8031
Background: Patients (pts) with RRMM who are triple-class exposed (proteasome inhibitor PI, immunomodulatory drug IMiD, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody mAb) have an urgent and currently unmet ...clinical need. LocoMMotion (NCT04035226) is the first prospective multinational study of real-life SOC in triple-class exposed pts with RRMM. Here we present efficacy in subgroups of pts treated with SOC therapies in the LocoMMotion study. Methods: LocoMMotion is a noninterventional study across 76 sites (63 European; 13 US). Eligible pts had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOT) or were double refractory to a PI and an IMiD; received a PI, an IMiD, and anti-CD38 mAb; and had disease progression during/after their last LOT. Real-life SOC treatments were defined as those used in local clinical practice. Responses and disease progression were assessed by response review committee, per IMWG criteria. Subgroups were defined by baseline (BL) characteristics: age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), renal function, ISS stage, presence of extramedullary plasmacytoma, LDH level, % of bone marrow plasma cells, number of prior LOT, triple-class or penta-drug exposure, and refractoriness. Results: As of May 21, 2021 (median follow-up 11.0 mo), 248 pts were enrolled and treated with median 4.0 (range, 1–20) cycles of SOC therapy. Evaluation of efficacy outcomes in subgroups demonstrated that refractoriness to 3 classes of antimyeloma therapy, presence of extramedullary plasmacytomas, high LDH, and ECOG PS ≥1 were associated with generally worse outcomes, compared with pts who did not have these characteristics (Table). Overall response rate (ORR) ranged from 20.0–43.1% across all subgroups. Age and number of prior LOT did not have an impact on efficacy outcomes. Conclusions: Subgroup analyses of this first prospective study of real-life SOC tx in triple-class exposed pts with RRMM indicate that specific pt and disease characteristics were associated with poor outcomes. Triple-class refractory and non-triple-class refractory pts had poor outcomes, although the latter had longer median progression-free survival (PFS). These findings should be considered when planning bridging strategy for CAR-T therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04035226. Table: see text
Background
Treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis with biologics, such as guselkumab, has demonstrated greater efficacy over traditional non-biologic treatments. However, given patient ...diversity, greater understanding of the relationship between patient characteristics, positive clinical outcomes, and long-term response to biologics is crucial for optimizing treatment choices.
Materials and Methods
This post-hoc analysis of the 5-year VOYAGE 1 clinical trial compares baseline characteristics of patients maintaining a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 0 at all visits for ≥ 156 consecutive weeks (PASI = 0 group) with those that never achieve PASI = 0 (comparator group), using descriptive statistics and a multiple logistic regression model. Guselkumab plasma trough concentrations in both response groups were assessed from Weeks 4–156.
Results
Of patients who started guselkumab treatment at Week 0 or at Week 16 after switching from placebo, 22.7% (112/494) maintained PASI = 0 for ≥ 156 consecutive weeks. Numerical differences in baseline characteristics, including age, obesity, diabetes, PASI score, disease duration, smoking status, and psoriatic arthritis comorbidity, were identified between the PASI = 0 group and comparator group. Plasma guselkumab levels were consistently higher in the PASI = 0 group. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed absence of diabetes, lower Dermatology Life Quality Index score at baseline, and higher Week 4 guselkumab plasma concentration as significantly (
p
< 0.05) associated with the PASI = 0 group.
Conclusion
A substantial (22.7%) number of guselkumab-treated patients in the VOYAGE 1 clinical trial maintained complete skin clearance for a consecutive period of ≥ 156 weeks. Factors associated with this outcome may suggest clinical benefits of holistic treatment approaches.
Trial Registration
NCT02207231.
Abstract only
8041
Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable despite advances in medical treatment that have improved survival. Even with these improvements, most patients with MM ...eventually progress through standard drug classes of proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), and others. There are currently no prospective data on real-world standard-of-care (SOC) in patients who progress after PIs, IMiDs, and anti-CD38 mAbs. Here, we present interim results from LocoMMotion (NCT04035226), the first prospective efficacy and safety study of real-life SOC in patients with RRMM. Methods: Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years y) with a diagnosis of MM were enrolled between August 2019 and October 2020 from 75 sites across 9 European countries and the US. Patients were included if they received ≥3 prior lines of therapy or were double-refractory to a PI and IMiD, had measurable disease at screening, received at least a PI, an IMiD, and anti-CD38 mAb with documented progressive disease since their last line of therapy, and had an ECOG PS score of 0 or 1. Responses were assessed per International Myeloma Working Group response criteria. A Response Review Committee assessed the overall response rate (ORR, primary objective) of real-life current SOC. Secondary objectives of the study included additional efficacy and safety evaluation of real-life SOC. Results: The data cut-off was November 4, 2020 for the first interim analysis of 225 patients with a median follow-up of 3.7 months (range: 0–12.7), 22 (9.8%) patients were from the US and 203 (90.2%) were from Europe. Median age was 68 y (range: 41–89), 124 (55.1%) were male, 162 (72.0%) had a baseline ECOG PS score of 1, and median time since initial MM diagnosis was 6.0 y (range: 0.3–22.8). Patients had received a median of 4.0 (range: 2–13) prior lines of therapy; all patients were triple-class exposed, 166 (73.8%) were triple-class refractory, and 208 (92.4%) were refractory to last line of therapy. The ORR with real-life SOC salvage therapy was 20.1% (95% CI: 15.0–26.0) in the response-evaluable population (n = 219). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 148 (65.8%) patients, 95 (42.2%) were grade ≥3. The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. Fifteen deaths (6.7%) occurred due to TEAEs during the study. Treatment is ongoing in 121 (53.8%) patients. Conclusions: The interim results of this first, prospective study of real-life SOC treatment in heavily pretreated, triple-class exposed patients with RRMM demonstrate that patients continue to progress after multiple lines of therapy and have poor outcomes. Therefore, there is a need for new treatments with novel mechanisms of action for this patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT04035226.
Introduction: The introduction of new treatments over the past 2 decades has improved survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), yet MM remains incurable. Despite therapeutic advances, ...most patients with MM eventually relapse and/or become refractory to treatment, and cycle through standard drug classes of proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), becoming triple-class exposed. These triple-class exposed patients represent a population with an urgent unmet clinical need and are a major focus for the development of new therapies. There are currently no prospective data outside of clinical trials on standard-of-care (SOC) in MM patients who progress after these treatment regimens. LocoMMotion (NCT04035226) is the first prospective study to assess the efficacy and safety of real-life SOC treatments in triple-class exposed patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Initial analysis at a median follow-up of 3.7 months (range: 0.0-12.7) showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 20.1% (95% CI: 15.0-26.0), with only 5% of patients achieving very good partial response or better. Here, we report updated results from LocoMMotion with a longer median duration of follow-up (7.8 months), along with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data.
Methods: LocoMMotion is a non-interventional study of 246 patients across 10 countries (the US and 9 in Europe) and 75 sites. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with a documented diagnosis of MM were included if they received ≥3 prior lines of therapy or were double-refractory to a PI and IMiD; had measurable disease at screening; received at least a PI, an IMiD, and anti-CD38 mAb with documented progressive disease since their last line of therapy; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score of 0 or 1. Patient-level data and the most common SOC treatments were collected and analyzed during the study period (August 2019 through October 2020). Real-life SOC treatments were defined as those used in local clinical practice. Responses were assessed per International Myeloma Working Group response criteria. A review committee assessed the ORR (primary objective) of real-life current SOC as well as disease progression for the determination of PFS. Secondary objectives included evaluation of additional efficacy endpoints, including OS, and safety.
Results: As of the data cut-off date of March 9, 2021, 246 patients were included with a median follow-up of 7.8 months (range: 0.1-16.9); 23 (9.3%) patients were from the US and 223 (90.7%) were from Europe. Median age was 68 years (range: 41-89), 133 (54.1%) were male, 180 (73.8%) had a baseline ECOG PS score of 1, and median time since initial MM diagnosis was 6.3 years (range: <1.0-22.8). Patients had received a median of 4.0 prior lines of therapy (range: 2-13); all patients were triple-class exposed, 185 (75.2%) were triple-class refractory, and 228 (92.7%) were refractory to last line of therapy. Ninety-three unique treatment regimens were used in the enrolled population, and 63% of patients were treated with a combination of ≥3 drugs. ORR with real-life SOC salvage therapy was 28.0% (95% CI: 22.5-34.1). For the 69 patients who responded, median duration of response was 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.4-NE). In all patients treated, the median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.8-5.4), and median OS was 12.4 months (95% CI: 9.6-NE). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 192 (78.0%) patients; 122 (49.6%) patients had grade ≥3 TEAEs. The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were anemia (9.8%), thrombocytopenia (13.4%), and neutropenia (11.8%). Nineteen (7.7%) patients died due to TEAEs during the study; the most common TEAE leading to death was infection (n=11). Eighty (32.5%) patients had ongoing SOC treatment after the median follow up of 7.8 months. The study is ongoing in 147 (59.8%) patients.
Conclusions: Updated results of this first, prospective study of real-life SOC treatment in triple-class exposed patients with RRMM confirm rapid disease progression after application of salvage therapy and poor outcomes with currently available treatments. New treatment approaches with novel therapies are needed to improve outcomes in this patient population.
Moreau: Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria. Weisel: Roche: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Goldschmidt: Incyte: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy. Delforge: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mohty: Novartis: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Cavo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Accommodations, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vij: BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CareDx: Honoraria; Legend: Honoraria; Biegene: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Harpoon: Honoraria. Dytfeld: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Current Employment, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Angelucci: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene BSM: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Blue Bird Bio: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Menarini-Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: steering commitee, Speakers Bureau; Vertex Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Crispr therapeutics: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Glaxo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Perrot: GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Benjamin: Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allogene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; G
Abstract
Objective. To explore differences in outcomes for patients with schizophrenia treated with risperidone long-acting treatment (RLAT) or oral antipsychotics (oAP). Methods. The International ...Observational Registry on Schizophrenia (InORS) explored flexible doses of newly initiated RLAT and oAPs for adults with schizophrenia, exploring 6-month retrospective hospitalization data and 12-month prospective medication use, outcomes, and tolerability. Efficacy outcomes included hospitalizations, the Clinical Global Impression of Schizophrenia (CGI-SCH), and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Medication switch patterns were also analysed. Results. Data were analysed from 1083 patients (561 RLAT, 522 oAP). At baseline, RLAT patients had higher symptom severity, greater functional impairment, and poorer compliance. Percentages of patients hospitalized were similar between groups, and median duration per hospitalization decreased after RLAT initiation and with oAP. The difference in duration of hospitalization between the retrospective and prospective period was significantly better with RLAT (P = 0.002). Mean CGI-SCH change from baseline was significantly better for RLAT vs. oAP patients for overall, positive, and negative symptom scores (P < 0.05). Mean functional improvement from baseline was significantly higher with RLAT vs. oAP (P < 0.001). Conclusions. Hospitalizations and symptomatic and functional outcomes were better with RLAT vs. oAP; frequent medication switches were associated with less favourable outcomes.
Background
Despite standard-of-care androgen-deprivation therapy and an increasing number of treatment options, the mortality rate for prostate cancer remains high. Progress to metastatic ...castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) necessitates additional treatments. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) prolongs survival in chemotherapy-naive and docetaxel-experienced patients.
Objective
To evaluate the real-world safety and efficacy of AAP as first-line and second-line post-docetaxel only (AAP-PD) treatment in patients with mCRPC.
Patients and methods
The Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR) was a prospective, international, observational study of patients with mCRPC in routine clinical practice. Men aged ≥ 18 years with confirmed mCRPC were included. Baseline characteristics, safety (treatment-emergent adverse events, treatment-emergent severe adverse events), and efficacy progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.
Results
At baseline, patients who received first-line AAP (
n
= 754) were generally older than patients who received AAP-PD (
n
= 354); median age was 76 years and 70 years, respectively. However, the rate of visceral metastasis was higher in the AAP-PD cohort than in the AAP cohort (17.7% vs. 9.6%, respectively). Demographics and disease characteristics of patients with baseline cardiovascular disease were similar to those of the overall registry population. Efficacy outcomes were similar for all patients, regardless of the line of AAP therapy. For first-line AAP and AAP-PD, respectively, the median PFS was 8.9 and 5.8 months for all patients and 9.1 and 6.0 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities; median OS was 27.1 and 23.4 months for all patients, and 27.4 and 23.1 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. There were no unexpected adverse events in any patient subgroup.
Conclusions
These real-world data complement the findings from randomized controlled trials, indicating that first- and second-line AAP is well tolerated and effective in patients with mCRPC, including those with underlying CV comorbidities.
Trial Registration Number
NCT02236637, registered 8 September 2014.
Abstract only
e16537
Background: The Prostate Cancer Registry is a prospective study of >3000 men with mCRPC in routine care. These patients (pts) have a high level of comorbidities which are often ...underrepresented in RCTs. Methods: Data were collected from pts with mCRPC irrespective of treatment (tx). Outcomes in pts with comorbidities were assessed. Results: At study entry, 16.6% of pts had a cardiac disorder, 9.7% hypertension only, 17.7% diabetes. Characteristics, first txs and outcomes are shown in the table below. Conclusions: In this real-life setting, AAP, ENZ, or DOC tx was feasible in pts with cardiac disorders, hypertension or diabetes; proportions treated with each drug were similar to the overall mCRPC population. Regardless of tx PFS was shorter than TTP, which may reflect the impact of pts’ comorbidities in real life. Pts with cardiac disorders had poorer outcomes vs the overall population. Clinical trial information: NCT02236637. Table: see text
PDF
