Is ibrutinib-related atrial fibrillation dose dependent? Insights from an individual case level analysis of the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.

Whether ibrutinib-related atrial fibrillation (IRAF) is a dose-dependent adverse drug reaction (ADR) and whether ibrutinib should be discontinued or dose-reduced in case of IRAF occurrence remains unknown. Using the World Health Organization individual case safety report pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase®, we aimed to determine the association between ibrutinib dosing regimens and IRAF reporting. Ibrutinib daily dose was extracted from IRAF cases from VigiBase® and was divided into 5 ibrutinib dosing regimen (140-280-420-560 and >560 mg/day). Disproportionality analysis was used to evaluate the association between IRAF reporting and ibrutinib daily dose, through logistic regression. Single term deletions produced the ibrutinib daily dose global p-value. Then, a multivariable adjusted reporting odds-ratio with its 95% confidence interval was calculated for each ibrutinib dosing regimen, against the lowest dosing regimen (140 mg/day) as reference. A total of 1162 IRAF cases were identified in VigiBase® (n = 62 for ibrutinib 140 mg/day, 114 for ibrutinib 280 mg/day, 811 for ibrutinib 420 mg/day, 164 for ibrutinib 560 mg/day and 11 for ibrutinib >560 mg/day). After adjustment on several variables of interest, IRAF reporting was not significantly associated with ibrutinib dosing regimen (p = 0.09). Our results from Vigibase® do not support IRAF as a dose-dependent ADR (ClinicalTrial registration number: NCT06224452).

Salvage therapy with brentuximab-vedotin and bendamustine for patients with R/R PTCL: a retrospective study from the LYSA group.

Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) have a poor prognosis. Bendamustine (B) and brentuximab-vedotin (Bv) have shown interesting results in this setting. However, little information is available about their efficacy in combination. This multicenter and retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of BBv in patients with noncutaneous R/R PTCL among 21 LYSA centers in France and Belgium. The primary objective was the overall response rate. A total of 82 patients with R/R PTCL were included. The best overall response rate (ORR) was 68%, with 49% of patients in complete response (CR). In multivariable analysis, only the disease status after the last regimen (relapse vs refractory) was associated with the response with an ORR of 83% vs 57%. Median duration of response was 15.4 months for patients in CR. With a median follow-up of 22 months, the median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8.3 and 26.3 months respectively. Moreover, patients in CR, who underwent an allogeneic transplant, had a better outcome than patients who did not with a median PFS and OS of 19.3 vs 4.8 months and not reached vs 12.4 months, respectively. Fifty-nine percent of patients experienced grade 3/4 adverse events that were mainly hematologic. BBv is highly active in patients with R/R PTCL and should be considered as a one of the best options of immunochemotherapy salvage combination in this setting and particularly as a bridge to allogeneic transplant for eligible patients.

Bendamustine-EAM versus BEAM regimen in patients with mantle cell lymphoma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation in the frontline setting: a multicenter retrospective study from Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) centers.

The combination of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) as conditioning regimen prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) remains the standard of care for patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who are eligible for transplantation. The replacement of carmustine with bendamustine (BeEAM) was described as a promising alternative in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the BeEAM with the BEAM regimen in MCL patients in the frontline setting. Sixty and 108 patients were included in the BeEAM and the BEAM groups, respectively. At 3 years, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in the BeEAM than in the BEAM group (84% [73-96] vs. 63% [51-79], p = 0.03). The overall survival was not statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.2). In multivariable analysis, BeEAM regimen remained associated with higher PFS (HR = 0.377, 95% CI, 0.146-0.970; p = 0.043). Subgroup analyses in patients treated with prior rituximab-aracytine induction alone showed that BeEAM improved the PFS compared with BEAM regimen (p = 0.04). Despite the high rate of acute renal failure KDIGO III (32%), treatment-related mortality was not increased with the BeEAM regimen. A prospective randomized trial will be necessary to confirm the beneficial effect of the BeEAM regimen in MCL patients undergoing ASCT.