A randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lumiliximab in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab alone in subjects with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Lumiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets CD23 on the surface of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) B-cells. Early phase clinical studies with lumiliximab alone and in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) established its potential efficacy and tolerability. The 152CL201 trial [Lumiliximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) versus FCR alone in subjects with relapsed CLL; LUCID] was a phase 2/3, randomized (1:1), open-label, multicentre study of lumiliximab in combination with FCR versus FCR alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Six hundred and twenty-seven patients were randomized to either arm. Overall the combination of lumiliximab with FCR was not significantly better than FCR alone (overall response rate 71% vs. 72%, complete response rate 16% vs. 15%, median progression-free survival 24.6 vs. 23.9 months respectively, for FCR with and without lumiliximab). There was a slightly increased incidence of adverse events with lumiliximab but these increases did not appear to lead to differences in eventual outcomes. An interim analysis failed to show sufficient efficacy of the combination of lumiliximab with FCR. The study was therefore stopped early for lack of efficacy. Despite the eventual outcome, the LUCID trial is one of the largest studies that provides valuable insight into the efficacy and tolerability of FCR as a therapeutic option for patients with relapsed CLL.Farrukh T. Awan, Peter Hillmen, Andrzej Hellmann, Tadeusz Robak, Steven G. Hughes, Denise Trone, Megan Shannon, Ian W. Flinn, John C. Byrd and on behalf of the LUCID trial investigator

Consensus proposal for revised International Working Group response criteria for higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes

Myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) are associated with variable clinical presentations and outcomes. The initial response criteria developed by the International Working Group (IWG) in 2000 have been used in clinical practice, clinical trials, regulatory reviews, and drug labels. While the IWG criteria were revised in 2006 and 2018 (the latter focusing on lower-risk disease), limitations persist in their application to higher-risk MDS and in their ability to fully capture clinical benefits of novel investigational drugs or to serve as valid surrogates for longer-term clinical endpoints (e.g., overall survival). Further, issues related to ambiguity and practicality of some criteria lead to variability in interpretation and inter-observer inconsistency in reporting results from the same sets of data. Thus, we convened an international panel of 36 MDS experts and used an established modified Delphi process to develop consensus recommendations for updated response criteria that would be more reflective of patient-centered and clinically relevant outcomes in higher-risk MDS. Among others, the IWG 2023 criteria include changes in the hemoglobin threshold for complete remission (CR), the introduction of CR with limited count recovery (CRL) and CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) as provisional response criteria, elimination of marrow CR, and specific recommendations for standardization of time-to-event endpoints and the derivation and reporting of responses. The updated criteria should lead to better correlation between patient-centered outcomes and clinical trial results in an era of multiple emerging new agents with novel mechanisms of action

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lumiliximab in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab alone in subjects with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Lumiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets CD23 on the surface of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) B-cells. Early phase clinical studies with lumiliximab alone and in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) established its potential efficacy and tolerability. The 152CL201 trial [Lumiliximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) versus FCR alone in subjects with relapsed CLL; LUCID] was a phase 2/3, randomized (1:1), open-label, multicentre study of lumiliximab in combination with FCR versus FCR alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Six hundred and twenty-seven patients were randomized to either arm. Overall the combination of lumiliximab with FCR was not significantly better than FCR alone (overall response rate 71% vs. 72%, complete response rate 16% vs. 15%, median progression-free survival 24.6 vs. 23.9 months respectively, for FCR with and without lumiliximab). There was a slightly increased incidence of adverse events with lumiliximab but these increases did not appear to lead to differences in eventual outcomes. An interim analysis failed to show sufficient efficacy of the combination of lumiliximab with FCR. The study was therefore stopped early for lack of efficacy. Despite the eventual outcome, the LUCID trial is one of the largest studies that provides valuable insight into the efficacy and tolerability of FCR as a therapeutic option for patients with relapsed CLL

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lumiliximab in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab alone in subjects with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Lumiliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets CD23 on the surface of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) B-cells. Early phase clinical studies with lumiliximab alone and in combination with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) established its potential efficacy and tolerability. The 152CL201 trial [Lumiliximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) versus FCR alone in subjects with relapsed CLL; LUCID] was a phase 2/3, randomized (1:1), open-label, multicentre study of lumiliximab in combination with FCR versus FCR alone in patients with relapsed CLL. Six hundred and twenty-seven patients were randomized to either arm. Overall the combination of lumiliximab with FCR was not significantly better than FCR alone (overall response rate 71% vs. 72%, complete response rate 16% vs. 15%, median progression-free survival 24.6 vs. 23.9 months respectively, for FCR with and without lumiliximab). There was a slightly increased incidence of adverse events with lumiliximab but these increases did not appear to lead to differences in eventual outcomes. An interim analysis failed to show sufficient efficacy of the combination of lumiliximab with FCR. The study was therefore stopped early for lack of efficacy. Despite the eventual outcome, the LUCID trial is one of the largest studies that provides valuable insight into the efficacy and tolerability of FCR as a therapeutic option for patients with relapsed CLL

Apixaban for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND: Apixaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor that can be administered in a simple, fixed-dose regimen, may be an option for the extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we compared two doses of apixaban (2.5 mg and 5 mg, twice daily) with placebo in patients with venous thromboembolism who had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and for whom there was clinical equipoise regarding the continuation or cessation of anticoagulation therapy. The study drugs were administered for 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 2486 patients underwent randomization, of whom 2482 were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism or death from venous thromboembolism occurred in 73 of the 829 patients (8.8%) who were receiving placebo, as compared with 14 of the 840 patients (1.7%) who were receiving 2.5 mg of apixaban (a difference of 7.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.0 to 9.3) and 14 of the 813 patients (1.7%) who were receiving 5 mg of apixaban (a difference of 7.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.9 to 9.1) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the placebo group, 0.2% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 0.1% in the 5-mg apixaban group. The rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.3% in the placebo group, 3.0% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 4.2% in the 5-mg apixaban group. The rate of death from any cause was 1.7% in the placebo group, as compared with 0.8% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group and 0.5% in the 5-mg apixaban group. CONCLUSIONS: Extended anticoagulation with apixaban at either a treatment dose (5 mg) or a thromboprophylactic dose (2.5 mg) reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism without increasing the rate of major bleeding. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; AMPLIFY-EXT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00633893.)