Belantamab Mafodotin, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Triplet or quadruplet therapies incorporating proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies have led to prolonged survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; however, most patients have a relapse. Frontline lenalidomide therapy has increased the number of patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease at the time of the first relapse. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we evaluated belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (BPd), as compared with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), in lenalidomide-exposed patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least one line of therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Disease response and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients underwent randomization; 155 were assigned to the BPd group, and 147 to the PVd group. At a median follow-up of 21.8 months (range, <0.1 to 39.2), the 12-month estimated progression-free survival with BPd was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63 to 78), as compared with 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with PVd (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73; P<0.001). Data on overall survival were immature. The percentage of patients with a response to treatment (partial response or better) was 77% (95% CI, 70 to 84) in the BPd group and 72% (95% CI, 64 to 79) in the PVd group; 40% (95% CI, 32 to 48) and 16% (95% CI, 11 to 23), respectively, had a complete response or better. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 94% of the patients in the BPd group and 76% of those in the PVd group. Ocular events occurred in 89% of the patients who received BPd (grade 3 or 4 in 43%) and 30% of those who received PVd (grade 3 or 4 in 2%); ocular events in the BPd group were managed with belantamab mafodotin dose modification. Ocular events led to treatment discontinuation in 9% of the patients in the BPd group and in no patients in the PVd group. CONCLUSIONS: Among lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, BPd conferred a significantly greater benefit than PVd with respect to progression-free survival, as well as deeper, more durable responses. Ocular events were common but were controllable by belantamab mafodotin dose modification. (Funded by GSK; DREAMM-8 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04484623; EudraCT number, 2018-004354-21.).

Efficacy and safety of single-agent belantamab mafodotin versus pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-3): a phase 3, open-label, randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma remains incurable, and heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory disease have few good treatment options. Belantamab mafodotin showed promising results in a phase 2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at second or later relapse and a manageable adverse event profile. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of belantamab mafodotin in a phase 3 setting. METHODS: In the DREAMM-3 open-label phase 3 study, conducted at 108 sites across 18 countries, adult patients were enrolled who had confirmed multiple myeloma (International Myeloma Working Group criteria), ECOG performance status of 0-2, had received two or more previous lines of therapy, including two or more consecutive cycles of both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and progressed on, or within, 60 days of completion of the previous treatment. Participants were randomly allocated using a central interactive response technology system (2:1) to receive belantamab mafodotin 2·5 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days, or oral pomalidomide 4·0 mg daily (days 1-21) and dexamethasone 40·0 mg (20·0 mg if >75 years) weekly in a 28-day cycle. Randomisation was stratified by previous anti-CD38 therapy, International Staging System stage, and number of previous therapies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients who were randomly allocated. The safety population included all randomly allocated patients who received one or more doses of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04162210, and is ongoing. Data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 12, 2022. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between April 2, 2020, and April 18, 2022. As of September, 2022, 325 patients were randomly allocated (218 to the belantamab mafodotin group and 107 to the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group); 184 (57%) of 325 were male and 141 (43%) of 325 were female, 246 (78%) of 316 were White. Median age was 68 years (IQR 60-74). Median follow-up was 11·5 months (5·5-17·6) for belantamab mafodotin and 10·8 months (5·6-17·1) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median progression-free survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 6·4-14·5) for belantamab mafodotin and 7·0 months (4·6-10·6) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 1·03 [0·72-1·47]; p=0·56). Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (49 [23%] of 217) and anaemia (35 [16%]) for belantamab mafodotin, and neutropenia (34 [33%] of 102) and anaemia (18[18%]) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Serious adverse events occurred in 94 (43%) of 217 and 40 (39%) of 102 patients, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the belantamab mafodotin group and one (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group due to sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Belantamab mafodotin was not associated with statistically improved progression-free survival compared with standard-of-care, but there were no new safety signals associated with its use. Belantamab mafodotin is being tested in combination regimens for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: GSK (study number 207495).

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Fluticasone Furoate, Umeclidinium Bromide, and Vilanterol in Patients with Asthma, Using Data from a Phase IIIA Study (CAPTAIN).

BACKGROUND: This analysis aimed to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone furoate (FF), the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC), and the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (VI), administered as dual (FF/VI) or triple (FF/UMEC/VI) single-inhaler therapy to patients with asthma, and to identify covariates that may influence the PK of each analyte. METHODS: Blood samples were obtained from the phase IIIA CAPTAIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02924688), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI in patients with uncontrolled asthma taking ICS/LABA. Samples were collected at trough (defined as ≥ 20 h after the last dose) from all subjects randomized to the six treatment groups (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31.25/25 µg, 100/62.5/25 µg, 200/31.25/25 µg, 200/62.5/25 µg; FF/VI 100/25 µg, 200/25 µg) at week 24 or the early withdrawal visit. In a subset of patients, PK samples were obtained predose at week 12, and at 5-30 min, 45-90 min, and 2-3 h postdose. For each analyte, a population PK model was developed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling. The maximum likelihood method was utilized to incorporate data below the quantifiable limit (BQL). Final models were used to derive the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum observed concentration at steady-state for each analyte. RESULTS: We obtained 4018, 2695, and 4032 samples from 1891, 1258, and 1891 patients, for FF, UMEC, and VI, respectively; 48%, 49%, and 50% of samples were reported as BQL for each analyte, respectively. The PK were adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination for FF, a two-compartment model with intravenous bolus input and first-order elimination for UMEC, and a three-compartment model with zero-order input and first-order elimination for VI. Statistically significant covariates were body weight on apparent inhaled clearance of FF, creatinine clearance on apparent clearance and body weight on apparent inhaled volume of distribution of the central compartment for UMEC, and race (East Asian, Japanese, and South East Asian heritage) on inhaled apparent volume of distribution of the central compartment for VI. However, the overall effects of covariates were marginal and thus do not warrant dose adjustment. Systemic exposures of FF or VI did not differ when administered as a single-inhaler triple (FF/UMEC/VI) or dual combination (FF/VI), and were similar to those reported for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: Only marginal covariate effects were observed, and thus no dose adjustments are deemed necessary for FF, UMEC, or VI. There was no difference in FF or VI systemic exposure in patients with asthma when administered as either triple (FF/UMEC/VI) or dual therapy (FF/VI). Together with efficacy findings from the CAPTAIN study, our data support the use of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy for patients with uncontrolled asthma currently receiving ICS/LABA.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (CAPTAIN): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3A trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, 30-50% of patients with moderate or severe asthma remain inadequately controlled. We investigated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate plus umeclidinium plus vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3A study (Clinical Study in Asthma Patients Receiving Triple Therapy in a Single Inhaler [CAPTAIN]), participants were recruited from 416 hospitals and primary care centres across 15 countries. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with inadequately controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-6 score of ≥1·5) despite ICS/LABA, a documented health-care contact or a documented temporary change in asthma therapy for treatment of acute asthma symptoms in the year before screening, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 between 30% and less than 85% of predicted normal value, and reversibility (defined as an increase in FEV1 of ≥12% and ≥200 mL in the 20-60 min after four inhalations of albuterol or salbutamol) at screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), via central based randomisation stratified by pre-study ICS dose at study entry, to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 µg or 200/25 µg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg, 100/62·5/25 µg, 200/31·25/25 µg, or 200/62·5/25 µg) administered via Ellipta dry powder inhaler (Glaxo Operations UK, Hertfordshire, UK). Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment allocation. Endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were change from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary) and annualised moderate and/or severe asthma exacerbation rate (key secondary). Other secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and ACQ-7 total score, all at week 24. Change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Asthma total score at weeks 21-24 was also a secondary endpoint but is not reported here. Exploratory analyses of biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation on treatment response were also done. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924688, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 5185 patients were screened and 2439 were recruited and randomly assigned to FF/VI (100/25 µg n=407; 200/25 µg n=406) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg n=405; 100/62·5/25 µg n=406; 200/31·25/25 µg n=404; 200/62·5/25 µg n=408), with three patients randomly assigned in error and not included in analyses. In the intention-to-treat population, 922 (38%) patients were men, the mean age was 53·2 years (SD 13·1) and body-mass index was 29·4 (6·6). Baseline demographics were generally similar across all treatment groups. The least squares mean improvement in FEV1 change from baseline for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62·5/25 µg versus FF/VI 100/25 µg was 110 mL (95% CI 66-153; p<0·0001) and for 200/62·5/25 µg versus 200/25 µg was 92 mL (49-135; p<0·0001). Adding UMEC 31·25 µg to FF/VI produced similar improvements (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg vs FF/VI 100/25 µg: 96 mL [52-139; p<0·0001]; and 200/31·25/25 µg vs 200/25 µg: 82 mL [39-125; p=0·0002]). These results were supported by the analysis of clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose. Non-significant reductions in moderate and/or severe exacerbation rates were observed for FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI (pooled analysis), with rates lower in FF 200 µg-containing versus FF 100 µg-containing treatment groups. All pooled treatment groups demonstrated mean improvements (decreases) in SGRQ total score at week 24 compared with baseline in excess of the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points; however, there were no differences between treatment groups. For mean change from baseline to week 24 in asthma control questionnaire-7 score, improvements (decreases) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 0·5 points were observed in all pooled treatment groups. Adding UMEC to FF/VI resulted in small, dose-related improvements compared with FF/VI (pooled analysis: FF/UMEC 31·25 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·06 (95% CI -0·12 to 0·01; p=0·094) FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·09 (-0·16 to -0·02, p=0·0084). By contrast with adding UMEC, the effects of higher dose FF on clinic trough FEV1 and annualised moderate and/or severe exacerbation rate were increased in patients with higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide. Occurrence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups (patients with at least one event ranged from 210 [52%] to 258 [63%]), with the most commonly reported adverse events being nasopharyngitis (51 [13%]-63 [15%]), headache (19 [5%]-36 [9%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [3%]-24 [6%]). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across all groups (range 18 [4%]-25 [6%)). Three deaths occurred, of which one was considered to be related to study drug (pulmonary embolism in a patient in the FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA, adding UMEC improved lung function but did not lead to a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe exacerbations. For such patients, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI is an effective treatment option with a favourable risk-benefit profile. Higher dose FF primarily reduced the rate of exacerbations, particularly in patients with raised biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation. Further confirmatory studies into the differentiating effect of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers on treatment outcomes in asthma are required to build on these exploratory findings and further guide clinical practice. FUNDING: GSK.