Subcutaneous daratumumab plus standard treatment regimens in patients with multiple myeloma across lines of therapy (PLEIADES): an open-label Phase II study

© 2020 The Authors. Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody approved for intravenous (IV) infusion for multiple myeloma (MM). We describe the Phase II PLEIADES study of a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab (DARA SC) in combination with standard-of-care regimens: DARA SC plus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VRd) for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed MM (NDMM); DARA SC plus bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone (D-VMP) for transplant-ineligible NDMM; and DARA SC plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) for relapsed/refractory MM. In total, 199 patients were treated (D-VRd, n = 67; D-VMP, n = 67; D-Rd, n = 65). The primary endpoints were met for all cohorts: the ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate after four 21-day induction cycles for D-VRd was 71·6% [90% confidence interval (CI) 61·2–80·6%], and the overall response rates (ORRs) for D-VMP and D-Rd were 88·1% (90% CI 79·5–93·9%) and 90·8% (90% CI 82·6–95·9%). With longer median follow-up for D-VMP and D-Rd (14·3 and 14·7 months respectively), responses deepened (ORR: 89·6%, 93·8%; ≥VGPR: 77·6%, 78·5%), and minimal residual disease–negativity (10‒5) rates were 16·4% and 15·4%. Infusion-related reactions across all cohorts were infrequent (≤9·0%) and mild. The median DARA SC administration time was 5 min. DARA SC with standard-of-care regimens demonstrated comparable clinical activity to DARA IV–containing regimens, with low infusion-related reaction rates and reduced administration time

Comparison of efficacy from two different dosing regimens of bortezomib: an exposure–response analysis

Bortezomib is a first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The originally approved dosing schedule of bortezomib results in significant toxicities that require dose interruptions and discontinuations. Consequentially, less frequent dosing has been explored to optimise bortezomib’s benefit–risk profile. Here, we performed exposure–response analysis to compare the efficacy of the original bortezomib dosing regimen with less frequent dosing of bortezomib over nine 6-week treatment cycles using data from the VISTA clinical trial and the control arm of the ALCYONE clinical trial. The relationship between cumulative bortezomib dose and clinical response was evaluated with a univariate logit model. The median cumulative bortezomib dose was higher in ALCYONE versus VISTA (42·2 vs. 38·5 mg/m2) and ALCYONE patients stayed on treatment longer (mean: 7·2 vs. 5·8 cycles). For all endpoints and regimens, probability of clinical response correlated with cumulative bortezomib dose. Similar to results observed for VISTA, overall survival was longer in ALCYONE patients with ≥ 39·0 versus < 39·0 mg/m2 cumulative dose (hazard ratio, 0·119; P < 0·0001). Less frequent bortezomib dosing results in comparable efficacy, and a higher cumulative dose than the originally approved bortezomib dosing schedule, which may be in part be due to reduced toxicity and fewer dose reductions/interruptions. © 2020 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Lt

Comparison of efficacy from two different dosing regimens of bortezomib: an exposure\u2013response analysis

Bortezomib is a first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The originally approved dosing schedule of bortezomib results in significant toxicities that require dose interruptions and discontinuations. Consequentially, less frequent dosing has been explored to optimise bortezomib\u2019s benefit\u2013risk profile. Here, we performed exposure\u2013response analysis to compare the efficacy of the original bortezomib dosing regimen with less frequent dosing of bortezomib over nine 6-week treatment cycles using data from the VISTA clinical trial and the control arm of the ALCYONE clinical trial. The relationship between cumulative bortezomib dose and clinical response was evaluated with a univariate logit model. The median cumulative bortezomib dose was higher in ALCYONE versus VISTA (42\ub72 vs. 38\ub75 mg/m2) and ALCYONE patients stayed on treatment longer (mean: 7\ub72 vs. 5\ub78 cycles). For all endpoints and regimens, probability of clinical response correlated with cumulative bortezomib dose. Similar to results observed for VISTA, overall survival was longer in ALCYONE patients with 65 39\ub70 versus < 39\ub70 mg/m2 cumulative dose (hazard ratio, 0\ub7119; P < 0\ub70001). Less frequent bortezomib dosing results in comparable efficacy, and a higher cumulative dose than the originally approved bortezomib dosing schedule, which may be in part be due to reduced toxicity and fewer dose reductions/interruptions

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