ABSTRACT
Background: Systemic AL amyloidosis is an incurable relapsing plasma cell disorder. Despite therapeutic advances, there are no approved treatments for relapse disease. Treatment is often challenging due to underlying organ dysfunction. Belantamab mafodotin is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting B-cell maturation antigen with approval for relapsed refractory myeloma. In multiply pre-treated myeloma, the DREAMM-2 phase II trial showed an overall response rate of 32% for those with 2.5 mg/kg dose administered every three weeks with 2/3rd patients reporting keratopathy. A small case series of 6 patients with relapsed AL amyloidosis (Zhang et al , ASH 2021) was recently reported and a phase 2 trial is recruiting for patients with refractory amyloidosis (NCT04617925). Aims: We report our initial results using Belantamab monotherapy for the treatment of patients with AL amyloidosis with relapsed disease. Methods: Data for consecutive patients who were administered Belantamab at a specialist referral centre, National Amyloidosis Centre, University College London, was analysed. Results: Eleven patients were included 8 male, 3 female. Median age at Belantamab initiation was 65 (range 42-74) years. Eight patients had λ AL-type and three κ AL-type. At diagnosis, median involved free light-chain concentration was 534 (range 73-7181) mg/l. A median of two organs involved at baseline (range 1-3): 4 had cardiac involvement (half Mayo stage 2;half Mayo stage 3a) and 8 had renal involvement. The median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 2-5) with all exposed to prior immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors and 73% to anti-CD38 antibody treatments. Thirty-six percent had relapsed after melphalan-conditioned autologous stem cell transplantation. A median of 3 cycles of belantamab were delivered (range 1-8). The most frequent adverse event was ocular toxicity which was experienced in 8 patients (grade 1-3), necessitating dose modification of the three-weekly schedule. One patient developed transient grade 1 dyspnoea and liver dysfunction. No patients developed cytopenias, unlike previous reports (Zhang et al , 2021), nor infections beyond COVID (2 patients mild with no hospital admissions). The majority of the cohort required dose reduction either at initiation (patient 4, due to end stage renal failure;patient 11, post-renal transplant) or during therapy (n=5;three to 1.9mg/kg, two to 1.25mg/kg) due to ocular toxicity. Only one patient remained on the standard dose of 2.5mg/kg for >3 cycles. Ocular toxicity improved after treatment interruption (drug intervals 4-6 weeks) and no patients required complete treatment cessation. One patient is too early to assess response. Haematological responses (PR or better) were seen in 7 patients with 3 complete responses and two very good partial responses (VGPR) which are ongoing. Both renal patients (patients 4 and 11) commenced a dose of 1.25mg/kg and sustained a VGPR with no additional toxicity. Patient 3 had a 42% reduction in sFLC after two doses but then a prolonged gap due to keratopathy and has lost the response. There were no cardiac or renal toxicities observed. Summary/Conclusion: Belantamab mafodotin demonstrates significant activity in patients with heavily pre-treated AL amyloidosis with 70% achieving a ≥PR. Apart from keratopathy requiring dose modification, no other substantial toxicity was observed. Two patients with renal impairment (stage V CKD and ESRD) and one patient post-renal transplant tolerated treatment with no additional toxicity. Belantamab mafodotin shows promise in treatment of relapsed AL and needs further prospective trials.
ABSTRACT
There is increased infection risk at the time of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) including for patients with plasma cell disorders (PCD), therefore preventing infection with COVID-19 vaccination in this vulnerable group is key. However, patients with PCD have been shown to mount suboptimal responses to COVID-19 vaccination. A clinical audit of serological response to COVID-19 vaccination before and after ASCT was undertaken, to observe how antibody titres change during this period. Antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were measured using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2S assay (Roche diagnostics) in 88 patients who underwent ASCT for PCD at the University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust between December 2020 and September 2021. Pre-ASCT antibody titres were measured following first or second vaccine and following ASCT. The majority ( n = 76) had no prior history of COVID-19 infection, and four of this cohort declined vaccination. In those who received one vaccine pre-ASCT ( n = 21), 76% seroconverted with a median titre of 11.3 3 U/ml (IQR 1.5-62.6). In those who received two doses pre-ASCT ( n = 51), 97% seroconverted with a median titre of 494 U/ml (IQR 190.5-1681). In those who received two doses pre-ASCT, anti-S antibodies were detected in the immediate post-ASCT setting, with titres of 373 U/ml (median, IQR 40.6-2326) measured less than or equal to 28 days (median 15 [6-25]) post-ASCT, and 170 U/ml (IQR 55-604) at more than 28 days (median 85 [32-125]) post-ASCT. Patients who received one dose pre-ASCT had lower median titres of 36.5 U/ml (IQR 12.6-1310) measured less than or equal to 28 days (median 15 [12-22] post-ASCT and 7.7 U/ml (IQR 2.9-23.8) at more than 28 days (median 85 [40-104] post-ASCT. Antibody levels declined over time, but patients who had received two vaccines pre-ASCT maintained higher titres post-ASCT compared to those who had received one dose, emphasising the importance of COVID-19 vaccination prior to ASCT. Our patients are advised to be re-vaccinated against COVID-19 3 months after ASCT, and antibody response following re-vaccination was measured in a subgroup ( n = 14). Those who were previously un-vaccinated did not seroconvert following one dose. However, antibody titres in those who had received either one or two vaccines ( n = 12) prior to ASCT increased from 32.4 U/ml (median, IQR 13.4-1082) post-ASCT to 431 U/ml (median, IQR 15.33-2500) following re-vaccination. Those who had received two vaccines pre-ASCT ( n = 2) achieved higher titres than those who had received a single dose. In conclusion, we demonstrated how protective titres fall during the patient's journey through ASCT and our repeated interactions with them. Despite this, patients vaccinated prior to ASCT maintain some level of measurable antibody immediately post-ASCT, which is encouraging as patients are considered most vulnerable to infection during this period. Titres were also boosted effectively after one dose of re-vaccination, compared to those never vaccinated. Current guidance is for adult patients who have undergone ASCT to be considered 'never vaccinated' against COVID-19, in line with pre-COVID-19 re-vaccination practice, and to receive a three-dose primary course followed by a booster vaccination post-ASCT. We must facilitate and encourage our patients to be vaccinated prior and after ASCT in this rapidly changing landscape, especially in context of the spread and evolution of a potentially more transmissible virus. (Table Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background Plasma cell disorders (PCD) are at risk of inadequate immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines due to recognised humoral and cellular immune dysfunction which is multi-factorial and related to host and disease factors. With an estimated risk of 33% mortality from contracting COVID-19 in this population, protection with an anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is critical. Initial extension to vaccination intervals in the United Kingdom to 12 weeks in December 2020 led to concerns that PCD patients would be left vulnerable for an extended period. Methods A clinical audit was performed on measured serological responses in PCD patients after first and second doses of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx-1 nCoV-19 vaccines. Antibody levels were measured using Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2S assay (Roche) for quantitative detection of IgG Abs, specific for the SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein. Positive cut-off of 0.80 U/mL defined serological response. Testing was performed at (or closest to) 4 and 8-weeks post-dose. Baseline nucleocapsid Ab results were available from previous screening in a subset of patients. All patients on CIT underwent 4-weekly swabs. Clinical information was retrieved from medical records. Results 188 PCD patients (155 multiple myeloma, 18 amyloid, 10 SMM/MGUS, other 5 PCD), median age 64 (range 32-84), had serological assessment after both vaccine doses. Fourteen with previous COVID-19 infection were excluded. Of 174 patients, 112 were tested after first dose. 88% (153) were on chemo-immunotherapy treatment (CIT). Seropositive rate after first dose was 63% (71/112);of those with available negative baseline antibody test, 62% (31/50) seroconverted. After second dose, 89% (154/174) were seropositive;of those with negative baseline antibody, 90% (61/68) seroconverted. Expectedly, paired median titres after second dose were significantly higher than post first dose (n=112, 3.245 U/mL (IQR 0.4-25.55) vs 518 U/mL (IQR 29.40-2187) p<0.0001) (Figure 1A). Of 41 patients seronegative after first dose, 25 (61%) seroconverted after second, though with lower titres than those only requiring one dose (Figure 1B). Active CIT, disease response less than PR, >=4 lines therapy, light-chain disease, male gender and not responding to first dose were significant factors for not responding to two vaccine doses. We explored <400 U/mL as sub-optimal response (in keeping with upcoming booster study eligibility, OCTAVE-DUO(1), also encompassing the lower quartile of reported healthy controls(2)), which included 43% (75/174) patients. Age 70 years, male gender, >=4 lines of treatment were independent predictors of less-than-optimal response (anti-CD38 CIT of borderline significance). Importantly, vaccine dosing intervals classified as =<42 vs >42 days (Figure 1C) or 28 +/- 14 days vs 84 +/- 14 days (excluding n=66 in neither) (Figure 1D) did not show difference in both definitions of response, neither did vaccine type. Fourteen with previous COVID-19 infection responded to one vaccine dose, median titres 2121 U/mL (IQR 23.48- 2500)) rising to median 2500 U/mL (IQR 2500-2500) after second dose (Figure 1E), significantly higher than those without previous infection. Conclusion Serological response to COVID-19 vaccine is lower in PCD patients than reported healthy controls at 63% after first dose, rising to 89% after second dose, despite extended dosing intervals. PCD patients should be prioritised for shorter intervals, as we show that patients seronegative after first dose, respond after second dose. Further work in PCD is needed to understand how Ab levels correlate to neutralisation capability, cellular responses, protection from infection and how long seroconversion lasts to better define correlates of protection. A booster vaccination or prophylactic passive antibody strategy may be required for those identified at risk, shown not to have responded to two vaccine doses or to have less-than-optimal response. Results from these trials will be eagerly awaited. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background Although the median age of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) is 70-74 years, recruitment of frail older patients to clinical trials is poor. The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) frailty score predicts survival, adverse events and treatment tolerability using age, the Katz Activity of Daily Living, the Lawton Instrumental Activity of Daily Living, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index, rather than age alone. Despite IMWG score prognostic biomarker capability, to date no evidence exists of its predictive biomarker potential. The UK-MRA Myeloma Risk Profile (MRP) has also been shown in both clinical trial and real-world populations to be a prognostic biomarker in transplant ineligible patients but prospective comparisons of the two scores have not been previously conducted. Study Design/Methods The FiTNEss trial (Myeloma XIV, NCT03720041, Figure 1A) is a UK-MRA phase III, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial for newly diagnosed MM patients not suitable for stem cell transplant. The primary objectives are 1) to compare early treatment cessation (<60 days from randomisation) between patients randomised to standard (reactive) and frailty-adjusted (adaptive, based on IMWG score) induction therapy delivery with the triplet ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) 2) to compare progression free survival for maintenance lenalidomide plus placebo (R) and lenalidomide plus ixazomib (IR). The FiTNEss trial is designed as an all-comers study with few exclusion criteria other than necessary for safety including some haematological and biochemical parameters, but there is no exclusion based on renal function. Patients with grade 2 or greater baseline peripheral neuropathy, current systemic infection or recent surgery or other cancer are excluded. Here we report the demographics for the first patients recruited, including IMWG frailty assessments and MRP to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting frail patients to randomised phase III clinical trials. Results The FiTNEss trial opened on 04/08/2020 during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. At the time of data cut off (14/07/2021) recruitment is active at 84 sites, with 180 patients randomised. Baseline characteristics for the randomised patients are shown in Figure 1B. The median age of patients is 77 years (range 64, 93) with 36.1% aged 76-80 and 26.1% over 80. In keeping with the older patient population 26.6% have an ECOG performance status of 2 or 3 and 31.7% ISS stage III. The IMWG frailty classification at baseline is FIT 43/180 (23.9%), UNFIT 53/180 (29.4%) and FRAIL 84/180 (46.7%). The effect of using age groups on the definition of patient frailty was explored. The IMWG frailty score defines all patients over 80 as FRAIL whilst an age of 76-80 contributes one point to the score. An analysis of patients' frailty was repeated with the contribution of age removed. For those aged over 80 years (n=47, 100% FRAIL) we found that 20 (42.6%) would have been re-classified as FIT and 18 (38.3%) as UNFIT, with only 9 (19.2%) retaining the FRAIL category. For those aged 76-80 (n=65, 53.8% UNFIT, 46.2% FRAIL) all 35 patients previously classified as UNFIT became FIT (53.8%) whilst 19 (29.2%) classed as FRAIL became UNFIT with 11 (16.9%) remaining FRAIL. The MRP classification, using age as a continuous variable, was Low-risk 45/180 (25.0%), Medium-risk 46/180 (25.6%), High-risk 75/180 (41.7%) and not available for 14/180 (7.8%) patients. Concordance between the IMWG frailty score and the MRP occurred in 48.9% of patients (88/180). 37.2% of FIT patients were classified as MRP Low-risk, 32.1% of UNFIT patients as MRP Medium-risk and 65.5% of FRAIL patients as MRP High-risk. Discussion The FiTNEss trial demonstrates the feasibility of recruiting older, less fit patients to clinical trials. Recruitment of patients classified as FRAIL was very high despite the COVID pandemic, likely due to the all-oral nature of the regimen under investigation enabling patients to avoid attendance at hospital day units for treatment and associa ed exposure risk. In the population recruited to date we found age to be a key contributor to the FRAIL category of the IMWG frailty score. Concordance between IMWG frailty score and MRP was highest in FRAIL/High-risk patients. The first interim analysis of the primary objectives is planned when 50% of required participants for R1 have reached 60 days post R1, which is anticipated in Q2 of 2022. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Cook: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria;Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria;Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria;Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Pawlyn: Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Celgene / BMS: 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;Amgen: Honoraria. Royle: BMS: Research Funding;Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding;Amgen: Research Funding;Takeda: Research Funding. Coulson: BMS / Celgene: Honoraria;Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding;Amgen: Research Funding;Takeda: Research Funding. Jenner: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Pfizer: Consultancy;Takeda: Consultancy. Kishore: Sanofi: Other: Attending fees;Celgene: Other: Attending fees;Takeda: Other: Attending fees;Jannsen: Other: Attending fees. Rabin: BMS / Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support for meetings;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support for meetings;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support for meetings. Best: BMS/Celgene: Research Funding;Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding;Amgen: Research Funding;Takeda: Research Funding. Gillson: BMS / Celgene: Research Funding;Meck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding;Amgen: Research Funding;Takeda: Research Funding. Henderson: Takeda: Research Funding;Amgen: Research Funding;Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding;BMS / Celgene: Research Funding. Olivier: Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding;Takeda: Research Funding;Amgen: Research Funding;Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Kaiser: AbbVie: Consultancy;GSK: Consultancy;Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding;Pfizer: Consultancy;Amgen: Honoraria;Seattle Genetics: Consultancy;Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Educational support;Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Educational support, Research Funding;BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Drayson: Abingdon Health: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Jones: Janssen: Honoraria;BMS/Celgene: Other: Conference fees. Cairns: Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding;Amgen: Research Funding;Takeda: Research Funding;Celgene / BMS: Other: travel support, Research Funding. Jackson: celgene BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;J and J: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;oncopeptides: Consultancy;Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Frailty-score adapted dosing strategies
ABSTRACT
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with microvascular dysfunction. Non-invasive thermal imaging can hypothetically detect changes in perfusion, inflammation and vascular injury. We sought to develop a new point-of-care, non-contact thermal imaging tool to detect COVID-19 by microvascular dysfunction, based on image processing algorithms and machine learning analysis. Materials and methods: We captured thermal images of the back of 101 individuals, with (n=62) and without (n=39) COVID-19, using a portable thermal camera that connects directly to smartphones. We developed new image processing algorithms that automatically extract multiple texture and shape features of the thermal images (Figure 1A). We then evaluated the ability of our thermal features to detect COVID-19 and systemic changes of heat distribution associated with microvascular disease. We also assessed correlations between thermal imaging to conventional biomarkers and chest X-ray (CXR). Results: Our novel image processing algorithms achieved up to 92% sensitivity in detecting COVID-19 with an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.93;p<0.01). Systemic alterations in blood flow associated with vascular disease were observed across the entire back. Thermal imaging scores were inversely correlated with clinical variables associated with COVID-19 disease progression, including blood oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, and D-dimer. The thermal imaging findings were not correlated with the results of CXR. Conclusions: We show, for the first time, that a hand-held thermal imaging device can be used to detect COVID-19. Non-invasive thermal imaging could be used to screen for COVID-19 in out-of-hospital settings, especially in low-income regions with limited imaging resources. Moreover, thermal imaging might detect micro-angiopathies and endothelial dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 and could possibly improve risk stratification of infected individuals (Figure 1B).
ABSTRACT
The rapid transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-driven infection signifies an ultimate challenge to global health, and the development of effective strategies for preventing and/or mitigating its effects are of the utmost importance. In the current study, an in-depth investigation for the understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 inactivation route using graphene oxide (GO) is presented. We focus on the antiviral effect of GO nanosheets on three SARS-CoV-2 strains: Wuhan, B.1.1.7 (U.K. variant), and P.1 (Brazilian variant). Plaque assay and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) showed that 50 and 98% of the virus in a supernatant could be cleared following incubation with GO (100 μg/mL) for 1 and 60 min, respectively. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis and protein (spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins) decomposition evaluation confirm a two-step virus inactivation mechanism that includes (i) adsorption of the positively charged spike of SARS-CoV-2 on the negatively charged GO surface and (ii) neutralization/inactivation of the SARS-CoV-2 on the surface of GO through decomposition of the viral protein. As the interaction of S protein with human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is required for SARS-CoV-2 to enter into human cells, the damage to the S protein using GO makes it a potential candidate for use in contributing to the inhibition of the worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, our findings provide the potential for the construction of an effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 face mask using a GO nanosheet, which could contribute greatly to preventing the spread of the virus. In addition, as the effect of surface contamination can be severe in the spreading of SARS-CoV-2, the development of efficient anti-SARS-CoV-2 protective surfaces/coatings based on GO nanosheets could play a significant role in controlling the spread of the virus through the utilization of GO-based nonwoven cloths, filters, and so on. © 2021 American Chemical Society.
ABSTRACT
Background: Plasma cell disorder (PCD) patients are extremely vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection due to disease-related impaired humoral and cellular immunity as well as the receipt of immunosuppressive therapy. Reported mortality in a large cohort of patients with plasma cell disorders is 33%. The roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine is welcomed in this population, however there is concern of suboptimal antibody responses, from previous experience with the influenza vaccine. There is urgent need to understand the humoral response to SARSCoV- 2 infection in these patients, in the context of systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT). Aims: We aimed to investigate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a cohort of PCD patients, the relationship with symptomatic infection, PCD characteristics and receipt of SACT. Methods: SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening with the Elecsys Anti-SARSCoV- 2 assay (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), a semi-quantitative assay of IgG and IgM against the nucleocapsid (N) antigen was introduced for PCD patients at our institution in July 2020. Clinical information was retrieved from the medical records. Patients with unexpected positive antibody tests were asked about possible past contacts and exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Results: We report on a six-month period of routine SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening. Two-hundred and forty-three PCD patients had one antibody test, 106 had serial samples. Total seroprevalence was 10.7% (26/243), of which 12 were patients with known PCR-swab positive COVID-19 disease. In a separate but overlapping cohort, 41 patients have had PCR confirmed COVID-19 disease;20 of these patients were tested, and 12 (60%) had seroconverted. Median time to testing from positive PCR test in the antibody positive patients was 86.5 days (range 22-256) and in antibody negative patients, 30.5 days (range 5-176 days). No PCD or COVID-19 disease factors were found to influence the likelihood of mounting an antibody response after PCR-confirmed COVID-19 disease in these 20 patients. In our screened cohort, 14 (6.3%) patients were unexpectedly antibody positive. Their clinical course is summarised in the included figure. The majority 85.7% (12/14) of patients described no COVID-19 symptoms. Seven (50%) patients were on SACT (including ixazomib, pomalidomide, lenalidomide and dexamethasone combinations) throughout the period from possible exposure to positive antibody test, with no interruption to their ongoing oral immunomodulatory treatment. Ten antibody positive patients had serial positive results at median 45 days (range 21-119) apart, demonstrating persistence, but some decline in titre over time. Summary/Conclusion: Our seroprevalence of 10.7% is lower but not dissimilar to that reported in the London population over a similar time period reflecting shielding behaviours in our patients but also the challenges of protecting them during high SARS-CoV-2 incidence in the community. Nevertheless, PCD patients retain the ability to seroconvert, even with asymptomatic COVID-19 disease and while on immunomodulatory therapy. Seroconversion rates following symptomatic infection appear lower however, with evidence of delay compared to the general population. These data support the advice for COVID-19 vaccination to be offered to all PCD patients although the suboptimal humoral response calls for close antibody monitoring of all vaccinated PCD patients and timely booster doses.
ABSTRACT
Background: ASCT is standard of care in biologically fit, newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients (pts), offering deeper responses with prolonged progression free/overall survival and improved quality of life (QOL). However, with the UK's 1st national lockdown on 23/03/2020, several guidelines recommended deferring ASCT for MM due to risks of infection, with resource limitations forcing some units to suspend ASCT entirely. Such changes to pts' treatment plans inevitably altered their lived experience during these uncertain times with expected impact on QOL. Aims: To provide a snapshot of how COVID-19 affected the MM ASCT service in a single UK institution, including changes to chemotherapy treatment plans, timing, and prioritisation of ASCT. To gain insight into MM pts' understanding of their disease, initial therapy and ASCT, and their response to therapy changes. Methods: We collected data on 115 NDMM pts who had a stem cell harvest (PBSCH) for upfront ASCT from December 2019-January 2021. During this time, 3 national lockdowns led to the ASCT service being suspended twice (March-June 2020 and January-February 2021). 25 pts within this cohort underwent a semi-structured interview via telephone. Inductive and deductive framework analysis was utilised to determine key themes and subthemes. Results: Pts were discussed in multidisciplinary meetings and decisions taken to delay or defer ASCT based on pt fitness, disease risk and depth of response. 73 (63%) proceeded to ASCT and 42 (37%) were deferred indefinitely (ASCTdef). The 2 groups were similar in terms of gender, age and ISS, but there were more pts with adverse risk cytogenetics in the ASCT group (26% vs 12%). Both groups were predominantly treated with bortezomib-based induction;in 11/73 (15%) ASCT and 7/42 (16.7%) ASCTdef pts treatment was changed to an oral, lenalidomide- based regimen to reduce hospital attendances for parenteral therapy. Overall response to induction in the 2 groups was similar;97.3% and 95.2% and 3VGPR 59% and 52.4% in ASCT and ASCTdef pts respectively. 28/73 ASCT pts had no delay to ASCT and none received bridging chemotherapy;45/73 had delayed ASCT (median 11 months [5-17] from start of induction) of whom 31 were put on bridging chemotherapy. In the 42 ASCTdef pts, 5 relapsed within ≤6 weeks of PBSCH and received 2nd line therapy, 30 were put on holding chemotherapy (previously not offered in the UK) as per NHS England COVID-19 interim guidance and 7 remained treatment-free post-induction. Thematic analysis identified 6 overarching themes: a) psychological response to diagnosis and initial therapy, b) beliefs and opinions about the benefits of ASCT, c) perceptions of information provided about MM and ASCT, d) high levels of fear and anxiety around COVID-19 and e) feelings about ASCT disruption or delay due to COVID-19 f) perceptions of care. Example subthemes were beliefs that ASCT would provide a long-remission/best chance of normality including freedom from chemotherapy and associated side-effects, disappointment and devastation at COVID-related treatment delays (in spite of high anxiety about infection) and exceptionally high levels of trust in the transplant team.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 CANDOR study compared carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD) to carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with multiple myeloma who have relapsed after 1-3 prior lines of therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03158688). In the previously reported primary analysis (Dimopoulos et al, Lancet 2020), a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit was demonstrated in patients treated with KdD vs patients treated with Kd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.46-0.85];two-sided P=0.0027). However, after a median follow-up of 16.9 months, median PFS was not reached in the KdD arm. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety outcomes from the CANDOR study. Methods: Adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) received 28-day cycles of KdD or Kd (randomized 2:1). In the primary analysis, PFS was the primary endpoint and overall survival (OS) a key secondary endpoint. In this prespecified interim OS analysis, statistical testing was based on the actual number of OS events observed by the data cutoff (approximately 36 months after enrollment of the first patient);PFS was summarized descriptively. Disease progression was determined locally by investigators in an unblinded manner and centrally by the sponsor using a validated computer algorithm (Onyx Response Computer Algorithm [ORCA]) in a blinded manner. PFS and OS were compared between the KdD and Kd arms using a stratified log-rank test, and HRs were estimated by a stratified Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: Patients were randomized to KdD (n = 312) and Kd (n = 154). Of all randomized patients, median age was approximately 64 years;42% received previous lenalidomide, and 33% were lenalidomide refractory;90% received previous bortezomib, and 29% were bortezomib refractory. At the data cutoff date of June 15, 2020, 199 (63.8%) patients in the KdD arm and 88 (57.1%) in the Kd arm remained on study. Among patients treated with KdD and Kd, 140 (44.9%) and 85 (55.2%) had PFS events, respectively;median follow-up was 27.8 months (KdD) and 27.0 months (Kd). Median PFS by ORCA was 28.6 months for the KdD arm versus 15.2 months for the Kd arm (HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.45-0.78];Figure). OS data were not mature and will be updated at a future prespecified analysis. Median treatment duration was 79.3 weeks with KdD versus 40.3 weeks with Kd. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 87.0% and 75.8% of patients in the KdD and Kd arms, respectively, and fatal AEs occurred in 8.8% and 4.6%;one fatal AE in the KdD arm (due to arrhythmia) and one fatal AE in the Kd arm (due to COVID-19 pneumonia) had occurred since the primary analysis. Carfilzomib treatment discontinuation rates due to AEs were 26.0% with KdD and 22.2% with Kd. Exposure-adjusted AE rates per 100 patient years were: 171.2 and 151.9 for grade ≥3 AEs and 6.9 and 5.6 for fatal AEs in the KdD and Kd arms, respectively. Updated data by key subgroups will be presented. Conclusion: With approximately 11 months of additional follow-up, a 13.4-month improvement in median PFS was observed in patients treated with KdD (28.6 months) versus patients treated with Kd (15.2 months;HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.45-0.78]). Safety was consistent with previously reported results. KdD continues to show a favorable benefit-risk profile and represents an efficacious treatment option for patients with RRMM. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Celgene: Consultancy, Ho oraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau. Quach: GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy;Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding;GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Mateos: EDOMundipharma: Consultancy;Adaptive: Consultancy;Pharmamar: Consultancy;GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy;AbbVie: Consultancy;Takeda: Consultancy;Amgen: Consultancy;Celgene: Consultancy;Janssen: Consultancy. Landgren: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria;Merck: Other;Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria;Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria;Glenmark: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria;Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria;Karyopharma: Research Funding;Merck: Other;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding;Takeda: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding;Glenmark: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria;Seattle Genetics: Research Funding;Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria;Seattle Genetics: Research Funding;Takeda: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding;BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria;Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding;Karyopharma: Research Funding. Leleu: Incyte: Honoraria;Merck: Honoraria;Novartis: Honoraria;Amgen: Honoraria;GSK: Honoraria;Sanofi: Honoraria;BMS-celgene: Honoraria;Janssen: Honoraria;Oncopeptide: Honoraria;AbbVie: Honoraria;Carsgen: Honoraria;Karyopharm: Honoraria. Siegel: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Celulatiry: Consultancy;Karyopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Weisel: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria;Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria;Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria;GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gavriatopoulou: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria;Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria;Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol: Janssen: Consultancy;Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Rabin: Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Takeda, Karyopharm, Amgen: Consultancy;Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Takeda: Other: Travel;Jansse, BMS/Celgene, Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Nooka: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal Fees: Travel/accomodations/expenses, Research Funding;Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria;Adaptive Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ding: Amgen: Current Employment. Zahlten-Kumeli: Amgen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded compan . Usmani: Celgene: Other;GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding;Pharmacyclics: Research Funding;Array Biopharma: Research Funding;Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding;Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding;Incyte: Research Funding;SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Abbvie: Consultancy;BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding.
ABSTRACT
Content: As multiple myeloma (MM) therapies advance, understanding patients', caregivers' and physicians' perspectives on, and satisfaction with, available treatment options, and the impact of these options on quality of life (QoL), is important. EASEMENT is a real-world, observational, cross-sectional study conducted in the UK, Canada and Italy using retrospective chart reviews and surveys. The primary objectives were to describe patient and caregiver QoL (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire [EQ-5D-5L]), patient preference for oral or injectable therapies (single discrete-choice question) and patient satisfaction (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication-9 items [TSQM-9];convenience, effectiveness and global satisfaction subscales;score range 0 100, indicating lower-to-higher satisfaction) by newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) or relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) status and by investigator-classified treatment injectable-containing ( injectables') versus fully oral ( orals'). A secondary objective was to compare direct healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) between injectable and oral treatments. Descriptive/unadjusted data are presented. 399 patients were enrolled, including 192 NDMM and 206 RRMM patients (status missing for 1 patient). Median age was 71 years (interquartile range 64 76), 61% were male, 74% were retired, 24% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status ?2 and 51%/41% were/were not living with their caregiver (8% missing). At the time of study visit, among NDMM patients, 77% were receiving injectables and 23% orals (treatment regimens are summarised in the Table). 9% of NDMM patients preferred injectables and 34% orals (52% no preference, 5% missing). Among RRMM patients, 42% were receiving injectables and 58% orals (treatment regimens are summarised in the Table). 3% of RRMM patients preferred injectables and 55% orals (34% no preference, 7% missing). There were no differences in treatment satisfaction between NDMM and RRMM patients. Results from the TSQM domains are reported for injectables versus orals, respectively;mean convenience score was significantly lower (74.7 vs 78.3;P = 0.0414);mean TSQM perception of effectiveness (72.4 vs 74.7;P = 0.3857) and global satisfaction (72.1 vs 74.2;P = 0.1948) scores did not differ. QoL dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) were not significantly different between NDMM and RRMM patients or between patients receiving injectables or orals. When patients were asked to rate their health on a visual analogue scale (range 0, worst imaginable health, to 100, best imaginable health, as perceived by patients), mean score was significantly higher in NDMM versus RRMM patients (68.0 vs 63.1, P = 0.0313), but similar between patients receiving injectables versus orals (65.0 vs 66.2, P = 0.9069). Preliminary HRU data suggest that the rate of outpatient visits related to MM and its complications was numerically higher among patients receiving injectables versus orals (2.6 vs 2.3 outpatient visits per patient during the last 6 months or since RR disease). EASEMENT data indicate patients' perceived greater convenience with orals versus injectables and that more patients prefer orals versus injectables. Patients receiving orals versus injectables required a numerically lower rate of outpatient visits. Orals are useful options for patients who cannot, or prefer not to, travel to clinics, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.