Analysis of a compartmental model of endogenous immunoglobulin G metabolism with application to multiple myeloma

Immunoglobulin G (IgG) metabolism has received much attention in the literature for two reasons: (i) IgG homeostasis is regulated by the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), by a pH-dependent and saturable recycling process, which presents an interesting biological system; (ii) the IgG-FcRn interaction may be exploitable as a means for extending the plasma half-life of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, which are primarily IgG-based. A less-studied problem is the importance of endogenous IgG metabolism in IgG multiple myeloma. In multiple myeloma, quantification of serum monoclonal immunoglobulin plays an important role in diagnosis, monitoring and response assessment. In order to investigate the dynamics of IgG in this setting, a mathematical model characterizing the metabolism of endogenous IgG in humans is required. A number of authors have proposed a two-compartment nonlinear model of IgG metabolism in which saturable recycling is described using Michaelis-Menten kinetics; however it may be difficult to estimate the model parameters from the limited experimental data that are available. The purpose of this study is to analyse the model alongside the available data from experiments in humans and estimate the model parameters. In order to achieve this aim we linearize the model and use several methods of model and parameter validation: stability analysis, structural identifiability analysis, and sensitivity analysis based on traditional sensitivity functions and generalized sensitivity functions. We find that all model parameters are identifiable, structurally and taking into account parameter correlations, when several types of model output are used for parameter estimation. Based on these analyses we estimate parameter values from the limited available data and compare them with previously published parameter values. Finally we show how the model can be applied in future studies of treatment effectiveness in IgG multiple myeloma with simulations of serum monoclonal IgG responses during treatment

Development and Validation of a Cytogenetic Prognostic Index Predicting Survival in Multiple Myeloma

International audienc

Heavy + light chain analysis to assign myeloma response is analogous to the IMWG response criteria

IF 2.755International audienceAutomated serum heavy + light chain (HLC) immunoassays can measure the intact immunoglobulins of each light chain type separately. We though to compare HLC assays with electrophoretic techniques in determining International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria. 114 myeloma patients from 2 trials were included. HLC measurements were made utilizing archived sera and response assessments compared with those based on electrophoretic analysis at the time of the trials. Assessments at ∼90 days and maximal response were compared as was the power of the 2 techniques for predicting later responses, overall survival, and progression. The kappa statistic indicated good agreement between the 2 methods for determining IMWG response criteria, although HLC measurements might give better predictions of subsequent responses and frequently gave an earlier indication of change. HLC measurements could represent an alternative to electrophoretic techniques in determining IMWG response. Validation with a greater range of patient responses is needed for confirmation

Salvage therapy post pomalidomide-based regimen in relapsed/refractory myeloma

IF 3.083International audienceThe combination of pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Pom-Dex) has proved effective and safe in patients with end-stage relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), otherwise characterized by a very poor outcome. MM remains an incurable disease with unavoidable relapses, and the outcome after pomalidomide is still dismal. However, some patients demonstrate prolonged survival even beyond pomalidomide therapy.We sought to analyze the treatment of RRMM patients following Pom-Dex therapy and the response and survival after this next treatment line.We studied 134 patients treated with Pom-Dex until progression across two IFM studies. Seventy percent of these patients received further therapy after Pom-Dex. Among the treated patients, one third responded and one third maintained stable disease. The median OS for treated patients was 12 months (6.5;17), with 22 and 12.5% of patients surviving beyond 2 and 3 years, respectively. The factors associated with a better outcome were exposure to a triplet-based regimen containing a novel agent, response to therapy, absence of adverse cytogenetic, and a longer time from diagnosis to post pomalidomide therapy.This study suggests that patients relapsing after Pom-Dex therapy can still benefit from a further line of treatment. A subset of these treated patients even displayed a prolonged OS, while the prognosis remained very poor without treatment. An active approach could therefore be recommended even in this adverse situation, however guided by the patients' prognosis factors

Carfilzomib Weekly plus Melphalan and Prednisone in Newly Diagnosed Transplant-Ineligible Multiple Myeloma (IFM 2012-03): A Phase I Trial.

Carfilzomib is a novel generation proteasome inhibitor. The Carmysap trial demonstrated that twice-weekly KMP (carfilzomib, melphalan, prednisone) might challenge the MPV (melphalan, prednisone, bortezomib) standard. We sought to study KMP weekly, allowing to increase carfilzomib's dose with maintained efficacy and improved safety profile.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Carfilzomib maintenance in newly diagnosed non-transplant eligible multiple myeloma

International audienc

Isatuximab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone and bortezomib in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: the randomized phase 3 BENEFIT trial

International audienceCD38-targeting immunotherapy is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) that are transplant ineligible (TI) and is considered the best standard of care (SOC). To improve current SOC, we evaluated the added value of weekly bortezomib (V) to isatuximab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaRd versus Isa-VRd). This Intergroupe Francophone of Myeloma phase 3 study randomized 270 patients with NDMM that were TI, aged 65–79 years, to IsaRd versus Isa-VRd arms. The primary endpoint was a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at 10 −5 by next-generation sequencing at 18 months from randomization. Key secondary endpoints included response rates, MRD assessment rates, survival and safety. The 18-month MRD negativity rates at 10 −5 were reported in 35 patients (26%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19–34) in IsaRd versus 71 (53%, 95% CI 44–61) in Isa-VRd (odds ratio for MRD negativity 3.16, 95% CI 1.89–5.28, P < 0.0001). The MRD benefit was consistent across subgroups at 10 −5 and 10 −6 , and was already observed at month 12. The proportion of patients with complete response or better at 18 months was higher with Isa-VRd (58% versus 33%; P < 0.0001), as was the proportion of MRD negativity and complete response or better (37% versus 17%; P = 0.0003). At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, no difference was observed for survival times (immature data). The addition of weekly bortezomib did not significantly affect the relative dose intensity of IsaRd. Isa-VRd significantly increased MRD endpoints, including the 18-month negativity rate at 10 −5 , the primary endpoint, compared with IsaRd. This study proposes Isa-VRd as a new SOC for patients with NDMM that are TI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT0475187

Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimen in frontline multiple myeloma: an IFM randomized phase 3 study.

High-dose melphalan (HDM) and transplantation are recommended for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. No other conditioning regimen has proven to be more effective and/or safer. We previously reported in a phase 2 study that bortezomib can safely and effectively be combined with HDM (Bor-HDM), with a 32% complete response (CR) rate after transplantation. These data supported a randomized phase 3 trial. Randomization was stratified according to risk and response to induction: 300 patients were enrolled, and 154 were allocated to the experimental arm (ie, arm A) with bortezomib (1 mg/m2 intravenously [IV]) on days -6, -3, +1, and +4 and melphalan (200 mg/m2 IV) on day -2. The control arm (ie, arm B) consisted of HDM alone (200 mg/m2 IV). There were no differences in stringent CR + CR rates at day 60 posttransplant (primary end point): 22.1% in arm A vs 20.5% in arm B (P = .844). There were also no differences in undetectable minimum residual disease rates: 41.3% vs 39.4% (P = .864). Median progression-free survival was 34.0 months for arm A vs 29.6 months for arm B (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.13; P = .244). The estimated 3-year overall survival was 89.5% in both arms (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.64; P = .374). Sixty-nine serious adverse events occurred in 18.7% of Bor-HDM-treated patients (vs 13.1% in HDM-treated patients). The proportion of grade 3/4 AEs was similar within the 2 groups (72.0% vs 73.1%), mainly (as expected) blood and gastrointestinal disorders; 4% of patients reported grade 3/4 or painful peripheral neuropathy in arm A (vs 1.5% in arm B). In this randomized phase 3 study, a conditioning regimen with Bor-HDM did not improve efficacy end points or outcomes compared with HDM alone. The original trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02197221

Bortezomib and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimen in frontline multiple myeloma: an IFM randomized phase 3 study.

peer reviewedHigh-dose melphalan (HDM) and transplantation are recommended for eligible patients with multiple myeloma. No other conditioning regimen has proven to be more effective and/or safer. We previously reported in a phase 2 study that bortezomib can safely and effectively be combined with HDM (Bor-HDM), with a 32% complete response (CR) rate after transplantation. These data supported a randomized phase 3 trial. Randomization was stratified according to risk and response to induction: 300 patients were enrolled, and 154 were allocated to the experimental arm (ie, arm A) with bortezomib (1 mg/m2 intravenously [IV]) on days -6, -3, +1, and +4 and melphalan (200 mg/m2 IV) on day -2. The control arm (ie, arm B) consisted of HDM alone (200 mg/m2 IV). There were no differences in stringent CR + CR rates at day 60 posttransplant (primary end point): 22.1% in arm A vs 20.5% in arm B (P = .844). There were also no differences in undetectable minimum residual disease rates: 41.3% vs 39.4% (P = .864). Median progression-free survival was 34.0 months for arm A vs 29.6 months for arm B (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.13; P = .244). The estimated 3-year overall survival was 89.5% in both arms (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.64; P = .374). Sixty-nine serious adverse events occurred in 18.7% of Bor-HDM-treated patients (vs 13.1% in HDM-treated patients). The proportion of grade 3/4 AEs was similar within the 2 groups (72.0% vs 73.1%), mainly (as expected) blood and gastrointestinal disorders; 4% of patients reported grade 3/4 or painful peripheral neuropathy in arm A (vs 1.5% in arm B). In this randomized phase 3 study, a conditioning regimen with Bor-HDM did not improve efficacy end points or outcomes compared with HDM alone. The original trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02197221