81 research outputs found

    Melflufen: A Peptide-Drug Conjugate for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

    Get PDF
    Despite the availability of new therapies that have led to improved outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma, most patients will eventually relapse. With triplet and even quadruplet combination therapies becoming standard in the first and second line, many patients will have few treatment options after second-line treatment. Melflufen (melphalan flufenamide) is a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate (PDC) that targets aminopeptidases and rapidly releases alkylating agents into tumor cells. Once inside the tumor cells, melflufen is hydrolyzed by peptidases to release alkylator molecules, which become entrapped. Melflufen showed anti-myeloma activity in myeloma cells that were resistant to bortezomib and the alkylator melphalan. In early phase studies (O-12-M1 and HORIZON [OP-106]), melflufen plus dexamethasone has demonstrated encouraging clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, including those with triple-class refractory disease and extramedullary disease. The Phase III OCEAN study (OP-104) is further evaluating melflufen plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The safety profile of melflufen is characterized primarily by clinically manageable hematologic adverse events. Melflufen, with its novel mechanism of action, has the potential to provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, including those with high unmet needs.The authors received medical editorial support for the development of this manuscript, which was funded by Oncopeptides AB

    Long Term Therapy with Lenalidomide in a patient with POEMS Syndrome

    Get PDF
    Lenalidomide is an effective therapy against malignant plasma cells and a potent agent against proinflammatory and proangiogenic cytokines. The use of lenalidomide in POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal protein with plasma cells, skin changes) has been reported, but its benefit in long-term use is not well established. A 55-year-old man with POEMS and debilitating polyneuropathy was treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone followed by maintenance lenalidomide. He remains in haematologic remission and in complete recovery of functional status 3.5 years after diagnosis. This case supports the long-term use of lenalidomide in patients with POEMS syndrome

    A phase I trial of Flavopiridol in relapsed multiple myeloma

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: Flavopiridol is primarily a cyclin-dependent kinase-9 inhibitor, and we performed a dose escalation trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety and generate a pharmacokinetic (PK) profile. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of relapsed myeloma after at least two prior treatments were included. Flavopiridol was administered as a bolus and then continuous infusion weekly for 4 weeks in a 6-week cycle. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were treated at three dose levels (30 mg/m(2) bolus, 30 mg/m(2) CIV to 50 mg/m(2) bolus, and 50 mg/m(2) CIV). Cytopenias were significant, and elevated transaminases (grade 4 in 3 patients, grade 3 in 4 patients, and grade 2 in 3 patients) were noted but were transient. Diarrhea (grade 3 in 6 patients and grade 2 in 5 patients) did not lead to hospital admission. There were no confirmed partial responses although one patient with t(4;14) had a decrease in his monoclonal protein >50 % that did not persist. PK properties were similar to prior publications, and immunohistochemical staining for cyclin D1 and phospho-retinoblastoma did not predict response. CONCLUSIONS: Flavopiridol as a single agent given by bolus and then infusion caused significant diarrhea, cytopenias, and transaminase elevation but only achieved marginal responses in relapsed myelom

    Beta-adrenergic antagonist tolerance in amyloid cardiomyopathy

    Get PDF
    Background: Beta-adrenergic antagonists or blockers (BB) are a cornerstone of cardiac therapy for multiple indications. However, BB are considered relatively contraindicated in amyloid cardiomyopathy due to poor tolerance. This intolerance is hypothesized to be due to concomitant neuropathy and significant restrictive cardiomyopathy. This study analyzes the incidence and characteristics of BB tolerance in patients with amyloid cardiomyopathy. Methods: Through a single-center retrospective chart review, patients with amyloid cardiomyopathy, confirmed by endomyocardial biopsy or technetium-99 pyrophosphate scan, were identified and clinical data was collected. Statistical methods included Chi-square test and two sample Results: Of 135 cardiac amyloidosis patients, 27 patients (20.0%) had no BB use, 56 patients (41.5%) were current BB users, and 52 patients (38.5%) were prior BB users. The most frequent indications for BB use were heart failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. The most common reason for stopping BB therapy was hypotension (62.8%) followed by fatigue, bradycardia, and orthostasis. Neurologic symptoms at the initial BB prescription or most recent evaluation were not significantly different between current and prior BB users. Their cardiovascular profiles were similar by ejection fraction, wall thickness, troponin I, and brain natriuretic peptide. There was no association for BB discontinuation based on amyloid subtype, sex, or race. Conclusion: The majority of patients with amyloid cardiomyopathy were prescribed BB, and over half of these patients still tolerated BB therapy. Current and prior BB users had similar profiles from a cardiovascular and neurologic perspective, with no association identified to predict BB discontinuation

    Biomarkers Predict Graft-Vs-Host Disease Outcomes Better Than Clinical Response after One Week of Treatment

    Get PDF
    Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, does not always respond to treatment with high dose systemic corticosteroids. We have recently shown that a combination of three biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) measured at onset of GVHD can predict day 28 response to treatment and 6-month NRM (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to determine if the same biomarker-based Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm can alsopredict treatment response andmortality whenapplied after one week of systemic corticosteroid treatment. The study population consisted of 378 patients (pts) with acute GVHD from 11 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. All pts were treated with systemic steroids and provided a plasma or serum sample obtained after one week of treatment (±3 days). The median starting dose of systemic steroids for Grade II-IV GVHD was 2.0 mg/kg/day and for Grade I was 1.0 mg/kg/day, after which treatment varied. Patients were divided into test (n=236) and validation (n=142) cohorts. We applied the Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm to concentrations of TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α measured after one week of treatment to generate a predicted probability of 6-month NRM, which we term the treatment score (TS). We employed unsupervised k-medoidclustering to partition TS values from the test cohort into two groups (high and low). This unbiased approach identified a high score group made up of 25% of pts (n=58) in the test cohort. We observed that the day 28 response rate (complete, CR + partial, PR) was significantly lower in pts with high scores compared to low scores in the test cohort (24% vs 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1A). Analysis of the validation cohort using the same TS definitions showed similar differences in response rates (22% vs 61%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1B). Further, nearly four times as many pts with high scores in both cohorts died within 6 months from non-relapse causes compared to pts with low scores (test: 57% vs 17%, p<0.0001; validation: 57% vs 14%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1C/D). As expected, the majority of non-relapse deaths in pts treated for GVHD were directly attributable to GVHD (test: 95%; validation: 89%). Relapse rates for high and low score pts were similar (data not shown), and thus pts with a high TS experienced significantly worse overall survival in both cohorts (test: 37% vs 72%, p<0.0001; validation: 38% vs 79%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1E/F). Approximately half of the pts in each cohort (test: 48%; validation: 44%) responded (CR+PR) to the first week of steroids and these ptshad significantly lower 6-month NRM than non-responders (NR) (test: 17% vs 36%, p=0.0002; validation: 13% vs 36%, p=0.0014). Yet the TS continued to stratify mortality risk independently of clinical response. In the test cohort, pts with a high score comprised 16% of all early responders and experienced more than twice the NRM of early responders with a low score (33% vs 13%, p=0.022) (Fig 2A). Conversely, test cohort pts who did not respond by day 7, but had a low score, fared much better than non-responders with a high score (NRM 21% vs 68%, p<0.0001) (Fig 2B). Two thirds of early non-responders comprised this more favorable group. These highly significant results reproduced in the independent validation cohort in similar proportions (CR+PR: 45% vs 6%, p=0.0003; NR: 61% vs 22%, p=0.0001) (Fig 2C/D). Finally, a subset analysis revealed that pts classified as NR after one week of steroids due to isolated, yet persistent, grade I skin GVHD (24/378, 6%) overwhelmingly had low treatment scores (22/24, 92%) and experienced rates of NRM (9%) comparable to responders with low scores, thus forming a distinct, albeit small, subset of pts with non-responsive GVHD that fares particularly well (Fig 3). In conclusion, a treatment score based on three GVHD biomarkers measured after one week of steroids stratifies pts into two groups with distinct risks for treatment failure and 6-month NRM. It is particularly noteworthy that the TS identifies two subsets of pts with steroid refractory (SR) GVHD who have highly different outcomes (Fig 2B/D). The much larger group, approximately two thirds of all SR pts, may not need the same degree of treatment escalation as is traditional for clinical non-response, and thus overtreatment might be avoided. Because the TSis measured at a common decision making time point, it may prove useful to guide risk-adapted therapy. Disclosures Mielke: Novartis: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel grants; JAZZ Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent

    Role of Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma

    No full text
    Autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) has been the standard of care in eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Outcomes of patients with MM have improved significantly due to the advent of several novel drugs. Upfront use of these drugs in induction therapy has significantly increased the rate and depth of responses that have translated into longer remission and survival. This has now raised a debate regarding the role and relevance of auto-SCT in the management of myeloma. However, clinical trials have confirmed the utility of auto-SCT even in the era of novel drugs. Tandem auto-SCT followed by maintenance has shown a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in high-risk MM, and hence can be considered in young and fit patients with high-risk disease. Auto-SCT has the advantages of resetting the bone marrow microenvironment, short-lived toxicity compared to the long-term physical and financial toxicities of continued chemotherapy in the absence of SCT, very low transplant-related mortality (TRM) in high volume centers, and providing longer disease-free survival when followed by maintenance therapy. Allogeneic SCT is one potentially curative option for MM, albeit with an increased risk of death due to high TRM. Strategies to modulate the graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) while maintaining or improving the graft-versus-myeloma (GVM) effect could place allogeneic SCT back in the treatment armamentarium of MM
    • …
    corecore