Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in Patients With Prior Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant in the CARTITUDE-1 Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) are typically excluded from trials of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies, because their engineered cells may include allogeneic T cells. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) demonstrated early, deep, durable responses and manageable safety in heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients. We retrospectively analyzed patients who received alloSCT prior to cilta-cel in CARTITUDE-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients eligible for CARTITUDE-1 were ≥18 years, had ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOT) or were double refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and had received a PI, IMiD, and anti-CD38 antibody. Patients with active graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or had alloSCT within 6 months before apheresis were excluded. Patients received cilta-cel 5 to 7 days after lymphodepletion. RESULTS: Patients (N = 7) received median 9 prior LOTs (range, 6-14); median time since alloSCT was 5.1 years (range, 2.7-6.2). At median follow-up 27.7 months after cilta-cel infusion, overall response rate was 85.7% (n = 6). The safety profile was generally consistent with patients without alloSCT as prior therapy (cytokine release syndrome, 85.7% vs. 95.6%, respectively; immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, 14.3% vs. 16.7%). One patient with prior alloSCT had grade 3 movement and neurocognitive treatment-emergent adverse events/parkinsonism. No GVHD cases were reported. Two patients died due to adverse events (treatment-related lung abscess; unrelated liver failure). CONCLUSION: Cilta-cel efficacy and safety were comparable between CARTITUDE-1 patients with and without prior alloSCT. Additional studies are needed to fully elucidate the suitability of CAR-T cell therapy in the post-alloSCT setting.

Updated results from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: This study used the latest available data cuts from the CARTITUDE-1 and KarMMa clinical trials to update previously published matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) assessing the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus the FDA-approved idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) dose range of 300 to 450 × 106 CAR-positive T-cells in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. triple-class exposed). METHODS: MAICs were performed with the latest available individual patient data for cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1) and published summary-level data for ide-cel (KarMMa). The analyses included treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility criteria for KarMMa. The MAIC adjusted for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance identified in the literature and by clinical expertise. Comparative efficacy was assessed for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Cilta-cel was associated with statistically significantly improved ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 94.93 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.86, 412.25; p < .0001]; relative risk [RR]: 1.34), ≥CR rate (OR: 5.65 [95% CI: 2.51, 12.69; p < .0001]; RR: 2.23), DoR (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.30, 0.88; p = .0152]), PFS, (HR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.24, 0.62; p < .0001]), and OS (HR: 0.43 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.88; p = .0200]) compared with ide-cel. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate improved efficacy with cilta-cel versus ide-cel for all outcomes over longer follow-up and highlight its therapeutic potential in triple-class exposed RRMM patients.

Patient Perceptions Regarding Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel Treatment: Qualitative Evidence From Interviews With Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the CARTITUDE-1 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a novel chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy, has demonstrated early, deep, and durable clinical responses in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in CARTITUDE-1 (NCT03548207). Patient perspectives on treatment provide context to efficacy outcomes and are an important aspect of therapeutic evaluation. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted in a subset of CARTITUDE-1 patients (n = 36) at screening, Day 100, and Day 184 post cilta-cel on living with MM, therapy expectations, and treatment experiences during the study. RESULTS: Patients most wanted to see change in symptoms with the greatest impact on HRQoL: pain (85.2%) and fatigue (74.1%). The primary treatment expectation was achieving remission (40.7%), followed by extended life expectancy (14.8%). Patients most often defined meaningful change as improvement in symptoms (70.4%) and return to normalcy (40.7%). The percentage of patients reporting symptoms (pain, fatigue, bone fracture, gastrointestinal, neuropathy, and weakness) decreased from 85.2% to 22.2% across symptom types at baseline to 29.2% to 0% on Day 184 after cilta-cel. Improved symptoms and positive sentiments corresponded with improved perception of overall health status and reduced pain level, respectively. Most patients reported that their expectations of cilta-cel treatment had been met (70.8%) or exceeded (20.8%) at Day 184, and 70.8% of patients considered cilta-cel therapy better than their previous treatments. CONCLUSION: Overall HRQoL improvements and qualitative interviews showed cilta-cel met patient expectations of treatment and suggest the long treatment-free period also contributed to positive sentiments.

Efficacy and safety of cilta-cel in patients with progressive multiple myeloma after exposure to other BCMA-targeting agents.

B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting therapies, including bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), are promising treatments for multiple myeloma (MM), but disease may progress after their use. CARTITUDE-2 is a phase 2, multicohort study evaluating the safety and efficacy of cilta-cel, an anti-BCMA chimeric antigen receptor T therapy, in various myeloma patient populations. Patients in cohort C progressed despite treatment with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, anti-CD38 antibody, and noncellular anti-BCMA immunotherapy. A single cilta-cel infusion was given after lymphodepletion. The primary end point was minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity at 10-5. Overall, 20 patients were treated (13 ADC exposed; 7 BsAb exposed; 1 in the ADC group also had prior BsAb exposure). Sixteen (80%) were refractory to prior anti-BCMA therapy. At a median follow-up of 11.3 months (range, 0.6-16.0), 7 of 20 (35%) patients were MRD negative (7 of 10 [70.0%] in the MRD-evaluable subset). Overall response rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 60.0% (36.1-80.9). Median duration of response and progression-free survival (95% CI) were 11.5 (7.9-not estimable) and 9.1 (1.5-not estimable) months, respectively. The most common adverse events were hematologic. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 12 (60%) patients (all grade 1-2); 4 had immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (2 had grade 3-4); none had parkinsonism. Seven (35%) patients died (3 of progressive disease, 4 of adverse events [1 treatment related, 3 unrelated]). Cilta-cel induced favorable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory MM and prior exposure to anti-BCMA treatment who had exhausted other therapies. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04133636.

Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel, an Anti-B-cell Maturation Antigen Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy, for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: CARTITUDE-1 2-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: CARTITUDE-1, a phase Ib/II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, yielded early, deep, and durable responses at 12 months. Here, we present updated results 2 years after last patient in (median follow-up [MFU] approximately 28 months), including analyses of high-risk patient subgroups. METHODS: Eligible patients had relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, had received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy or were double refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug and had received prior proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 therapy. Patients received a single cilta-cel infusion 5-7 days after lymphodepletion. Responses were assessed by an independent review committee. RESULTS: At a MFU of 27.7 months (N = 97), the overall response rate was 97.9% (95% CI, 92.7 to 99.7); 82.5% (95% CI, 73.4 to 89.4) of patients achieved a stringent complete response. Median duration of response was not estimable. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached; 27-month PFS and OS rates were 54.9% (95% CI, 44.0 to 64.6) and 70.4% (95% CI, 60.1 to 78.6), respectively. Overall response rates were high across all subgroups (95.1%-100%). Duration of response, PFS, and/or OS were shorter in patients with high-risk cytogenetics, International Staging System stage III, high tumor burden, or plasmacytomas. The safety profile was manageable with no new cilta-cel-related cytokine release syndrome and one new case of parkinsonism (day 914 after cilta-cel) since the last report. CONCLUSION: At approximately 28 months MFU, patients treated with cilta-cel maintained deep and durable responses, observed in both standard and high-risk subgroups. The risk/benefit profile of cilta-cel remained favorable with longer follow-up.

Health-related quality of life in patients given ciltacabtagene autoleucel for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CARTITUDE-1): a phase 1b-2, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: CARTITUDE-1 is a phase 1b-2 study evaluating ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy with two B-cell maturation antigen-targeting single-domain antibodies, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Primary efficacy outcomes have previously been reported. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) secondary outcomes evaluated using patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This single-arm, open-label, phwase 1b-2 study was done at 16 centres in the USA. Patients were aged 18 years or older with diagnosis of multiple myeloma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less with three or more previous lines of therapy, or were double refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, and had received a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody. A single cilta-cel infusion (target dose 0·75 × 106 CAR+ T cells per kg) was administered 5-7 days after lymphodepletion. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire core 30-item, pre-specified items from the EORTC myeloma module, and EuroQol five-dimensional descriptive system questionnaire. Clinically meaningful changes in patient-reported outcomes were defined by anchor-based minimally important differences. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548207. This trial is completed but feeding into a long-term follow-up study. FINDINGS: Between July 16, 2018, and Oct 7, 2019, 78 patients were enrolled and underwent apheresis in phase 2 of the study. 68 patients were treated (43 [63%] male, 49 [72%] White), and their patient-reported outcomes assessed (median follow-up 16·9 months, IQR 15·7-17·5). After infusion, a transient decline was observed, followed by improvements in global health status (mean change from baseline to day 464 +8·0 points, SD 20·9), physical (+4·6 points, 21·1), and emotional functional scales (+1·9 points, 23·7) over time, and declines for symptom-based scores (-14·1 pain, SD 31·5 and -15·4 fatigue; SD 29·5), indicating improved patient HRQOL following treatment with cilta-cel. INTERPRETATION: These durable HRQOL improvements are consistent with clinical findings, in which a single cilta-cel infusion led to substantial and durable responses in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. These results support the use of cilta-cel in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development and Legend Biotech USA.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison to Assess the Comparative Efficacy of Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 Versus Belantamab Mafodotin in DREAMM-2, Selinexor-Dexamethasone in STORM Part 2, and Melphalan Flufenamide-Dexamethasone in HORIZON for the Treatment of Patients With Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; CARTITUDE-1), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T-cell therapy, versus 3 non-CAR-T therapies (belantamab mafodotin [DREAMM-2], selinexor plus dexamethasone [STORM Part 2], and melphalan flufenamide plus dexamethasone [HORIZON]), each with distinct mechanisms of action, for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were triple-class exposed to an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pairwise matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using patient-level data for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and summary level data for each comparator (2.5 mg/kg cohort in DREAMM-2, modified intention-to-treat population in STORM Part 2, and triple-class refractory patients in HORIZON). Treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility of the comparator trial were included. MAICs adjusted for imbalances in important prognostic factors between CARTITUDE-1 and the comparator populations. Comparative efficacy of cilta-cel versus each therapy was estimated for overall response rate, complete response or better rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: After adjustment, patients treated with cilta-cel demonstrated at least a 3.1-fold and at least a 10.3-fold increase in the likelihood of achieving an overall response or complete response or better, respectively, at least a 74% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, and at least a 47% reduction in the risk of death. These results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Cilta-cel showed improved efficacy over each comparator for all outcomes, demonstrating its potential as an efficacious treatment for patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

The patient experience of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma and perspectives on emerging therapies.

BACKGROUND: Relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is a disease that is nonresponsive or progressive on therapy, and although patients can achieve remission, relapse is common. As more treatment options become available for multiple myeloma (MM), it is important to understand patients' experiences of current and emerging therapies. AIMS: This study aimed to better understand patient experiences with treatment and therapies for MM using qualitative interviews and patient-reported information (PRI) shared on social media. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with adults with RRMM who resided in the United States. In addition to the interviews, PRI was collected from YouTube and a patient advocacy website. Key themes from the interviews and PRI were summarized, and illustrative quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty participants were interviewed; 11 were female, and mean (standard deviation) age was 60 (7.0) years. The PRI included 14 posts and 19 unique contributors (10 were female). Similar treatment-related symptoms were reported in the interviews and PRI. Fatigue and pain were the most frequently reported symptoms while receiving treatment in both the interviews and PRI. These symptoms had a meaningful impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL); being off treatment and returning to normal living was described as an ideal treatment outcome. Nearly all interview participants (n = 18) preferred a treatment that would allow for a treatment-free interval, if it had the same efficacy and safety profile as a continuous treatment. CONCLUSION: The symptom experience reported in this study is consistent with known RRMM symptoms and HRQOL impacts. Additionally, this study highlighted that patients' treatment expectations are changing relative to their past treatment experience. Individuals living with RRMM strongly desire therapies with a treatment-free interval and minimal impact on their HRQOL.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus the approved idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) dose range of 300-460 × 106 CAR-positive T-cells for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. triple-class exposed) using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: MAICs were performed with individual patient data for cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1; NCT03548207) and published summary-level data for ide-cel (KarMMa; NCT03361748). Treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility criteria for KarMMa were included in the analyses. The MAIC adjusted for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance identified in the literature and by clinical expertise. Comparative efficacy was estimated for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Cilta-cel was associated with statistically significantly improved ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 94.93 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.86, 412.25; p < .0001]; relative risk [RR]: 1.34), ≥CR rate (OR: 5.49 [95% CI: 2.47, 12.21; p < .0001]; RR: 2.21), DoR (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.29, 0.87; p = .0137]), and PFS (HR: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.62; p = .0002]) when compared with ide-cel. For OS, the results were in favor of cilta-cel and clinically meaningful but with a CI overlapping one (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.29, 1.05; p = .0702]). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate improved efficacy with cilta-cel versus ide-cel for all outcomes, highlighting its therapeutic potential in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

Daratumumab Plus Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy regimens containing a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and a steroid are an established standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) regardless of transplant eligibility. Triplet regimens that include lenalidomide/dexamethasone combined with daratumumab or carfilzomib are highly active in multiple myeloma, including NDMM. The aim of this open-label, phase 1b study was to evaluate daratumumab in combination with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-KRd) in patients with NDMM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 22), regardless of transplant eligibility, received treatment with D-KRd for up to thirteen 28-day cycles or until autologous stem cell transplant. The first daratumumab dose was administered as a split infusion (8 mg/kg on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1). The primary end point was safety and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 10 patients discontinued treatment, most frequently because of elective autologous stem cell transplant (n = 8). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade; grade 3/4) were diarrhea (68%; 18%), lymphopenia (64%; 59%), cough (59%; 5%), and upper respiratory tract infection (55%; 0%). Stem cell collection was successful in most patients (91%). Daratumumab infusion-related reactions occurred in 9 (41%) patients, primarily during the first infusion, and were mild in severity (no grade 3/4 events). The best overall response rate was 95%, including 86% with a very good partial response or better and 67% with a complete response or better. CONCLUSION: D-KRd was well tolerated, and encouraging efficacy results support further investigation of daratumumab-based quadruplet therapies for NDMM.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CARTITUDE-1): a phase 1b/2 open-label study.

BACKGROUND: CARTITUDE-1 aimed to assess the safety and clinical activity of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy with two B-cell maturation antigen-targeting single-domain antibodies, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with poor prognosis. METHODS: This single-arm, open-label, phase 1b/2 study done at 16 centres in the USA enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, who received 3 or more previous lines of therapy or were double-refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory drug, and had received a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody. A single cilta-cel infusion (target dose 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg) was administered 5-7 days after start of lymphodepletion. The primary endpoints were safety and confirmation of the recommended phase 2 dose (phase 1b), and overall response rate (phase 2) in all patients who received treatment. Key secondary endpoints were duration of response and progression-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548207. FINDINGS: Between July 16, 2018, and Oct 7, 2019, 113 patients were enrolled. 97 patients (29 in phase 1b and 68 in phase 2) received a cilta-cel infusion at the recommended phase 2 dose of 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg. As of the Sept 1, 2020 clinical cutoff, median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·6-15·2). 97 patients with a median of six previous therapies received cilta-cel. Overall response rate was 97% (95% CI 91·2-99·4; 94 of 97 patients); 65 (67%) achieved stringent complete response; time to first response was 1 month (IQR 0·9-1·0). Responses deepened over time. Median duration of response was not reached (95% CI 15·9-not estimable), neither was progression-free survival (16·8-not estimable). The 12-month progression-free rate was 77% (95% CI 66·0-84·3) and overall survival rate was 89% (80·2-93·5). Haematological adverse events were common; grade 3-4 haematological adverse events were neutropenia (92 [95%] of 97 patients), anaemia (66 [68%]), leukopenia (59 [61%]), thrombocytopenia (58 [60%]), and lymphopenia (48 [50%]). Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 92 (95%) of 97 patients (4% were grade 3 or 4); with median time to onset of 7·0 days (IQR 5-8) and median duration of 4·0 days (IQR 3-6). Cytokine release syndrome resolved in all except one with grade 5 cytokine release syndrome and haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. CAR T-cell neurotoxicity occurred in 20 (21%) patients (9% were grade 3 or 4). 14 deaths occurred in the study; six due to treatment-related adverse events, five due to progressive disease, and three due to treatment-unrelated adverse events. INTERPRETATION: A single cilta-cel infusion at the target dose of 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg led to early, deep, and durable responses in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma with a manageable safety profile. The data from this study formed the basis for recent regulatory submissions. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development and Legend Biotech.

Comparative Efficacy of Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone (VMP) With or Without Daratumumab Versus VMP Alone in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Propensity Score Matching of ALCYONE and VISTA Phase III Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) is the standard of care for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The phase III VISTA trial established the bortezomib dosing schedule for VMP. To mitigate bortezomib-associated toxicity, the phase III ALCYONE study of daratumumab plus VMP (D-VMP) versus VMP used modified bortezomib dosing. D-VMP demonstrated improved progression-free survival and overall response rate. Propensity score matching enables indirect comparisons by controlling for differences in baseline covariates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The efficacy and safety of both arms of ALCYONE were compared with VISTA VMP using propensity score matching. ALCYONE D-VMP and VMP patients were matched on selected baseline characteristics to VISTA VMP patients, reducing or eliminating systematic differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: After matching, median progression-free survival and overall response rate were comparable for ALCYONE VMP and VISTA VMP, and were significantly improved with ALCYONE D-VMP versus VISTA VMP. Rates of grade 3/4 peripheral sensory neuropathy were significantly lower for both arms of ALCYONE versus VISTA VMP, with or without matching. CONCLUSION: This propensity score matching analysis demonstrates significant improvements in efficacy with ALCYONE D-VMP versus VISTA VMP and a significantly lower incidence of peripheral sensory neuropathy in both arms of ALCYONE versus VISTA VMP, although safety improvements may be due to different bortezomib administration routes (ALCYONE, subcutaneous; VISTA, intravenous).

Split First Dose Administration of Intravenous Daratumumab for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma (MM): Clinical and Population Pharmacokinetic Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab, a human immunoglobulin Gκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, is approved as monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for multiple myeloma. In clinical studies, the median durations of the first, second, and subsequent intravenous infusions of daratumumab were 7.0, 4.3, and 3.4 h, respectively. Splitting the first intravenous infusion of daratumumab over 2 days is an approved alternative dosing regimen to reduce the duration of the first infusion and provide flexibility for patients and healthcare providers. METHODS: The feasibility of splitting the first 16-mg/kg infusion into two separate infusions of 8 mg/kg on Days 1 and 2 of the first treatment cycle was investigated in two cohorts [daratumumab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone (D-Kd) and daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-KRd)] of the phase 1b MMY1001 study. Additionally, a population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis and simulations were used to compare the PK profiles of the split first dose regimen with the recommended single first dose regimens of daratumumab in previously approved indications. RESULTS: In MMY1001, following administration of the second half of a split first dose on Cycle 1 Day 2, postinfusion median (range) daratumumab concentrations were similar between split first dose [D-Kd, 254.9 (125.8-435.5) µg/ml; D-KRd, 277.2 (164.0-341.8) µg/ml; combined, 256.8 (125.8-435.5) µg/ml] and single first dose [D-Kd, 319.2 (237.5-394.7) µg/ml]. At the end of weekly dosing, median (range) Cycle 3 Day 1 preinfusion daratumumab concentrations were similar between split first dose [D-Kd, 663.9 (57.7-1110.7) µg/ml; D-KRd, 575.1 (237.9-825.5) µg/ml; combined, 639.2 (57.7-1110.7) µg/ml] and single first dose [D-Kd, 463.2 (355.9-792.9) µg/ml]. The population PK simulations demonstrated virtually identical PK profiles after the first day of treatment for all approved indications and recommended dosing schedules of daratumumab. CONCLUSION: These data support the use of an alternative split first dose regimen of intravenous daratumumab for the treatment of MM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01998971.

The effects of different schedules of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are transplant ineligible: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

For patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are transplant ineligible, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) demonstrated superior efficacy based on the VISTA trial. In subsequent trials, twice-weekly bortezomib was limited to the first cycle or completely replaced with once-weekly bortezomib to reduce toxicity. Following a systematic literature review, the efficacy and safety of modified VMP schedules (pooled data from the once-weekly bortezomib VMP arm of the GIMEMA trial and the VMP arm of the ALCYONE trial) were compared to the VISTA schedule using naïve and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Median progression-free survival was similar between VISTA and modified VMP (20.7 months [95% CI, 18.4-24.3] vs 19.6 months [95% CI, 18.8-21.0]). Peripheral neuropathy was significantly reduced with modified VMP versus VISTA VMP (all grades: naïve, 32.1% vs 46.8% and MAIC, 32.1% vs 46.7%; both p < .0001). These findings support a modified VMP dosing schedule for patients with NDMM who are transplant ineligible.

Daratumumab plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Daratumumab has shown efficacy in combination with standard-of-care regimens in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation to receive nine cycles of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone either alone (control group) or with daratumumab (daratumumab group) until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 16.5 months in a prespecified interim analysis, the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 71.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 76.8) in the daratumumab group and 50.2% (95% CI, 43.2 to 56.7) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The overall response rate was 90.9% in the daratumumab group, as compared with 73.9% in the control group (P<0.001), and the rate of complete response or better (including stringent complete response) was 42.6%, versus 24.4% (P<0.001). In the daratumumab group, 22.3% of the patients were negative for minimal residual disease (at a threshold of 1 tumor cell per 105 white cells), as compared with 6.2% of those in the control group (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were hematologic: neutropenia (in 39.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group and in 38.7% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 34.4% and 37.6%, respectively), and anemia (in 15.9% and 19.8%, respectively). The rate of grade 3 or 4 infections was 23.1% in the daratumumab group and 14.7% in the control group; the rate of treatment discontinuation due to infections was 0.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 27.7% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, daratumumab combined with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone resulted in a lower risk of disease progression or death than the same regimen without daratumumab. The daratumumab-containing regimen was associated with more grade 3 or 4 infections. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ALCYONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02195479 .).

Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38, induces direct and indirect antimyeloma activity and has shown substantial efficacy as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma, as well as in combination with bortezomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 498 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and dexamethasone (20 mg) alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (16 mg per kilogram of body weight) (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A prespecified interim analysis showed that the rate of progression-free survival was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group; the 12-month rate of progression-free survival was 60.7% in the daratumumab group versus 26.9% in the control group. After a median follow-up period of 7.4 months, the median progression-free survival was not reached in the daratumumab group and was 7.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death with daratumumab vs. control, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.53; P<0.001). The rate of overall response was higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (82.9% vs. 63.2%, P<0.001), as were the rates of very good partial response or better (59.2% vs. 29.1%, P<0.001) and complete response or better (19.2% vs. 9.0%, P=0.001). Three of the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in the daratumumab group and the control group were thrombocytopenia (45.3% and 32.9%, respectively), anemia (14.4% and 16.0%, respectively), and neutropenia (12.8% and 4.2%, respectively). Infusion-related reactions that were associated with daratumumab treatment were reported in 45.3% of the patients in the daratumumab group; these reactions were mostly grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 in 8.6% of the patients), and in 98.2% of these patients, they occurred during the first infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone and was associated with infusion-related reactions and higher rates of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02136134.).

Persistent overall survival benefit and no increased risk of second malignancies with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma.

PURPOSE: This final analysis of the phase III VISTA trial (Velcade As Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment With Melphalan and Prednisone) was conducted to determine whether the overall survival (OS) benefit with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan-prednisone (MP) in patients with myeloma who were ineligible for transplantation was maintained after 5 years of follow-up and to explore the risk of second primary malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 682 patients received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP or MP and were then observed every 12 weeks or less. Data on second primary malignancies were collected by individual patient inquiries at all sites from 655 patients. RESULTS: After median follow-up of 60.1 months (range, 0 to 74 months), there was a 31% reduced risk of death with VMP versus MP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.695; P < .001; median OS 56.4 v 43.1 months). OS benefit with VMP was seen across prespecified patient subgroups (age ≥ 75 years, stage III myeloma, creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min). Sixty-three percent of VMP patients and 73% of MP patients had received subsequent therapy. Time to next therapy (median, 30.7 v 20.5 months; HR, 0.557; P < .001) was longer with VMP than with MP. Among patients who received subsequent therapies, survival from start of subsequent therapy was similar following VMP (median, 28.1 months) or MP (median, 26.8 months; HR, 0.914). Following VMP/MP, incidence proportions of hematologic malignancies (1%/1%) and solid tumors (5%/3%) and exposure-adjusted incidence rates (0.017/0.013 per patient-year) were similar and were consistent with background rates. CONCLUSION: VMP resulted in a significant reduction in risk of death versus MP that was maintained after 5 years' follow-up and despite substantial use of novel-agent-based salvage therapies. There is no emerging safety signal for second primary malignancies following VMP.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and covariate analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN-1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥18 (MMY-3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1-3 (MMY-3021) or ≥1 (CAN-1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. RESULTS: Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUC(last)): 155 vs. 151 ng·h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0.992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUC(last): 195 vs. 241 ng·h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (C(max)) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to C(max) (t(max)) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (E(max)) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect-time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %·h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %·h in CAN-1004. Time to E(max) was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established.