Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1–21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3–6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736. Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60–72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4–20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3–19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5–9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47–0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Interpretation: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. Funding: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development.European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development

Insights on multiple myeloma treatment strategies

The introduction of new agents and management strategies over the past decade has resulted in a major step change in treatment outcomes with deepening responses and increased survival for patients with multiple myeloma. In daily clinical practice, healthcare professionals are now faced with challenges including, optimal treatment sequencing and changing treatment goals. In light of this, a group of experts met to discuss diagnostic and treatment guidelines, examine current clinical practice, and consider how new clinical trial data may be integrated into the management of multiple myeloma in the future

Prevention and management of adverse events of novel agents in multiple myeloma: a consensus of the European Myeloma Network

During the last few years, several new drugs have been introduced for treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, which have significantly improved the treatment outcome. All of these novel substances differ at least in part in their mode of action from similar drugs of the same drug class, or are representatives of new drug classes, and as such present with very specific side effect profiles. In this review, we summarize these adverse events, provide information on their prevention, and give practical guidance for monitoring of patients and for management of adverse events

Elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in RRMM: final overall survival results from the phase 3 randomized ELOQUENT-2 study

Prolonging overall survival (OS) remains an unmet need in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In ELOQUENT-2 (NCT01239797), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (ERd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior lines of therapy (LoTs). We report results from the pre-planned final OS analysis after a minimum follow-up of 70.6 months, the longest reported for an antibody-based triplet in RRMM. Overall, 646 patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior LoTs were randomized 1:1 to ERd or Rd. PFS and overall response rate were co-primary endpoints. OS was a key secondary endpoint, with the final analysis planned after 427 deaths. ERd demonstrated a statistically significant 8.7-month improvement in OS versus Rd (median, 48.3 vs 39.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.82 [95.4% Cl, 0.68–1.00]; P = 0.0408 [less than allotted α of 0.046]), which was consistently observed across key predefined subgroups. No additional safety signals with ERd at extended follow-up were reported. ERd is the first antibody-based triplet regimen shown to significantly prolong OS in patients with RRMM and 1–3 prior LoTs. The magnitude of OS benefit was greatest among patients with adverse prognostic factors, including older age, ISS stage III, IMWG high-risk disease, and 2–3 prior LoTs

Impact of inhibitory (2DL1, 2DL1-Group C2 and 2DL3 Group C1) (upper row) and activating (2DS2, 2DS2- Group C1 and 2DS3) (lower row) KIRs on Progression Free Survival.

<p>X axis shows percentage of survivors without recurrence against months of follow-up (y axis). The lack of inhibitory KIR2DL1, 2DL1-C2, or 2DL3-C1 improved DFS (100% vs. 62.3%, p = 0.05; 93.8% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.035; 73.6% vs. 55.9%, p = 0.07). Presence of activating KIR2DS2, 2DS2-C1 and 2DS3 (77.8% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.01; 76.9% vs. 51.4%, p = 0.023; 79.4% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.003;) are also associated with longer DFS.</p

Influence of number of activating KIRs on Disease Free Survival: none vs. one vs. two activating KIRs.

<p>Patients who have two activating KIRs in their genotype have longer DFS compared to those who have one activating KIR. Patients who lack any activating KIR have the shortest DFS: no KIR: 54 months (CI: 42–65); one KIR: 77 months (CI: 61–92); two KIRs: 98 months (CI: 87–108) (p = 0.004). X axis shows percentage of survivors without recurrence against months of follow-up (y axis).</p

Comparison of KIR/Ligand frequencies: local recurrence versus distant metastasis.

<p>The variables found significant after comparison of frequencies between recurrent vs. non-recurrent cases were used in this table.</p

Characteristics of patients.

<p>n.s.: non significant</p><p>Characteristics of patients.</p

Comparison of KIR and KIR ligand genotype frequencies between patients recurring vs. those who did not.

<p>*: Combination of Group C and any cognate inhibitory KIR</p><p>Comparison of KIR and KIR ligand genotype frequencies between patients recurring vs. those who did not.</p