Final analysis of the phase 3 non-inferiority COLUMBA study of subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

In the primary analysis of the phase III COLUMBA study, daratumumab by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) demon-strated non-inferiority to intravenous administration (DARA IV) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety from COLUMBA after a median of 29.3 months follow-up (additional 21.8 months after the primary analysis). In total, 522 patients were randomized (DARA SC, n=263; DARA IV, n=259). With longer follow-up, DARA SC and DARA IV continued to show consistent efficacy and maximum trough daratumumab concentration as compared with the primary analysis. The overall response rate was 43.7% for DARA SC and 39.8% for DARA IV. The maxi-mum mean (standard deviation [SD]) trough concentration (cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose) of serum DARA was 581 (SD, 315) mu g/mL for DARA SC and 496 (SD, 231) mu g/mL for DARA IV. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for DARA SC and 6.1 months for DARA IV; median overall survival was 28.2 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients in the DARA SC group and 52.7% in the DARA IV group; the most common (>= 10%) were thrombocytopenia (DARA SC, 14.2%; DARA IV, 13.6%), anemia (13.8%; 15.1%), and neutropenia (13.1%; 7.8%). The safety profile remained consistent with the primary analysis after longer follow-up. In summary, DARA SC and DARA IV continue to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety, with a low rate of infusion-related reactions (12.7% vs. 34.5%, respectively) and shorter administration time (3-5 minutes vs. 3-7 hours) supporting DARA SC as a preferable therapeutic choice. (Clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT03277105

Final analysis of the phase 3 non-inferiority COLUMBA study of subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

In the primary analysis of the phase 3 COLUMBA study, daratumumab by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) demonstrated non-inferiority to intravenous administration (DARA IV) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Here, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety from COLUMBA after a median of 29.3 months follow-up (additional 21.8 months after the primary analysis). In total, 522 patients were randomized (DARA SC, n=263; DARA IV, n=259). With longer follow-up, DARA SC and DARA IV continued to show consistent efficacy and maximum trough daratumumab concentration as compared with the primary analysis. The overall response rate was 43.7% for DARA SC and 39.8% for DARA IV. The maximum mean (standard deviation) trough concentration (cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose) of serum DARA was 581(315) μg/mL for DARA SC and 496(231) μg/mL for DARA IV. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for DARA SC and 6.1 months for DARA IV; median overall survival was 28.2 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients in the DARA SC group and 52.7% in the DARA IV group; the most common (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (DARA SC, 14.2%; DARA IV, 13.6%), anemia (13.8%; 15.1%), and neutropenia (13.1%; 7.8%). The safety profile remained consistent with the primary analysis after longer follow-up. In summary, DARA SC and DARA IV continue to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety, with a low rate of infusion-related reactions (12.7% vs 34.5%, respectively) and shorter administration time (3-5 minutes vs 3-7 hours) supporting DARA SC as a preferable therapeutic choice. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03277105

Subcutaneous versus intravenous daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (COLUMBA): a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: Intravenous daratumumab for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma involves a lengthy infusion that affects quality of life, and infusion-related reactions are common. Subcutaneous daratumumab is thought to be easier to administer and to cause fewer administration-related reactions. In this study (COLUMBA), we tested the non-inferiority of subcutaneous daratumumab to intravenous daratumumab. Methods: In this ongoing, multicentre (147 sites in 18 countries), open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited adult patients (age 6518 years) if they had confirmed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to International Myeloma Working Group criteria; received at least three previous lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug, or were double refractory to both a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule and balanced using randomly permuted blocks to receive daratumumab subcutaneously (subcutaneous group) or intravenously (intravenous group). Randomisation was stratified on the basis of baseline bodyweight ( 6465 kg, 66\u201385 kg, >85 kg), previous therapy lines ( 64four vs >four), and myeloma type (IgG vs non-IgG). Patients received 1800 mg of subcutaneous daratumumab co-formulated with 2000 U/mL recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 or 16 mg/kg of intravenous daratumumab once weekly (cycles 1\u20132), every 2 weeks (cycles 3\u20136), and every 4 weeks thereafter (28-day cycles) until progressive disease or toxicity. The co-primary endpoints were overall response and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough; cycle 3, day 1 pre-dose). The non-inferiority margin for overall response was defined using a 60% retention of the lower bound (20\ub78%) of the 95% CI of the SIRIUS trial. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat population. The pharmacokinetic-evaluable population included all patients who received all eight weekly daratumumab doses in cycles 1 and 2 and provided a pre-dose pharmacokinetics blood sample on day 1 of cycle 3. The safety population included all patients who received at least one daratumumab dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03277105. Findings: Between Oct 31, 2017, and Dec 27, 2018, 655 patients were screened, of whom 522 were recruited and randomly assigned (subcutaneous group n=263; intravenous group n=259). Three patients in the subcutaneous group and one in the intravenous group did not receive treatment and were not evaluable for safety. At a median follow-up of 7\ub75 months (IQR 6\ub75\u20139\ub73), overall response and Ctrough met the predefined non-inferiority criteria. An overall response was seen in 108 (41%) of 263 patients in the subcutaneous group and 96 (37%) of 259 in the intravenous group (relative risk 1\ub711, 95% CI 0\ub789\u20131\ub737). The geometric means ratio for Ctrough was 107\ub793% (90% CI 95\ub774\u2013121\ub767), and the maximum Ctrough was 593 \u3bcg/mL (SD 306) in the subcutaneous group and 522 \u3bcg/mL (226) in the intravenous group. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were anaemia (34 [13%] of 260 patients evaluable for safety in the subcutaneous group and 36 [14%] of 258 patients in the intravenous group), neutropenia (34 [13%] and 20 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (36 [14%] and 35 [14%]). Pneumonia was the only serious adverse event in more than 2% of patients (seven [3%] in the subcutaneous group and 11 [4%] in the intravenous group). There was one death resulting from a treatment-related adverse event in the subcutaneous daratumumab group (febrile neutropenia) and four in the intravenous group (sepsis [n=2], hepatitis B reactivation [n=1], and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia [n=1]). Interpretation: Subcutaneous daratumumab was non-inferior to intravenous daratumumab in terms of efficacy and pharmacokinetics and had an improved safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. These data could contribute to the approval of the subcutaneous daratumumab formulation by regulatory bodies. Funding: Janssen Research & Development

Additional file 2: of A systematic review of the risk factors for clinical response to opioids for all-age patients with cancer-related pain and presentation of the paediatric STOP pain study

BMC Cancer.doc, Characteristics of the 74 studies included in the review. (RTF 506 kb

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 beta(2) microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)) 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%1 of 270 patients; nine p.m vs no patients had febrile neutropenia), infections (86 [31%] vs 48 118%1), and thrombocytopenia (76 [27%1 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=11) and two (1%) were reported in patients who received bortezomib and dexamethasone (pneumonia In=11, 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. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

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 6518 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 \u3b2(2) microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1\ub73 mg/m(2)) 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\ub79 months (IQR 9\ub79-21\ub77). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11\ub720 months [95% CI 9\ub766-13\ub773] vs 7\ub710 months [5\ub788-8\ub748]; hazard ratio 0\ub761, 95% CI 0\ub749-0\ub777; p<0\ub70001). 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