Antibody interference and response kinetics of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in multiple myeloma

The ICARIA-MM study was sponsored by Sanofi. The authors thank, Helgi van de Velde, Valérie Boutet, Shujia Dai, Deborah DiNoto, Graziella Engelvin, Olivier Fedeli, Sébastien Hugla, Dominique Mouret, Béatrice Pradeilles, and Alain Roccon, all employees of Sanofi, for their contribution to the study, technology, and comments on the manuscript. The authors thank the participating patients and their families, and the study centers and investigators, for their contributions to the study. The medical writing support was provided by John Clarke, PhD and Stephanie Brillhart, PhD of Elevate Medical Affairs, contracted by Sanofi Genzyme for publication support services

Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma according to prior lines of treatment and refractory status: ICARIA-MM subgroup analysis.

SB reports honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Janssen; and reports a consultancy/advisory role for Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm, and Takeda. VV reports a consultancy/advisory role for Astellas, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. VM reports a consultancy/advisory role for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda. LK reports honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; a consultancy/advisory role for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; and travel support from Amgen and Janssen. MP reports honoraria from Celgene, Pfizer, and Takeda; consultancy/advisory role for Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda; and research funding from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. PGR reports a consultancy/advisory role for Amgen, Janssen, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, and Takeda; and research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Oncopeptides, and Takeda. LP, FV, KW, LB, and YK have no disclosures. FC, SLG, FM, and HvdV are employees of Sanofi

Isatuximab for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Review of key subgroup analyses from the Phase III ICARIA-MM study

In the Phase III ICARIA-MM study (NCT02990338), the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone led to increased progression-free survival and improved response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. There is an unmet treatment need, particularly among patients with poor prognoses, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, those who have renal impairment, those who are elderly and those who are refractory to prior lines of treatment. In this review, the subgroup analyses from the ICARIA-MM study, representing subpopulations with poor prognostic factors, are discussed. Overall, the addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone improved progression-free survival and disease response rates across different subgroups, regardless of prognostic factor

Isatuximab for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: review of key subgroup analyses from the Phase III ICARIA-MM study

In the Phase III ICARIA-MM study (NCT02990338), the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone led to increased progression-free survival and improved response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. There is an unmet treatment need, particularly among patients with poor prognoses, including those with high-risk cytogenetics, those who have renal impairment, those who are elderly and those who are refractory to prior lines of treatment. In this review, the subgroup analyses from the ICARIA-MM study, representing subpopulations with poor prognostic factors, are discussed. Overall, the addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone improved progression-free survival and disease response rates across different subgroups, regardless of prognostic factor. Tweetable abstract Isatuximab combination improves progression-free survival and disease response rates in difficult-to-treat patients with multiple myeloma. Lay abstract Currently, the majority of patients with multiple myeloma are not cured, and current treatments may not be helpful for patients with poor prognoses, including those with high-risk chromosomal changes, those who have impaired kidney function, those who are elderly and those who are refractory to prior treatments. In this review, we will discuss the benefits of the combination of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in these difficult-to-treat patients

Larotaxel with Cisplatin in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial tract or bladder cancer: a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial (CILAB)

Background: This open-label, randomized phase III trial evaluated larotaxel/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment for locally advanced (T4b) or metastatic urothelial tract or bladder cancer. Methods: Patients were randomized to larotaxel 50 mg/m2 with cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (larotaxel/cisplatin) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 with cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 1 every 4 weeks (gemcitabine/cisplatin). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: The trial was prematurely closed following the sponsor's decision to stop clinical development of larotaxel (n = 337 randomized). The larotaxel dose was reduced to 40 mg/m2 and cisplatin to 60 mg/m2 following a data monitoring committee safety review of the first 97 patients. At the time of analysis, the median OS was 13.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-17.1] with larotaxel/cisplatin and 14.3 months (95% CI 10.5 to not reached) with gemcitabine/cisplatin [hazard ratio (HR) 1.21; 95% CI 0.83-1.76; p = 0.33]. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 months (95% CI 4.1-6.2) with larotaxel/cisplatin and 7.6 months (95% CI 6.6-9.1) with gemcitabine/cisplatin (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.24-2.25). More myelosuppression was observed with gemcitabine/cisplatin. Conclusion: There was no difference in OS. Although the trial was closed prematurely, PFS appeared worse with larotaxel/cisplatin, suggesting that larotaxel/cisplatin does not improve outcomes versu

Aflibercept and Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel Alone After Platinum Failure in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Controlled Phase III Trial

WOS: 000309653600015PubMed ID: 22965962Purpose To compare the efficacy of aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept), a recombinant human fusion protein targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, with or without docetaxel in platinum-pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 913 patients were randomly assigned to (ziv-)aflibercept 6 mg/kg intravenous (IV; n = 456) or IV placebo (n = 457), both administered every 3 weeks and in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Other efficacy outcomes, safety, and immunogenicity were also assessed. Results Patient characteristics were balanced between arms; 12.3% of patients had received prior bevacizumab. (Ziv-)Aflibercept did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.17; stratified log-rank P = .90). The median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.6 months) for (ziv-) aflibercept and 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.9 months) for placebo. In exploratory analyses, median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.6 months) for (ziv-) aflibercept versus 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 4.3 months) for placebo (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P = .0035); overall response rate was 23.3% of evaluable patients (95% CI, 19.1% to 27.4%) in the (ziv-) aflibercept arm versus 8.9% (95% CI, 6.1% to 11.6%; P = 3 adverse events occurring more frequently in the (ziv-) aflibercept arm versus the placebo arm were neutropenia (28.0% v 21.1%, respectively), fatigue (11.1% v 4.2%, respectively), stomatitis (8.8% v 0.7%, respectively), and hypertension (7.3% v 0.9%, respectively). Conclusion The addition of (ziv-) aflibercept to standard docetaxel therapy did not improve OS. In exploratory analyses, secondary efficacy end points did seem to be improved in the (ziv-) aflibercept arm. The study regimen was associated with increased toxicities, consistent with known anti-VEGF and chemotherapy-induced events. J Clin Oncol 30:3640-3647. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical OncologySanofiSanofi-Aventis; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; sanofi-aventisSanofi-AventisSupported by Sanofi, in collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.; Tuncay Goksel, sanofi-aventi