Adjusting for subsequent therapies in the TOURMALINE-MM1 study shows clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival with addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

TOURMALINE-MM1, the only blinded randomized study in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; ≥1 prior therapy) in the last 10 years, investigated ixazomib+lenalidomide+dexamethasone (IRd) versus lenalidomide+dexamethasone (Rd). Final overall survival (OS) data were based on a median follow-up of 85 months. In RRMM trials where patients have had 1-3 relapses after initial treatment, a high proportion receive subsequent therapy. Application of salvage therapies in blinded trials and newer modes of therapy can increasingly complicate the interpretation of OS. This analysis explores the impact of subsequent therapies on OS outcomes in TOURMALINE-MM1. The inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) method, marginal structural model (MSM), and rank preserving structural failure time model (RPSFTM) were utilized to adjust for confounding on OS, introduced by subsequent therapies. Analyses were conducted for the intentto-treat (ITT) population and ≥2 prior lines subgroup. Unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for IRd versus Rd was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-1.13) in the ITT population. After adjusting for the impact of subsequent therapies by the RPSFTM method, estimated HR for IRd versus Rd in the ITT population was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.74-1.07). Adjusting with IPCW and MSM methods also showed an improvement in HR, favoring IRd. IRd may be particularly beneficial in patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy (IPCW and MSM HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.88; RPSFTM HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.91). These analyses highlight the growing challenge of demonstrating OS benefit in multiple myeloma patients and the importance of assessing confounding introduced by subsequent therapies when interpreting OS.

Late versus early response and depth of response are associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma enrolled in the TOURMALINE-MM2 trial.

Deeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0-4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE-MM2 receiving ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo-Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo-Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo-Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Ixazomib Versus Placebo as Postinduction Maintenance Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: An Analysis by Age and Frailty Status of the TOURMALINE-MM4 Study.

BACKGROUND: The TOURMALINE-MM4 trial demonstrated a significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with ixazomib versus placebo as postinduction maintenance in nontransplant, newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, with a manageable and well-tolerated toxicity profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this subgroup analysis, efficacy and safety were assessed by age (< 65, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years) and frailty status (fit, intermediate-fit, and frail). RESULTS: In this analysis, PFS benefit with ixazomib versus placebo was seen across age subgroups, including patients aged < 65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.576; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.299-1.108; P = .095), 65-74 years (HR, 0.615; 95% CI, 0.467-0.810; P < .001), and ≥ 75 years (HR, 0.740; 95% CI, 0.537-1.019; P = .064). PFS benefit was also seen across frailty subgroups, including fit (HR, 0.530; 95% CI, 0.387-0.727; P < .001), intermediate-fit (HR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.526-1.058; P = .098), and frail (HR, 0.733; 95% CI, 0.481-1.117; P = .147) patients. With ixazomib versus placebo, rates of grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 28-44% vs. 10-36%), serious TEAEs (15-29% vs. 3-29%), and discontinuation due to TEAEs (7-19% vs. 5-11%) were higher or similar across age and frailty subgroups, and generally somewhat higher in older age groups and intermediate-fit/frail patients in both arms. Treatment with ixazomib versus placebo did not adversely affect patient-reported quality-of-life scores across age and frailty status subgroups. CONCLUSION: Ixazomib is a feasible and effective maintenance option for prolonging PFS across this heterogeneous patient population.

Dose Titration of Ixazomib Maintenance Therapy in Transplant-Ineligible Multiple Myeloma: Exposure-Response Analysis of the TOURMALINE-MM4 Study.

Ixazomib has been approved in several countries as single-agent maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, in both posttransplant and transplant-ineligible settings, based on two phase III studies. In these maintenance studies, patients were initially administered 3 mg ixazomib, escalating to 4 mg if the initial dose level was well tolerated through Cycles 1-4. Here, we report the results of exposure-response analyses of TOURMALINE-MM4, wherein relationships between exposure and clinical response, dose adjustments, and selected adverse events were evaluated. Similar progression-free survival benefits were observed across the range of ixazomib exposures achieved in the study. Moreover, increased ixazomib exposures corresponded to a higher probability of maintaining complete response. Exposure was not a significant predictor (P > 0.05) of hematological adverse events (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and peripheral neuropathy; however, higher exposures did correlate to increased probabilities of experiencing diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, rash, and fatigue. While ixazomib exposure was not predictive of dose reductions, lower apparent clearance values (corresponding to higher systemic exposures) were correlated with a reduced likelihood of escalating to the 4 mg dose. Thus, the dose titration approach balanced patient benefit and risk; it ensured that only patients for whom the 3 mg dose was safe/tolerable escalated to the higher dose, while maximizing the fraction of patients (85%) who were able to derive additional clinical benefit at 4 mg. Collectively, these results highlight the value of safety-driven personalized dosing to maximize patient benefit/risk.

A pooled analysis of outcomes according to cytogenetic abnormalities in patients receiving ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for multiple myeloma.

Some cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM); proteasome inhibitors appear to benefit patients with high-risk CAs. We evaluated 2247 MM patients from the TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2/-MM3/-MM4 trials to assess the PFS benefit of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs placebo-Rd (TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2) or ixazomib vs placebo (TOURMALINE-MM3/-MM4) in specific high-risk CAs. After a pooled median follow-up of 25.6 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for high-risk patients was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.93; median PFS [mPFS] 17.8 vs 13.2 months), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80; mPFS 26.3 vs 17.6 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for expanded high-risk patients was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64-0.87; mPFS 18.1 vs 14.1 months), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85; mPFS 36.1 vs 21.4 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy was 0.68 in patients with t(4;14) (95% CI: 0.48-0.96; mPFS 22.4 vs 13.2 months), and 0.77 for patients with amp1q21 (95% CI: 0.63-0.93; mPFS 18.8 vs 14.5 months). A PFS benefit was demonstrated with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy regardless of cytogenetic status, with greatest benefit observed in patients with t(4;14) and amp1q21.

Quality of life and symptoms among patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis treated with ixazomib-dexamethasone versus physician's choice.

Patient-reported outcomes in AL amyloidosis have not been well-studied. We analyzed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and AL amyloidosis symptoms data from the phase 3 TOURMALINE-AL1 trial (NCT01659658) (ixazomib-dexamethasone, n = 85; physician's choice of chemotherapy [PC], n = 83). HRQOL and symptom burden were measured with the SF-36v2, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity subscale (FACT/GOG-Ntx), and an amyloidosis symptom questionnaire (ASQ). Score changes during treatment were analyzed descriptively and using repeated-measures linear mixed models; analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity. Least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline were significantly higher (better HRQOL) for ixazomib-dexamethasone at several cycles for SF-36v2 Role Physical and Vitality subscales (p < .05); no subscales demonstrated significant differences favoring PC. For FACT/GOG-Ntx, small but significant differences in LS mean changes favored ixazomib-dexamethasone over PC at multiple cycles for seven items and both summary scores; significant differences favored PC for one item (trouble hearing) at multiple cycles. ASQ total score trended downward (lower burden) in both arms; significant LS mean differences favored ixazomib-dexamethasone over PC at some cycles (p < .05). Patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis treated with ixazomib-dexamethasone experienced HRQOL and symptoms that were similar to or trended better than patients treated with PC despite longer duration of therapy.

MRD dynamics during maintenance for improved prognostication of 1280 patients with myeloma in the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 trials.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluation may help to guide treatment duration in multiple myeloma (MM). Paradoxically, limited longitudinal data exist on MRD during maintenance. We investigated the prognostic value of MRD dynamics in 1280 transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients from the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of 2-year ixazomib maintenance. MRD status at randomization showed independent prognostic value (median progression-free survival [PFS], 38.6 vs 15.6 months in MRD- vs MRD+ patients; HR, 0.47). However, MRD dynamics during maintenance provided more detailed risk stratification. A 14-month landmark analysis showed prolonged PFS in patients converting from MRD+ to MRD- status vs those with persistent MRD+ status (76.8% vs 27.6% 2-year PFS rates). Prolonged PFS was observed in patients with sustained MRD- status vs those converting from MRD- to MRD+ status (75.0% vs 34.2% 2-year PFS rates). Similar results were observed at a 28-month landmark analysis. Ixazomib maintenance vs placebo improved PFS in patients who were MRD+ at randomization (median, 18.8 vs 11.6 months; HR, 0.65) or at the 14-month landmark (median, 16.8 vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.65); no difference was observed in patients who were MRD-. This is the largest MM population undergoing yearly MRD evaluation during maintenance reported to date. We demonstrate the limited prognostic value of a single-time point MRD evaluation, because MRD dynamics over time substantially impact PFS risk. These findings support MRD- status as a relevant end point during maintenance and confirm the increased progression risk in patients converting to MRD+ from MRD- status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02181413 and #NCT02312258.

Impact of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone therapy on overall survival in multiple myeloma patients: Analysis of the emerging-markets subgroup of the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial.

Ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) showed clinical efficacy over placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial. Over a median follow-up of ∼85 months, as patients showed disease progression, they received subsequent novel therapies that confounded the overall survival (OS) benefit. Here, we conducted a post hoc analysis in 148 patients from seven countries defined as emerging markets, with limited access to novel therapies for MM during the trial period, to describe the impact of these therapies on OS. Patients were randomised to ixazomib-Rd (n = 71) or placebo-Rd (n = 77). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.7 versus 10.2 months, with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.504; p = 0.008) demonstrating a statistically significant improvement as observed in the primary trial. The median OS improved by 32.6 months with ixazomib-Rd over placebo-Rd (63.5 vs. 30.9 months; HR, 0.794; p = 0.261); however, the statistically significant benefit seen in PFS was not observed for OS. Improvement with ixazomib-Rd over placebo-Rd was observed in overall response (81.7% vs. 64.9%; odds ratio [OR], 2.38; p = 0.019) and complete response (22.5% vs. 3.9%; OR, 7.57; p < 0.001). Patient-reported quality of life and use of subsequent therapies were similar across treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified. Compared with the main cohort, median OS was 10 months longer with ixazomib-Rd and 21 months shorter with placebo-Rd in this subgroup, indicating a clinically meaningful survival benefit of ixazomib-Rd treatment in this patient population with limited access to subsequent novel therapies.

Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic joint modeling of ixazomib efficacy and safety using data from the pivotal phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study in multiple myeloma patients.

Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Approval in the United States, Europe, and additional countries was based on results from the phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 (C16010) study. Here, joint population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic time-to-event (TTE) and discrete time Markov models were developed to describe key safety (rash and diarrhea events, and platelet counts) and efficacy (myeloma protein [M-protein] and progression-free survival [PFS]) outcomes observed in TOURMALINE-MM1. Models reliably described observed safety and efficacy results; prior immunomodulatory drug therapy and race were significant covariates for diarrhea and rash events, respectively, whereas M-protein dynamics were sufficiently characterized using TTE models of relapse and dropout. Moreover, baseline M-protein was identified as a significant covariate for observed PFS. The developed framework represents an integrated approach to describing safety and efficacy with MM therapy, enabling the simulation of prospective trials and potential alternate dosing regimens.

Oral ixazomib-dexamethasone vs oral pomalidomide-dexamethasone for lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor-exposed multiple myeloma: a randomized Phase 2 trial.

Multiple myeloma (MM) patients typically receive several lines of combination therapy and first-line treatment commonly includes lenalidomide. As patients age, they become less tolerant to treatment, requiring convenient/tolerable/lenalidomide-free options. Carfilzomib and/or bortezomib-exposed/intolerant, lenalidomide-refractory MM patients with ≥2 prior lines of therapy were randomized 3:2 to ixazomib-dexamethasone (ixa-dex) (n = 73) or pomalidomide-dexamethasone (pom-dex) (n = 49) until progression/toxicity. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.1 vs 4.8 months with ixa-dex vs pom-dex (HR 0.847, 95% CI 0.535-1.341, P = 0.477; median follow-up: 15.3 vs 17.3 months); there was no statistically significant difference between arms. In patients with 2 and ≥3 prior lines of therapy, respectively, mPFS was 11.0 vs 5.7 months (HR 1.083, 95% CI 0.547-2.144) and 5.7 vs 3.7 months (HR 0.686, 95% CI 0.368-1.279). Among ixa-dex vs pom-dex patients, 69% vs 81% had Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), 51% vs 53% had serious TEAEs, 39% vs 36% had TEAEs leading to drug discontinuation, 44% vs 32% had TEAEs leading to dose reduction, and 13% vs 13% died on study. Quality of life was similar between arms and maintained during treatment. Ixa-dex represents an important lenalidomide-free, oral option for this heavily pretreated, lenalidomide-refractory, proteasome inhibitor-exposed population.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03170882.

Final Overall Survival Analysis of the TOURMALINE-MM1 Phase III Trial of Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: The double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival with ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) versus placebo-Rd in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We report the final analyses for overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to ixazomib-Rd (n = 360) or placebo-Rd (n = 362), stratified by number of prior therapies (1 v 2 or 3), previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) exposure (yes v no), and International Staging System disease stage (I or II v III). OS (intent-to-treat population) was a key secondary end point. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 85 months, median OS with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd was 53.6 versus 51.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.939; P = .495). Lower hazard ratios, indicating larger magnitude of OS benefit with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, were seen in predefined subgroups: refractory to any (0.794) or last (0.742) treatment line; age > 65-75 years (0.757); International Staging System stage III (0.779); 2/3 prior therapies (0.845); high-risk cytogenetics (0.870); and high-risk cytogenetics and/or 1q21 amplification (0.862). Following ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd, 71.7% versus 69.9% of patients received ≥ 1 anticancer therapy, of whom 24.7% versus 33.9% received daratumumab and 71.8% versus 76.9% received PIs (next-line therapy: 47.5% v 55.8%). Rates of new primary malignancies were similar with ixazomib-Rd (10.3%) and placebo-Rd (11.9%). There were no new or additional safety concerns. CONCLUSION: Median OS values in both arms were the longest reported in phase III studies of Rd-based triplets in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at the time of this analysis; progression-free survival benefit with ixazomib-Rd versus placebo-Rd did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit on intent-to-treat analysis. OS benefit was greater in subgroups with adverse prognostic factors. OS interpretation was confounded by imbalances in subsequent therapies received, especially PIs and daratumumab.

Ixazomib as Postinduction Maintenance for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Not Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation: The Phase III TOURMALINE-MM4 Trial.

PURPOSE: Maintenance therapy prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) but has generally been limited to immunomodulatory agents. Other options that complement the induction regimen with favorable toxicity are needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM4 study randomly assigned (3:2) patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT who achieved better than or equal to partial response after 6-12 months of standard induction therapy to receive the oral proteasome inhibitor (PI) ixazomib or placebo on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles as maintenance for 24 months. The primary endpoint was PFS since time of randomization. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive ixazomib (n = 425) or placebo (n = 281). TOURMALINE-MM4 met its primary endpoint with a 34.1% reduction in risk of progression or death with ixazomib versus placebo (median PFS since randomization, 17.4 v 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.659; 95% CI, 0.542 to 0.801; P < .001; median follow-up, 21.1 months). Ixazomib significantly benefitted patients who achieved complete or very good partial response postinduction (median PFS, 25.6 v 12.9 months; HR, 0.586; P < .001). With ixazomib versus placebo, 36.6% versus 23.2% of patients had grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 12.9% versus 8.0% discontinued treatment because of TEAEs. Common any-grade TEAEs included nausea (26.8% v 8.0%), vomiting (24.2% v 4.3%), and diarrhea (23.2% v 12.3%). There was no increase in new primary malignancies (5.2% v 6.2%); rates of on-study deaths were 2.6% versus 2.2%. CONCLUSION: Ixazomib maintenance prolongs PFS with no unexpected toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing ASCT. To our knowledge, this is the first PI demonstrated in a randomized clinical trial to have single-agent efficacy for maintenance and is the first oral PI option in this patient population.

Adverse event management in the TOURMALINE-MM3 study of post-transplant ixazomib maintenance in multiple myeloma.

The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM3 study (NCT02181413) demonstrated improved progression-free survival with ixazomib maintenance versus placebo post autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma patients. We report additional safety data from TOURMALINE-MM3 to inform adverse event (AE) management recommendations. Patients were randomized 3:2 to receive ixazomib (n = 395) or placebo (n = 261) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles for ~ 2 years or until progressive disease/toxicity. The initial 3-mg ixazomib dose was escalated to 4 mg in cycle 5, if tolerated in cycles 1-4. Safety was a secondary endpoint assessed in all treated patients; AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for AEs v4.03. The rate of grade ≥ 3 AEs was higher in the ixazomib arm (19%) than in the placebo arm (5%), but the rate of discontinuation due to AEs was similar (7% vs. 5%). For AEs of clinical interest, rates were higher with ixazomib versus placebo: nausea 39% versus 15%, vomiting 27% versus 11%, diarrhea 35% versus 24%, thrombocytopenia 13% versus 3%, and peripheral neuropathy 19% versus 15%. However, the majority of events were low-grade, manageable with supportive therapy or dose reduction, and reversible, and did not result in discontinuation. There was no evidence of cumulative, long-term, or late-onset toxicity with ixazomib maintenance. Ixazomib is an efficacious and tolerable option for post-ASCT maintenance. AEs associated with ixazomib maintenance can be managed in the context of routine post-ASCT supportive care due to the limited additional toxicity. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02181413.

Deepening responses associated with improved progression-free survival with ixazomib versus placebo as posttransplant maintenance in multiple myeloma.

In the TOURMALINE-MM3 study, post-autologous stem cell transplantation maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib versus placebo significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), with a favorable safety profile. With ixazomib versus placebo maintenance, deepening responses occurred in 139/302 (46%) versus 60/187 (32%) patients with very good partial response or partial response (VGPR/PR) at study entry (relative risk 1.41, P = 0.004), and median time to best confirmed deepened response was 19.9 versus 30.8 months (24-month rate: 54.2 versus 41.4%; hazard ratio (HR): 1.384; P = 0.0342). Median PFS in patients with VGPR/PR at study entry was 26.2 versus 18.5 months (HR: 0.636, P < 0.001) with ixazomib versus placebo; in a pooled analysis across arms, in patients with versus without deepening responses, the median PFS was not reached versus 15.9 months (HR: 0.245, P < 0.001). In patients with deepening responses, 24-month PFS rate was 77.4 versus 68.3% with ixazomib versus placebo (HR: 0.831; P = 0.466); in patients without deepening responses, median PFS was 17.9 versus 14.1 months (HR: 0.741; P = 0.028). These analyses demonstrate the significantly higher rate of deepening responses with ixazomib versus placebo maintenance and the association between deepening response and prolonged PFS.

Developments in continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The evolving paradigm of continuous therapy and maintenance treatment approaches in multiple myeloma (MM) offers prolonged disease control and improved outcomes compared to traditional fixed-duration approaches. Potential benefits of long-term strategies include sustained control of disease symptoms, as well as continued cytoreduction and clonal control, leading to unmeasurable residual disease and the possibility of transforming MM into a chronic or functionally curable condition. "Continuous therapy" commonly refers to administering a doublet or triplet regimen until disease progression, whereas maintenance approaches typically involve single-agent or doublet treatment following more intensive prior therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or doublet, triplet, or even quadruplet induction therapy. However, the requirements for agents and regimens within these contexts are similar: treatments must be tolerable for a prolonged period of time, should not be associated with cumulative or chronic toxicity, should not adversely affect patients' quality of life, should ideally be convenient with a minimal treatment burden for patients, and should not impact the feasibility or efficacy of subsequent treatment at relapse. Multiple agents have been and are being investigated as long-term options in the treatment of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), including the immunomodulatory drugs lenalidomide and thalidomide, the proteasome inhibitors bortezomib, carfilzomib, and ixazomib, and the monoclonal antibodies daratumumab, elotuzumab, and isatuximab. Here we review the latest results with long-term therapy approaches in three different settings in NDMM: (1) maintenance treatment post ASCT; (2) continuous frontline therapy in nontransplant patients; (3) maintenance treatment post-frontline therapy in the nontransplant setting. We also discuss evidence from key phase 3 trials. Our review demonstrates how the paradigm of long-term treatment is increasingly well-established across NDMM treatment settings, potentially resulting in further improvements in patient outcomes, and highlights key clinical issues that will need to be addressed in order to provide optimal benefit.

Ixazomib maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: An integrated analysis of four phase I/II studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of maintenance therapy with the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not undergoing transplantation. METHODS: Data were pooled from four NDMM phase I/II studies; patients received induction therapy with once- or twice-weekly ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd), melphalan-prednisone (IMP), or cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (ICd), followed by single-agent ixazomib maintenance, given at the last tolerated dose during induction, until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients achieved stable disease or better after induction (weekly IRd, n = 25; twice-weekly IRd, n = 18; weekly or twice-weekly IMP, n = 35; weekly ICd, n = 43) and received ≥ 1 dose of ixazomib maintenance. Grade ≥ 3 drug-related adverse events occurred in 24% of patients during maintenance; each event was reported in ≤2% of patients. Rates of complete response were 22% after induction and 35% after maintenance. A total of 28 patients (23%) improved their response during maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Ixazomib maintenance following ixazomib-based induction is associated with deepening of responses and a positive safety profile with no cumulative toxicity in patients with NDMM not undergoing transplantation, suggesting that ixazomib is feasible for long-term administration. Phase III investigation of ixazomib maintenance is ongoing.

Model-Informed Drug Development for Ixazomib, an Oral Proteasome Inhibitor.

Model-informed drug development (MIDD) was central to the development of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib, facilitating internal decisions (switch from body surface area (BSA)-based to fixed dosing, inclusive phase III trials, portfolio prioritization of ixazomib-based combinations, phase III dose for maintenance treatment), regulatory review (model-informed QT analysis, benefit-risk of 4 mg dose), and product labeling (absolute bioavailability and intrinsic/extrinsic factors). This review discusses the impact of MIDD in enabling patient-centric therapeutic optimization during the development of ixazomib.

Clinical Pharmacology of Ixazomib: The First Oral Proteasome Inhibitor.

Ixazomib, the first oral proteasome inhibitor, is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least one prior therapy. Ixazomib is a selective, potent, and reversible inhibitor of the 20S proteasome, and preferentially binds to and inhibits the ß5 chymotrypsin-like proteolytic site. Ixazomib absorption is rapid, with a median time to reach maximum plasma concentration of approximately 1 h post-dose. Ixazomib pharmacokinetics (PK) are adequately described by a three-compartment model (terminal half-life of 9.5 days) with first-order linear absorption (oral bioavailability of 58%). Plasma exposures of ixazomib increase in a dose-proportional manner. A high-fat meal decreases both the rate and extent of ixazomib absorption, supporting administration on an empty stomach. Population PK analyses demonstrated that no dose adjustment is required based on age, body size/weight, race, sex, mild-to-moderate renal impairment, or mild hepatic impairment. Results from dedicated studies indicate that a reduced starting dose (from 4 to 3 mg) is appropriate for patients with severe renal impairment, end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis, or moderate-to-severe hepatic impairment. Non-cytochrome P450 (CYP)-mediated metabolism appears to be the major clearance mechanism for ixazomib. Drug-drug interaction studies have shown no meaningful effects of strong inhibitors of CYP3A on ixazomib PK; however, the strong inducer rifampin caused a clinically relevant reduction in ixazomib exposure, supporting the recommendation to avoid concomitant administration of ixazomib with strong CYP3A inducers. Exposure-response analyses of data from the phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 registrational study demonstrate a favorable benefit-risk profile for the approved dose and regimen of weekly ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle.

Phase 2 study of all-oral ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and low-dose dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

There is a need for efficacious, convenient treatments with long-term tolerability for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This phase 2 study evaluated the all-oral combination of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (ICd). Patients with RRMM received ixazomib 4 mg and cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Seventy-eight patients were enrolled (median age 63·5 years). At data cut-off, patients had received a median of 12 treatment cycles; 31% remained on treatment. ORR was 48% [16% very good partial response or better (≥VGPR)]. ORR was 64% and 32% in patients aged ≥65 and <65 years (25% and 16% ≥VGPR), respectively. At a median follow-up of 15·2 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14·2 months, with a trend towards better PFS in patients aged ≥65 years vs. <65 years (median 18·7 months vs. 12·0 months; hazard ratio 0·62, P = 0·14). ICd was well tolerated. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea (33%), nausea (24%), upper respiratory tract infection (24%), and thrombocytopenia (22%); 10 patients (13%) had peripheral neuropathy (one grade 3). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02046070).