ELEVATE-TN Study. New data of acalabrutinib in first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Resolution

Over the past decade, we have seen a significant change in modern approaches in the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The CLL-10 study data established the FCR regimen as the treatment of choice for younger patients with limited comorbidities, while for patients older than 65 years, the BR regimen is more often considered as less toxic one. According to published data, 46% of patients with newly diagnosed CLL have comorbidities. Moreover, high-risk patients with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation do not have response on immunochemotherapy (ICT) most often. Thus, about 1/2 of the patients cannot be treated or will not respond to standard ICT regimens. Targeted therapy with Brutons tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors is an important option of the first-line treatment of patients with CLL. Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor that does not inhibit EGFR, ITK or TEC targets. Acalabrutinib in combination with obinutuzumab or as monotherapy can be considered as a highly effective and safe option of the first line of CLL therapy. Based on the hight selectivity of the agent, acalabrutinib can be considered as the preferable option for patients who are not eligible for ICT, including patients with commodities, such as cardiovascular diseases or risk factors for their development

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice : Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: M.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Novartis, and Takeda and grants from Janssen and Sanofi during the conduct of the study. E.T. has received grants from Janssen and personal fees from Janssen and Takeda during the conduct of the study, and grants from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Glaxo-Smith Kline outside the submitted work. M.V.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and Takeda outside the submitted work. M.C. reports honoraria from Janssen, outside the submitted work. M. B. reports grants from Janssen Cilag during the conduct of the study. M.D. has received honoraria for participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Novartis. H.S. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda outside the submitted work. V.P. reports personal fees from Janssen during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, and personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. W.W. has received personal fees and grants from Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Gilead, and Janssen and nonfinancial support from Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Janssen Pharmaceutical during the conduct of the study. V.L. reports funding from Janssen Global Services LLC during the conduct of the study and study support from Janssen-Cilag and Pharmion outside the submitted work. A.P. reports employment and shareholding of Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) during the conduct of the study. C.C. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. C.F. reports employment at Janssen Research and Development during the conduct of the study. F.T.B. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. The remaining authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The AuthorsMultiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.publishersversionPeer reviewe

British Journal of Haematology / A phase III randomized, multicentre, double blind, active controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of two different anagrelide formulations in patients with essential thrombocythaemia the TEAMET 2·0 trial

Anagrelide is an established treatment option for essential thrombocythaemia (ET ). A prolonged release formulation was developed with the aim of reducing dosing frequency and improving tolerability, without diminishing efficacy. This multicentre, randomized, double blind, activecontrolled, noninferiority trial investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of anagrelide prolonged release (APR ) over a reference product in highrisk ET patients, either anagrelidenaïve or experienced. In a 6 to 12week titration period the individual dose for the consecutive 4week maintenance period was identified. The primary endpoint was the mean platelet count during the maintenance period (3 consecutive measurements, day 0, 14, 28). Of 112 included patients 106 were randomized. The mean screening platelet counts were 822 10/l (95% confidence interval (CI ) 707936 10/l) and 797 10/l (95% CI 708883 10/l) for APR and the reference product, respectively. Both treatments effectively reduced platelet counts, to mean 281 10/l for APR (95% CI 254311) and 305 10/l (95% CI 276337) for the reference product (P < 0·0001, for noninferiority). Safety and tolerability were comparable between both drugs. The novel prolongedrelease formulation was equally effective and well tolerated compared to the reference product. APR provides a more convenient dosing schedule and will offer an alternative to licensed immediaterelease anagrelide formulations.(VLID)510150

Lenalidomide versus investigator's choice in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL-002; SPRINT): A phase 2, randomised, multicentre trial

none25siBACKGROUND: Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug with antineoplastic and antiproliferative effects, showed activity in many single-group studies in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. The aim of this randomised study was to examine the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide versus best investigator's choice of single-agent therapy in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. METHODS: The MCL-002 (SPRINT) study was a randomised, phase 2 study of patients with mantle cell lymphoma aged 18 years or older at 67 clinics and academic centres in 12 countries who relapsed one to three times, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, at least one measurable lesion to be eligible, and who were ineligible for intensive chemotherpy or stem-cell transplantation. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (2:1) patients in a permuted block size of six to receive lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 every 28 days) until progressive disease or intolerability, or single-agent investigator's choice of either rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, chlorambucil, or cytarabine. Randomisation was stratified by time from diagnosis, time from last anti-lymphoma therapy, and previous stem-cell transplantation. Individual treatment assignment between lenalidomide and investigator's choice was open label, but investigators had to register their choice of comparator drug before randomly assigning a patient. Patients who progressed on investigator's choice could cross over to lenalidomide treatment. We present the prespecified primary analysis results in the intention-to-treat population for the primary endpoint of progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to progressive disease or death, whichever occurred first. Patient enrolment is complete, although treatment and collection of additional time-to-event data are ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00875667. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2009, and March 7, 2013, we enrolled 254 patients in the intention-to-treat population (170 [67%] were randomly assigned to receive lenalidomide, 84 [33%] to receive investigator's choice monotherapy). Patients had a median age of 68·5 years and received a median of two previous regimens. With a median follow-up of 15·9 months (IQR 7·6-31·7), lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival compared with investigator's choice (median 8·7 months [95% CI 5·5-12·1] vs 5·2 months [95% CI 3·7-6·9]) with a hazard ratio of 0·61 (95% CI 0·44-0·84; p=0·004). In the 167 patients in the lenalidomide group and 83 patients in the investigator's choice group who received at least one dose of treatment the most common grade 3-4 adverse events included neutropenia (73 [44%] of 167 vs 28 [34%] of 83) without increased risk of infection, thrombocytopenia (30 [18%] vs 23 [28%]), leucopenia (13 [8%] vs nine [11%]), and anaemia (14 [8%] vs six [7%]). INTERPRETATION: Patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma ineligible for intensive chemotherapy or stem-cell transplantation have longer progression-free survival, with a manageable safety profile when treated with lenalidomide compared with monotherapy investigator's choice options.Trněný, Marek; Lamy, Thierry; Walewski, Jan; Belada, David; Mayer, Jiri; Radford, John; Jurczak, Wojciech; Morschhauser, Franck; Alexeeva, Julia; Rule, Simon; Afanasyev, Boris; Kaplanov, Kamil; Thyss, Antoine; Kuzmin, Alexej; Voloshin, Sergey; Kuliczkowski, Kazimierz; Giza, Agnieszka; Milpied, Noel; Stelitano, Caterina; Marks, Reinhard; Trümper, Lorenz; Biyukov, Tsvetan; Patturajan, Meera; Bravo, Marie-Laure Casadebaig; Arcaini, LucaTrněný, Marek; Lamy, Thierry; Walewski, Jan; Belada, David; Mayer, Jiri; Radford, John; Jurczak, Wojciech; Morschhauser, Franck; Alexeeva, Julia; Rule, Simon; Afanasyev, Boris; Kaplanov, Kamil; Thyss, Antoine; Kuzmin, Alexej; Voloshin, Sergey; Kuliczkowski, Kazimierz; Giza, Agnieszka; Milpied, Noel; Stelitano, Caterina; Marks, Reinhard; Trümper, Lorenz; Biyukov, Tsvetan; Patturajan, Meera; Bravo, Marie Laure Casadebaig; Arcaini, Luc