Search results
Found 151 matches for dexamethasone
Inhibition of lipopolysaccharide-stimulated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease macrophage inflammatory gene expression by dexamethasone and the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitor N-cyano-N'-(2-{[8-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-(4-fluoro-2-methylphenyl)-7-oxo-7,8-dihydropyrido[2,3-d] pyrimidin-2-yl]amino}ethyl)guanidine (SB706504).
p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling is known to be increased in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) macrophages. We have studied the effects of the p38 MAPK inhibitor N-cyano-N'-(2-{[8-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-(4-fluoro-2-methylphenyl)-7-oxo-7,8-dihydropyrido[2,3-d]-pyrimidin-2-yl]amino}ethyl)guanidine (SB706504) and dexamethasone on COPD macrophage inflammatory gene expression and protein secretion. We also studied the effects of combined SB706504 and dexamethasone treatment. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated monocyte derived macrophages (MDMs) and alveolar macrophages (AMs) were cultured with dexamethasone and/or SB706504. MDMs were used for gene array and protein studies, whereas tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha protein production was measured from AMs. SB706504 caused transcriptional inhibition of a range of cytokines and chemokines in COPD MDMs. The use of SB706504 combined with dexamethasone caused greater suppression of gene expression (-8.90) compared with SB706504 alone (-2.04) or dexamethasone (-3.39). Twenty-three genes were insensitive to the effects of both drugs, including interleukin (IL)-1beta, IL-18, and chemokine (CC motif) ligand (CCL) 5. In addition, the chromosome 4 chemokine cluster members, CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL3, and CXCL8, were all glucocorticoid-resistant. SB706504 significantly inhibited LPS-stimulated TNFalpha production from COPD and smoker AMs, with near-maximal suppression caused by combination treatment with dexamethasone. We conclude that SB706504 targets a subset of inflammatory macrophage genes and when used with dexamethasone causes effective suppression of these genes. SB706504 and dexamethasone had no effect on the transcription of a subset of LPS-regulated genes, including IL-1beta, IL-18, and CCL5, which are all known to be involved in the pathogenesis of COPD.
Upfront autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus carfilzomib–cyclophosphamide–dexamethasone consolidation with carfilzomib maintenance in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in England and Wales (CARDAMON): a randomised, phase 2, non-inferiority trial
Background: Standard-of-care treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and lenalidomide maintenance. We aimed to evaluate whether an immunomodulatory-free carfilzomib-based induction, consolidation, and maintenance protocol without autologous HSCT was non-inferior to the same induction regimen followed by autologous HSCT and maintenance. Methods: CARDAMON is a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial in 19 hospitals in England and Wales, UK. Newly diagnosed, transplantation-eligible patients with multiple myeloma aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 received four 28-day cycles of carfilzomib (56 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16), cyclophosphamide (500 mg orally on days 1, 8, and 15), and dexamethasone (40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; KCd), followed by peripheral blood stem cell mobilisation. Patients with at least a partial response were randomly assigned (1:1) to either high-dose melphalan and autologous HSCT or four cycles of KCd. All randomised patients received 18 cycles of carfilzomib maintenance (56 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction and difference in progression-free survival rate at 2 years from randomisation (non-inferiority margin 10%), both assessed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02315716); recruitment is complete and all patients are in follow-up. Findings: Between June 16, 2015, and July 8, 2019, 281 patients were enrolled, with 218 proceeding to randomisation (109 assigned to the KCd consolidation group [99 of whom completed consolidation] and 109 to the HSCT group [104 of whom underwent transplantation]). A further seven patients withdrew before initiation of carfilzomib maintenance (two in the KCd consolidation group vs five in the HSCT group). Median age was 59 years (IQR 52 to 64); 166 (59%) of 281 patients were male and 115 (41%) were female. 152 (71%) of 214 patients with known ethnicity were White, 37 (17%) were Black, 18 (8%) were Asian, 5 (2%) identified as Mixed, and 2 (1%) identified as other. Median follow-up from randomisation was 40·2 months (IQR 32·7 to 51·8). After induction, 162 (57·7%; 95% CI 51·6 to 63·5) of 281 patients had at least a very good partial response. The 2-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 65 to 82) in the HSCT group versus 68% (95% CI 58 to 76) in the KCd group (difference –7·2%, 70% CI –11·1 to –2·8), exceeding the non-inferiority margin. The most common grade 3–4 events during KCd induction and consolidation were lymphocytopenia (72 [26%] of 278 patients who started induction; 15 [14%] of 109 patients who started consolidation) and infection (50 [18%] of 278 for induction; 15 [14%] of 109 for consolidation), and during carfilzomib maintenance were hypertension (20 [21%] of 97 patients in the KCd consolidation group vs 23 [23%] of 99 patients in the HSCT group) and infection (16 [16%] of 97 patients vs 25 [25%] of 99). Treatment-related serious adverse events at any point during the trial were reported in 109 (39%) of 278 patients who started induction, with infections (80 [29%]) being the most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in five (2%) of 278 patients during induction (three from infection, one from cardiac event, and one from renal failure) and one of 99 patients during maintenance after autologous HSCT (oesophageal carcinoma). Interpretation: KCd did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority compared with autologous HSCT, but the marginal difference in progression-free survival suggests that further studies are warranted to explore deferred autologous HSCT in some subgroups, such as individuals who are MRD negative after induction. Funding: Cancer Research UK and Amgen.
Impact of prior lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitor exposure on the effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A pooled analysis from the INSURE study.
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the impact of prior exposure and refractoriness to lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) on the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). METHODS: INSURE is a pooled analysis of adult RRMM patients who had received IRd in ≥2 line of therapy from three studies: INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA, and REMIX. RESULTS: Overall, 391/100/68 were lenalidomide-naïve/-exposed/-refractory and 37/411/110 were PI-naïve/-exposed/-refractory. Median duration of therapy (DOT) was 15.3/15.6/4.7 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.6/25.8/5.6 months in lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients. Median DOT and PFS in PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients were 20.4/15.2/6.9 months and not reached/19.8/11.4 months, respectively. The proportion of lenalidomide-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to adverse events (AEs) was ixazomib, 31.6/28.2/28.0% and 18.6/6.7/10.5%; lenalidomide, 21.9/28.2/16.0% and 16.1/6.7/10.5%; dexamethasone, 18.4/20.5/16.0% and 10.6/0/10.5%, respectively. The proportion of PI-naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA-IXA who discontinued a study drug due to AEs was: ixazomib, 44.4/28.8/27.8% and 22.2/16.7/15.7%; lenalidomide, 33.3/22.0/19.4% and 16.7/15.9/11.8%; dexamethasone, 33.3/17.4/16.7% and 16.7/9.5/7.8%, respectively. REMIX AE discontinuation rates were unavailable. CONCLUSION: IRd appeared to be effective in RRMM patients in routine clinical practice regardless of prior lenalidomide or PI exposure, with better outcomes seen in lenalidomide- and/or PI-nonrefractory versus refractory patients.
Efficacy of Isatuximab With Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed Myeloma: Results of a UK-Wide Real-World Dataset.
Real-world data on the efficacy and tolerability of isatuximab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex) in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients have not been reported. In this UK-wide retrospective study, IsaPomDex outcomes were evaluated across 24 routine care cancer centers. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) for patients who achieved an objective response (≥partial response [PR]), and adverse events (AEs). In a total cohort 107 patients, median follow up (interquartile range [IQR]) was 12.1 months (10.1-18.6 mo), median age (IQR) was 69 years (61-77). Median (IQR) Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score was 3 (2-4); 43% had eGFR <60 mL/min. Median (IQR) number of prior therapies was 3 (3-3). Median (IQR) number of IsaPomDex cycles administered was 7 (3-13). ORR was 66.4%, with responses categorized as ≥ very good partial response: 31.8%, PR: 34.6%, stable disease: 15.9%, progressive disease: 15%, and unknown 2.8%. Median PFS was 10.9 months. Median DOR was 10.3 months. There was no statistical difference in median PFS by age (<65: 10.2 versus 65-74 13.2 versus ≥75: 8.5 mo, log-rank P = 0.4157), by CCI score (<4: 10.2 mo versus ≥4: 13.2, log-rank P = 0.6531), but inferior PFS was observed with renal impairment (≥60: 13.2 versus <60: 7.9 mo, log-rank P = 0.0408). Median OS was 18.8 months. After a median of 4 cycles, any grade AEs were experienced by 87.9% of patients. The most common ≥G3 AEs were neutropenia (45.8%), infections (18.7%), and thrombocytopenia (14%). Our UK-wide IsaPomDex study demonstrated encouraging efficacy outcomes in the real world, comparable to ICARIA-MM trial.
A randomized trial of oral nabilone and prochlorperazine compared to intravenous metoclopramide and dexamethasone in the treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy regimens containing cisplatin or cisplatin analogues.
Eighty patients receiving their first course of chemotherapy with regimens containing cisplatin or cisplatin analogues entered this open crossover study comparing nabilone 2 mg and prochlorperazine 5 mg given orally every 12 h for four doses against metoclopramide 2 mg/kg loading dose intravenously (i.v.), then 3 mg/kg as an (i.v.) infusion over 8 h and dexamethasone 20 mg (i.v.) over 3-5 min at the time of chemotherapy. There was complete control of nausea and vomiting in 24 patients (32%) given metoclopramide and dexamethasone compared to 14 patients (19%) given nabilone and prochlorperazine. For the 70 patients who completed the crossover assessment of emesis on a linear analogue scale significantly favoured metoclopramide and dexamethasone (P = 0.02). However, there was no overall patient preference for the metoclopramide and dexamethasone combination (nabilone and prochlorperazine 31 vs. metoclopramide and dexamethasone 26; 13 no preference), because a significant proportion of the patients receiving the cisplatin analogue carboplatin preferred nabilone and prochlorperazine (16 vs. 5; 1 no preference; P = 0.013). For patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy metoclopramide and dexamethasone remains the antiemetic of choice but for regimens containing carboplatin, nabilone and prochlorperazine is better tolerated and preferred by the patients.
Outcomes of anti-CD38 isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in five relapsed myeloma patients with prior exposure to anti-C38 daratumumab: case series.
Objectives: Daratumumab is the first anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (Mab) used to treat myeloma in the newly diagnosed setting and in the relapsed setting. Isatuximab, another Mab targeting a specific epitope on the CD38 receptor, was recently approved in the UK in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex) to treat myeloma patients who received three prior lines of therapy. However, there is a lack of understanding of whether using a prior anti-CD38 Mab (e.g. daratumumab) can affect the efficacy of another Mab (e.g. isatuximab), when the latter is used to treat a subsequent relapse.Methods: We performed a UK-wide outcomes study of IsaPomDex in the real-world. In this case series, we report a detailed descriptive analysis of the characteristics and clinical outcomes of five IsaPomDex patients in UK routine practice (Patients I to V), with a prior exposure to daratumumab.Results: Age range was 51-77 years with two patients >70 and three patients <70 years. The cytogenetic risk was standard in two patients, high in two patients and not known in one patient. Prior daratumumab regimen were monotherapy (dara-mono) in one patient (II), and daratumumab with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) in four patients. Responses to prior daratumumab were: very good partial response (VGPR) in two patients (I and III), minor response-stable disease (MR-SD) in one patient (II), and progressive disease (PD) in two patients (IV and V). Median (range) number of IsaPomDex cycles received was 2 (1-4). Outcomes of IsaPomDex were PD in three patients (II, IV and V) and a response in two patients. Response categories were: MR-SD in patient I and PR in patient III.Discussion: Despite the limitations of our case series, we described the first UK real-world report of IsaPomDex outcomes in myeloma patients with a prior exposure to daratumumab.Conclusion: Large prospective studies are required to further evaluate myeloma outcomes in this setting.
Mezigdomide plus Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.
BACKGROUND: Despite recent progress, multiple myeloma remains incurable. Mezigdomide is a novel cereblon E3 ubiquitin ligase modulator with potent antiproliferative and tumoricidal activity in preclinical models of multiple myeloma, including those resistant to lenalidomide and pomalidomide. METHODS: In this phase 1-2 study, we administered oral mezigdomide in combination with dexamethasone to patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma. The primary objectives of phase 1 (dose-escalation cohort) were to assess safety and pharmacokinetics and to identify the dose and schedule for phase 2. In phase 2 (dose-expansion cohort), objectives included the assessment of the overall response (partial response or better), safety, and efficacy of mezigdomide plus dexamethasone at the dose and schedule determined in phase 1. RESULTS: In phase 1, a total of 77 patients were enrolled in the study. The most common dose-limiting toxic effects were neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. On the basis of the phase 1 findings, investigators determined the recommended phase 2 dose of mezigdomide to be 1.0 mg, given once daily in combination with dexamethasone for 21 days, followed by 7 days off, in each 28-day cycle. In phase 2, a total of 101 patients received the dose identified in phase 1 in the same schedule. All patients in the dose-expansion cohort had triple-class-refractory multiple myeloma, 30 patients (30%) had received previous anti-B-cell maturation antigen (anti-BCMA) therapy, and 40 (40%) had plasmacytomas. The most common adverse events, almost all of which proved to be reversible, included neutropenia (in 77% of the patients) and infection (in 65%; grade 3, 29%; grade 4, 6%). No unexpected toxic effects were encountered. An overall response occurred in 41% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 31 to 51), the median duration of response was 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.5; data not mature), and the median progression-free survival was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 5.5), with a median follow-up of 7.5 months (range, 0.5 to 21.9). CONCLUSIONS: The all-oral combination of mezigdomide plus dexamethasone showed promising efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma, with treatment-related adverse events consisting mainly of myelotoxic effects. (Funded by Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CC-92480-MM-001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374085; EudraCT number, 2017-001236-19.).
The addition of cyclophosphamide to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in multiply relapsed/refractory myeloma patients; a phase I/II study.
We report the results of a Phase I/II dose escalation study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cyclophosphamide when combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Thirty-one patients were enrolled in cohorts of 3, at five dose levels of cyclophosphamide to a maximum of 700 mg on days 1 and 8 of a 28-d cycle. Patients received lenalidomide 25 mg days 1-21 and dexamethasone 20 mg orally days 1-4 and 8-11. The MTD was 600 mg cyclophosphamide, days 1 and 8. Grade 3/4 haematological complications occurred in 26% of patients, grade 3/4 infection in 3% (both at 700 mg cyclophosphamide), with thromboembolic complications in 6% of patients. Overall complete response (CR) rate was 29%, very good partial response rate 7% and partial response rate 45% giving an overall response rate of 81%. After 21 months median follow-up, projected 2-year progression-free survival was 56%, with 80% overall survival at 30 months. Ten further patients were treated at MTD with a 40% CR rate. No dose reductions for any study drugs or deaths occurred during cycles 1-9. Lenalidomide, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone is a safe, effective combination in relapsed myeloma inducing a high response rate, warranting further investigation in phase III trials.
Successful treatment of refractory angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma with thalidomide and dexamethasone.
Angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma (AITL) is a peripheral T-cell lymphoma characterized morphologically by lymphadenopathy with a polymorphic infiltrate, marked vascular and follicular dendritic cell proliferation. Patients usually present with advanced disease and the overall prognosis is poor. While intensive chemotherapy has been shown to induce complete remissions in 50-70% of patients, the majority of patients subsequently relapse. Herein we report the case of a 32 year old man with AITL who was refractory to conventional chemotherapy, but achieved a remarkable sustained response to treatment with thalidomide and dexamethasone. Thalidomide may be an effective therapeutic agent against AITL, and given the poor prognosis of AITL, prospective clinical studies with either thalidomide or one of the thalidomide analogues are warranted.
Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is effective and well tolerated in multiply relapsed (≥2nd relapse) refractory myeloma: a multicenter real world UK experience.
There are limited real world data on ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) in multiply relapsed myeloma. We analyzed outcomes of 116 patients who received IRd predominantly at second and subsequent relapse including those refractory to proteasome inhibitors (PIs). With a median follow up 16.3 months, the overall response rate was 66.9%; median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17.7 months with median overall survival (OS) not reached (NR). PFS and OS were significantly shorter in advanced disease (PFS; 12.6 vs. 21.2 months (p = .01), OS; 15.9 months vs. NR (p = .01) for ISS3 vs. ISS 1&2, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly shorter in clinical high risk (CHR) compared to standard risk (SR) patients (PFS; 9.3 months vs. NR (p = .001), OS; 11.5 months vs. NR (p
Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of β2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9-21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66-13·73] vs 7·10 months [5·88-8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49-0·77; p<0·0001). 278 patients received at least one dose of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 270 patients received at least one dose of bortezomib and dexamethasone, and these patients were included in safety assessments. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (116 [42%] of 278 patients vs 23 [9%] of 270 patients; nine [3%] vs no patients had febrile neutropenia), infections (86 [31%] vs 48 [18%]), and thrombocytopenia (76 [27%] vs 79 [29%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 159 (57%) of 278 patients versus 114 (42%) of 270 patients. Eight deaths were related to treatment; six (2%) were recorded in patients who received pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=2], unknown cause [n=2], cardiac arrest [n=1], cardiorespiratory arrest [n=1]) and two (1%) were reported in patients who received bortezomib and dexamethasone (pneumonia [n=1], hepatic encephalopathy [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide had significantly improved progression-free survival when treated with pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone. Adverse events accorded with the individual profiles of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone. This study supports use of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone as a treatment option in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. FUNDING: Celgene.
Thrombotic microangiopathy in untreated myeloma patients receiving carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone on the CARDAMON study.
Proteasome inhibitors have been associated with thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) - a group of disorders characterised by occlusive microvascular thrombosis causing microangiopathic haemolytic anaemia, thrombocytopenia and end-organ damage. To date, carfilzomib-associated TMA has predominantly been described in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients. We report eight patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who experienced TMA events while receiving carfilzomib on the phase II CARDAMON trial. The first three occurred during maintenance single-agent carfilzomib, two occurred at induction with carfilzomib given with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (KCd) and three occurred during KCd consolidation. At TMA presentation 6/8 were hypertensive; 7/8 had acute kidney injury and in three, renal impairment persisted after resolution of TMA in other respects. The mechanism of carfilzomib-associated TMA remains unclear, though patients with known hypertension seem particularly susceptible. Given the first three cases occurred during maintenance after a longer than five-week treatment break, a protocol amendment was instituted with: aggressive hypertension management, carfilzomib step-up dosing (20 mg/m2 on day 1) at start of maintenance before dose escalation to 56 mg/m2 maximum, and adding 10 mg dexamethasone as premedication to maintenance carfilzomib infusions. No further TMA events occurred during maintenance following this amendment and the TMA incidence reduced from 4·2 to 1·6 per 1 000 patient cycles.
Real-world effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
Real-world data on regimens for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) represent an important component of therapeutic decision-making. This multi-centric, retrospective, observational study conducted by the treating physicians evaluated the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in 155 patients who received ixazomib via early access programs in Greece, the UK, and the Czech Republic. Median age was 68 years; 17% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2; median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 1-7); 91%, 47%, and 17% had received prior bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide, respectively. Median duration of exposure to ixazomib was 9.6 months. Overall response rate was 74%, including 35% very good partial response or better (16% complete response). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.6 months (27.6 and 19.9 months in patients with 1 or > 1 prior lines, respectively). IRd treatment for ≥ 6 months was associated with longer PFS (hazard ratio 0.06). Fourteen patients (9%) discontinued IRd due to adverse events/toxicity in the absence of disease progression. Peripheral neuropathy was reported in 35% of patients (3% grades 3-4). These findings support the results of the phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 trial in a broader real-world RRMM population.
Bendamustine in combination with thalidomide and dexamethasone is a viable salvage option in myeloma relapsed and/or refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide.
Treatment options are limited in myeloma relapsed or refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide (double-relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; DRMM). Bendamustine is an antitumour agent that has efficacy in relapsed myeloma. We retrospectively analysed data from 30 DRMM patients who received a combination of bendamustine, thalidomide and dexamethasone (BTD) in 28-day treatment cycles. Bendamustine was administered with a cumulative dose of up to 200 mg/m(2). Thalidomide (50-150 mg) was given daily as tolerated, and dexamethasone was given at an equivalent dose of up to 160 mg per cycle. A median of 5 (2-9) treatment cycles were administered per patient. Twenty-six patients (87 %) achieved stable disease or better. At a median follow-up time of 12.1 (2.3-21.5) months, median (95 % CI) progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.0 (2.6-5.3) months and 7.2 (5.2-9.2) months, respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological: anaemia (n = 8, 34.8 %), neutropenia (n = 16, 69.6 %) and thrombocytopenia (n = 10, 43.5 %). Non-haematological toxicities included pain (n = 3, 13.0 %), infection (n = 7, 30.4 %) and sensory neuropathy (n = 1, 4.3 %). We propose that BTD is a viable salvage treatment option for DRMM patients.
Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study.
BACKGROUND: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p<0·0001). On-study death due to adverse events occurred in 18 (4%) of 464 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 16 (3%) of 465 patients in the bortezomib group. Serious adverse events were reported in 224 (48%) of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group and in 162 (36%) of 456 patients in the bortezomib group. The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (67 [14%] of 463 patients in the carfilzomib group vs 45 [10%] of 456 patients in the bortezomib group), hypertension (41 [9%] vs 12 [3%]), thrombocytopenia (39 [8%] vs 43 [9%]), and pneumonia (32 [7%] vs 36 [8%]). INTERPRETATION: For patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, carfilzomib with dexamethasone could be considered in cases in which bortezomib with dexamethasone is a potential treatment option. FUNDING: Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Amgen subsidiary.
Daratumumab plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone for Untreated Myeloma.
BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. We sought to determine whether the addition of daratumumab would significantly reduce the risk of disease progression or death in this population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 737 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Treatment was to continue until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable side effects. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 28.0 months, disease progression or death had occurred in 240 patients (97 of 368 patients [26.4%] in the daratumumab group and 143 of 369 patients [38.8%] in the control group). The estimated percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 30 months was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0 to 75.4) in the daratumumab group and 55.6% (95% CI, 49.5 to 61.3) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was 47.6% in the daratumumab group and 24.9% in the control group (P<0.001). A total of 24.2% of the patients in the daratumumab group, as compared with 7.3% of the patients in the control group, had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 105 white cells) (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (50.0% in the daratumumab group vs. 35.3% in the control group), anemia (11.8% vs. 19.7%), lymphopenia (15.1% vs. 10.7%), and pneumonia (13.7% vs. 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the risk of disease progression or death was significantly lower among those who received daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. A higher incidence of neutropenia and pneumonia was observed in the daratumumab group. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MAIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02252172.).
Carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma after one prior therapy: results from a multi-centre, phase II, randomized, controlled trial (MUKfive).
The proteasome inhibitors (PIs), carfilzomib and bortezomib, are widely used to treat myeloma but head-to-head comparisons have produced conflicting results. We compared the activity of these PIs in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (KCd vs VCd) in second line treatment using fixed duration therapy and evaluated the efficacy of carfilzomib maintenance. MUKfive was a phase II controlled, parallel group trial that randomised patients (2:1) to KCd (201) or VCd (99); responding patients on carfilzomib were randomised to maintenance carfilzomib (69) or no further treatment (72). Primary endpoints were (i) very good partial response (VGPR, non-inferiority, OR 0.8) at 24 weeks, and (ii) progression-free survival (PFS). More participants achieved ≥VGPR with carfilzomib compared to bortezomib (40.2% vs. 31.9%, OR=1.48, 90%CI:0.95,2.31; non-inferior), with a trend for particular benefit in adverse risk disease. KCd was associated with higher overall response (≥PR, 84.0% vs. 68.1%, OR=2.72, 90%CI:1.62,4.55, p=0.001). Neuropathy (grade ≥3 or ≥2 with pain) was more common with bortezomib (19.8% vs. 1.5%, p.
Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma and Renal Impairment: Results From a Phase II Trial.
Purpose Renal impairment (RI) limits treatment options in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we prospectively studied pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in patients with RRMM and moderate or severe RI, including those receiving hemodialysis. Patients and Methods MM-013, a noncomparative, European phase II trial, enrolled three patient cohorts: moderate RI (cohort A; estimated glomerular filtration rate, 30 to < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2); severe RI (cohort B; estimated glomerular filtration rate, < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2); and severe RI that requires hemodialysis (cohort C). Patients received pomalidomide 4 mg/d on days 1 to 21 and LoDEX 20 or 40 mg once per week in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was overall response rate. Results Of 81 enrolled patients (33, 34, and 14 patients in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively), 13 were still receiving treatment at data cutoff (January 28, 2017). Overall response rates were 39.4%, 32.4%, and 14.3%, with a median duration of response of 14.7 months, 4.6 months, and not estimable, respectively. Of importance, 100%, 79.4%, and 78.6% of patients, respectively, achieved disease control. With a median follow-up of 8.6 months, median overall survival was 16.4 months, 11.8 months, and 5.2 months, respectively. Complete renal responses were observed only in cohort A (18.2%), and no patients in cohort C became hemodialysis independent. Grade 3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events and pomalidomide discontinuations as a result of treatment-emergent adverse events occurred more frequently in cohort C. Pomalidomide pharmacokinetics were comparable among the three renal cohorts. Conclusion Pomalidomide 4 mg/d plus LoDEX is efficacious in patients with RRMM with moderate or severe RI, including those who had more advanced disease and required hemodialysis. The safety profile was acceptable among the three groups, and no new safety signals were observed.
Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma.
BACKGROUND: Daratumumab showed promising efficacy alone and with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1-2 study involving patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 569 patients with multiple myeloma who had received one or more previous lines of therapy to receive lenalidomide and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 13.5 months in a protocol-specified interim analysis, 169 events of disease progression or death were observed (in 53 of 286 patients [18.5%] in the daratumumab group vs. 116 of 283 [41.0%] in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.52; P<0.001 by stratified log-rank test). The Kaplan-Meier rate of progression-free survival at 12 months was 83.2% (95% CI, 78.3 to 87.2) in the daratumumab group, as compared with 60.1% (95% CI, 54.0 to 65.7) in the control group. A significantly higher rate of overall response was observed in the daratumumab group than in the control group (92.9% vs. 76.4%, P<0.001), as was a higher rate of complete response or better (43.1% vs. 19.2%, P<0.001). In the daratumumab group, 22.4% of the patients had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 105 white cells), as compared with 4.6% of those in the control group (P<0.001); results below the threshold for minimal residual disease were associated with improved outcomes. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 during treatment were neutropenia (in 51.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group vs. 37.0% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 12.7% vs. 13.5%), and anemia (in 12.4% vs. 19.6%). Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the patients and were mostly of grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly lengthened progression-free survival among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Daratumumab was associated with infusion-related reactions and a higher rate of neutropenia than the control therapy. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; POLLUX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02076009 .).
Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).