[Multiple myeloma: response to treatment and survival of patients according to the interim analysis of the Russian observational, retrospective-prospective, multicenter cohort study (MULTISPECT)].

AIM: The primary objective of the interim analysis of the MULTISPECT study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy of the treatment and long-term outcomes in cohorts of primary and pretreated patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving treatment in actual clinical practice in various regions of the Russian Federation. Secondary objectives were a description of the main characteristics of patients; analysis of the most commonly used therapy regimens of the 1st and later lines and the sequence of their changes; evaluation of the response to therapy. Additional objectives included evaluation of the effect of the new COVID-19 coronavirus infection on the course of MM in patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is an observational retrospective-prospective multicenter cohort study. For its implementation, a structured database of patients with MM was used, provided by hematologists of the centers affiliated for the study. RESULTS: The study included 1,294 patients (cohort 1 806, cohort 2 488). In both cohorts, patients aged 6069 years were in the majority. 3 lines of therapy (L1, L2, L3) were used for cohort 1; in cohort 2, the 4th line of therapy was also used in 2 patients. The therapy regimens were analyzed for 290 (22.41%) of all patients in the study. Responses to therapy were analyzed for 214 patients of cohort 1 and 109 patients of cohort 2. Autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantations were carried out for a limited proportion of patients in both cohorts. At the end of the study and upon presentation of its results, the status of patients was the following: 96% of patients in cohort 1 and 89% in cohort 2 were alive. The therapy regimens in both cohorts were characterized by variability. The most commonly used regimens in each of the lines of therapy have been identified. The most used therapy regimen in patients with MM of both cohorts was the VCD-regime. Rd-regime in cohort 1 and RD-regime in cohort 2 were the second most frequent used regimens. In patients of both cohorts, the therapy regimens including Bortezomib were most often used. CONCLUSION: The variety of therapy regimens used to treat MM in actual clinical practice may be due to the factors of availability of new medicines and updated recommendations for the treatment of the disease. Further, in the context of this study, a more detailed analysis of the efficacy of certain therapy regimens in the 1st and later lines on progression free survival and overall survival of MM patients should be carried out.

[The efficacy and safety of eculizumab biosimilar in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. Results of a phase III randomized open-label comparative clinical trial].

AIM: To establish the equivalent efficacy and comparable safety profile of biosimilar Acveris and referent eculizumab product Soliris used for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Were included in the phase III multicenter 28 PNH patients, open-label clinical trial. Participants were randomized (1:1) into 2 treatment groups: investigational product (Acveris, n=14) and referent product (Soliris, n=14). Patients received eculizumab as the intravenous infusion 600 mg once a week during the first 4 weeks, 900 mg at week 5 and then 900 mg every 14 days (2 days) up to week 27 of the study. The efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and immunogenicity of the compared products were analyzed after the end of 27 weeks of the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the area under the curve LDH concentrationtime (AUCLDH) throughout the study period weeks 527. RESULTS: The difference between the mean AUCLDH values between the Acveris and Soliris groups was 5380.0 [-38 773.87; 49 533.87] U/ldays. The 95% CI limits for the difference in mean AUCLDH values between the groups fit the preset 95% CI [-146 500.9146 500.9] U/ldays and establish the equivalent efficacy of the biosimilar and referent product according to the primary efficacy endpoint. The safety profile of both Acveris and Soliris was expected and comparable according to the proportion of patients with adverse events. The formation of binding antibodies to eculizumab was not detected in both the groups. CONCLUSION: The study established the equivalent efficacy of biosimilar product Acveris and referent eculizumab product with the evidence of effective suppression of intravascular hemolysis in PNH patients along with a comparable favorable safety profile.