients completed the study (24 weeks). Both the ALA and the placebo arms had a comparable drop-out rate. No statistically significant differences were found between the ALA and the placebo groups for FACT/GOG-Ntx scores, BPI scores, and patients' functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: This strategy of oral ALA administration was ineffective at preventing neurotoxicity caused by oxaliplatin or cisplatin. High attrition rates due to poor patient compliance and manner of dosage administration in this trial demonstrated a lack of feasibility for this intervention. Future studies to explore ALA as a neuroprotective agent should take heed of the barriers confronted in this study.

A phase 1/2 study of oral panobinostat combined with melphalan for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Panobinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor that has shown synergistic preclinical anti-myeloma activity when combined with other agents, recently exhibiting synergy with the alkylating agent melphalan (Sanchez et al., Leuk Res 35(3):373-379, 2011). This phase 1/2 trial investigated the safety and efficacy of panobinostat in combination with melphalan for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients. There were four different trial treatment schedules due to tolerability issues, with the final treatment schedule (treatment schedule D) consisting of panobinostat (15 or 20 mg) and melphalan (0.05 or 0.10 mg/kg), both administered on days 1, 3, and 5 of a 28-day cycle. A total of 40 patients were enrolled; 3 in treatment schedule A, 9 in schedule B, 7 in schedule C, and finally 21 schedule D. Patients had been treated with a median of four regimens (range, 1-16) and two prior bortezomib-containing regimens (range, 0-9). Maximum-tolerated dose was established at 20 mg panobinostat and 0.05 mg/kg melphalan in treatment schedule D. Overall, 3 patients (7.5 %) achieved ≥partial response (two very good PRs and one PR) while 23 exhibited stable disease and 14 showed progressive disease. All three responders were enrolled in cohort 2 of treatment schedule B (panobinostat 20 mg thrice weekly continuously with melphalan 0.05 mg/kg on days 1, 3, and 5). Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were common, with 30.8 and 23.1 % of patients exhibiting ≥grade 3, respectively. Panobinostat + melphalan appears to have tolerability issues in a dosing regimen capable of producing a response. Care must be taken to balance tolerability and efficacy with this combination.

Phase I/II trial assessing bendamustine plus bortezomib combination therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Bendamustine, active in multiple myeloma (MM), is a bifunctional mechlorethamine derivative with alkylating properties. Bortezomib, approved to treat MM, is effective in combination with alkylators. The tolerability and efficacy of bendamustine plus bortezomib in relapsed/refractory MM was assessed in an open-label, dose-escalating, phase I/II study. Patients aged ≥18 years received intravenous bendamustine 50, 70, or 90 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 4) plus bortezomib 1·0 mg/m(2) (days 1, 4, 8, and 11) for up to eight 28-day cycles. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed after cycle 1; bendamustine 90 mg/m(2) plus bortezomib 1·0 mg/m(2) was designated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were leucopenia (58%), neutropenia (50%), lymphopenia (45%), and thrombocytopenia (30%). Primary efficacy measure was overall response rate (ORR), which was the combined complete response (CR), very good partial response (VGPR), partial response (PR), and minimal response (MR). ORR was 48% (one CR, two VGPR, nine PR, and seven MR) for all 40 enrolled patients, 52% (16/31) at the MTD (90 mg/m(2) ), and 42% and 46% for prior use of bortezomib (n = 31) or alkylators (n = 28) respectively. Bendamustine plus bortezomib was well tolerated with promising efficacy in this heavily pretreated population.

Randomized, multicenter, phase 2 study (EVOLUTION) of combinations of bortezomib, dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, and lenalidomide in previously untreated multiple myeloma.

Combinations of bortezomib (V) and dexamethasone (D) with either lenalidomide (R) or cyclophosphamide (C) have shown significant efficacy. This randomized phase 2 trial evaluated VDC, VDR, and VDCR in previously untreated multiple myeloma (MM). Patients received V 1.3 mg/m2 (days 1, 4, 8, 11) and D 40 mg (days 1, 8, 15), with either C 500 mg/m2 (days 1, 8) and R 15 mg (days 1-14; VDCR), R 25 mg (days 1-14; VDR), C 500 mg/m2 (days 1, 8; VDC) or C 500 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15; VDC-mod) in 3-week cycles (maximum 8 cycles), followed by maintenance with V 1.3 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15, 22) for four 6-week cycles (all arms)≥very good partial response was seen in 58%, 51%, 41%, and 53% (complete response rate of 25%, 24%, 22%, and 47%) of patients (VDCR, VDR, VCD, and VCD-mod, respectively); the corresponding 1-year progression-free survival was 86%, 83%, 93%, and 100%, respectively. Common adverse events included hematologic toxicities, peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, and gastrointestinal disturbances. All regimens were highly active and well tolerated in previously untreated MM, and, based on this trial, VDR and VCD-mod are preferred for clinical practice and further comparative testing. No substantial advantage was noted with VDCR over the 3-drug combinations. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00507442).

Retreatment with bortezomib alone or in combination for patients with multiple myeloma following an initial response to bortezomib.

This clinical trial was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of bortezomib retreatment in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who had previously responded to bortezomib. Patients with progressive MM who had previously tolerated bortezomib as a single agent or in combination with other drugs, with a minimum of partial response (PR; >or=50% M-protein reduction) for >or=4 months, who had not received intervening MM therapy, were retreated with bortezomib (days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21-day cycle) with a starting dose being the dose at which the patient ended the initial treatment. Patients were allowed to receive bortezomib on retreatment in combination with dexamethasone, thalidomide, or doxorubicin. Thirty-two patients received bortezomib retreatment (most with added dexamethasone). The median treatment-free interval (last dose of initial bortezomib treatment to first dose of retreatment) was 9.9 (range 2.5-34.0) months. The median duration of retreatment was 2.8 (<1-7.9) months; median total duration of bortezomib treatment was 6.7 (2.5-19.8) months. Based on the investigators' assessment of best response, the overall response rate (complete plus PR) was 50%. The median time from start of retreatment to progressive disease (PD) was 6.6 (95% confidence interval: 5.1-9.6) months. Thirteen patients (41%) experienced PN; bortezomib-related SAEs were reported in four patients. Retreatment with bortezomib alone or in combination is effective and well tolerated in patients with MM who have responded to their initial bortezomib treatment.

Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT): four-year experience from the United States National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) contract research program in cell and tissue therapies.

BACKGROUND: In 2002, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) conducted a workshop to determine needs of the cell therapy community. A consensus emerged that improved access to cGMP facilities, regulatory assistance, and training would foster the advancement of cellular therapy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A 2003 NHLBI request for proposals resulted in four contracts being awarded to three cell-manufacturing facilities (Baylor College of Medicine, University of Minnesota, and University of Pittsburgh) and one administrative center (The EMMES Corporation). As a result, Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) was formed. RESULTS: As of October 1, 2008, PACT has received 65 preliminary applications of which 45 have been approved for product manufacture. A variety of cell therapies are represented including T-regulatory cells, natural killer cells, adipose-derived stem cells, cardiac progenitor cells for cardiac disease, hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) for central nervous system applications, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and dendritic cells. A total of 169 products have been administered under 12 applications and 2 reagents were manufactured and delivered. Fourteen peer-reviewed publications and 15 abstracts have resulted from the PACT project to date. A cell therapy textbook is nearly complete. PACT technical projects have addressed assay development, rapid endotoxin testing, shipping of cell products, and CD34+ HPC isolation from low-volume marrow. Educational Web seminars and on-site training through workshops have been conducted. CONCLUSIONS: PACT is an active and successful cell therapy manufacturing resource in the United States, addressing research and training while forging relationships among academia, industry, and participating institutions.

A single dose of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim for supporting neutrophil recovery in patients treated for low-to-intermediate risk acute myeloid leukemia: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are often neutropenic as a result of their disease. Furthermore, these patients typically experience profound neutropenia following induction and/or consolidation chemotherapy and this may result in serious, potentially life-threatening, infection. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim for assisting neutrophil recovery following induction and consolidation chemotherapy for de novo AML in patients with low-to-intermediate risk cytogenetics. METHODS: Patients (n = 84) received one or two courses of standard induction chemotherapy (idarubicin + cytarabine), followed by one course of consolidation therapy (high-dose cytarabine) if complete remission was achieved. They were randomized to receive either single-dose pegfilgrastim 6 mg or daily filgrastim 5 mug/kg, beginning 24 hours after induction and consolidation chemotherapy. RESULTS: The median time to recovery from severe neutropenia was 22.0 days for both pegfilgrastim (n = 42) and filgrastim (n = 41) groups during Induction 1 (difference 0.0 days; 95% CI: -1.9 to 1.9). During Consolidation, recovery occurred after a median of 17.0 days for pegfilgrastim versus 16.5 days for filgrastim (difference 0.5 days; 95% CI: -1.1 to 2.1). Therapeutic pegfilgrastim serum concentrations were maintained throughout neutropenia. Pegfilgrastim was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of filgrastim. CONCLUSION: These data suggest no clinically meaningful difference between a single dose of pegfilgrastim and multiple daily doses of filgrastim for shortening the duration of severe neutropenia following chemotherapy in de novo AML patients with low-to-intermediate risk cytogenetics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00114764.

Low incidence of neutropenic events in patients with lymphoma receiving first-cycle pegfilgrastim with chemotherapy: results from a prospective community-based study.

BACKGROUND: Most alterations to chemotherapy dose and schedule are because of neutropenic events, which mainly occur in the first chemotherapy cycle. This prospective, community-based study evaluated the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in patients with lymphoma who were also receiving chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged > or = 18 years with cancer other than leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes were eligible, including patients with major comorbidities who were generally not eligible for most clinical trials. Key exclusions were weekly chemotherapy and concurrent radiation therapy. Patients received pegfilgrastim 6 mg approximately 24 hours after chemotherapy in each cycle (up to 8 cycles). Endpoints included neutropenic complications and serious adverse events. RESULTS: This open-label single-arm study enrolled 2249 patients at 319 sites. Of these 2249 patients, 325 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and 46 patients with Hodgkin disease were included in the primary analysis set. The median age was 65 years for patients with NHL and 41 years for patients with Hodgkin disease, and 31% and 26% had major comorbidities, respectively. Few patients experienced neutropenic complications, including grade 4 febrile neutropenia (patients with Hodgkin disease: 0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0-8%]; patients with NHL: 13% [95% CI, 10%-17%]); febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization (patients with Hodgkin disease: 0 [95% CI, 0-8%]; patients with NHL: 10% [95% CI, 7%-14%]), neutropenia-related dose reduction (patients with Hodgkin disease: 0 [95% CI, 0-8%]; patients with NHL: 5% [95% CI, 3%-8%]), and neutropenia-related dose delay (patients with Hodgkin disease: 0 [95% CI, 0-8%]; patients with NHL: 5% [95% CI, 3%-8%]). Serious adverse events were consistent with those observed in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy supported by pegfilgrastim experienced few neutropenic complications or neutropenia-related alterations in chemotherapy dose and schedule.

Neutropenic events in community practices reduced by first and subsequent cycle pegfilgrastim use.

The impact of first- and subsequent-cycle growth factor use in the community setting has not been studied extensively. We conducted this large, prospective, noncomparative study to assess neutropenia and related complications in patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support in community practices. Patients > or = 18 years old with cancers other than leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, including those with major comorbidities, were eligible. Pegfilgrastim (6 mg) was to be administered approximately 24 hours after chemotherapy in all cycles (minimum, four cycles). A total of 2,112 patients was included in the analyses. The most common tumor types were breast cancer (46%), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (15%), and non-small cell lung cancer (13%). Chemotherapies administered most often were a platinum plus a taxane (18%), and anthracycline plus an alkylating agent (18%), and a taxane plus an anthracycline plus an alkylating agent (16%). The percentage of patients with neutropenia-related hospitalization was 2.9% in cycle 1 and 5.6% across all cycles. Chemotherapy dose reductions and delays were attributed to neutropenia in 1.8% and 0.9% of patients, respectively, in cycle 2 and 2.9% and 2.1% of patients, respectively, across all cycles. Febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <1.0 x 10(9)/l with temperature > or = 38.2 degrees C) occurred in 3.6% of patients in cycle 1 and in 6.3% of patients across all cycles. The most frequently reported serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (3.4%), neutropenia (2.6%), and dehydration (2.6%). Bone pain (0.1%) was the only related serious adverse event reported in more than one patient. Data from this community-based study suggest that patients undergoing chemotherapy benefit from pegfilgrastim support beginning in the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Palifermin for oral mucositis after intensive therapy for hematologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a complication of intensive chemotherapy and radiotherapy with no effective treatment. We tested the ability of palifermin (recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor) to decrease oral mucosal injury induced by cytotoxic therapy. METHODS: This double-blind study compared the effect of palifermin with that of a placebo on the development of oral mucositis in 212 patients with hematologic cancers; 106 patients received palifermin (60 microg per kilogram of body weight per day) and 106 received a placebo intravenously for three consecutive days immediately before the initiation of conditioning therapy (fractionated total-body irradiation plus high-dose chemotherapy) and after autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Oral mucositis was evaluated daily for 28 days after transplantation. RESULTS: The incidence of oral mucositis of World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 was 63 percent in the palifermin group and 98 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001). Among patients with this degree of mucositis, the median duration of mucositis was 6 days (range, 1 to 22) in the palifermin group and 9 days (range, 1 to 27) in the placebo group. Among all patients, regardless of the occurrence of mucositis, the median duration of oral mucositis of WHO grade 3 or 4 was 3 days (range, 0 to 22) in the palifermin group and 9 days (range, 0 to 27) in the placebo group (P<0.001). As compared with placebo, palifermin was associated with significant reductions in the incidence of grade 4 oral mucositis (20 percent vs. 62 percent, P<0.001), patient-reported soreness of the mouth and throat (area-under-the-curve score, 29.0 [range, 0 to 98] vs. 46.8 [range, 0 to 110]; P<0.001), the use of opioid analgesics (median, 212 mg of morphine equivalents [range, 0 to 9418] vs. 535 mg of morphine equivalents [range, 0 to 9418], P<0.001), and the incidence of use of total parenteral nutrition (31 percent vs. 55 percent, P<0.001). Adverse events, mainly rash, pruritus, erythema, mouth and tongue disorders, and taste alteration, were mild to moderate in severity and were transient. CONCLUSIONS: Palifermin reduced the duration and severity of oral mucositis after intensive chemotherapy and radiotherapy for hematologic cancers.