Melflufen or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide (OCEAN): a randomised, head-to-head, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60-72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61-72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0-8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2-5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4-22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1-23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1-25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0-25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1-31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8-23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85-1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Oncopeptides AB.

COVID-19 patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis on biologic immunosuppressant therapy vs apremilast in North Spain.

Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory treatments are critical for the management of inflammatory and autoimmune conditions such as psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. Similar to those illnesses, the lung injury and acute respiratory distress shown in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are the result of a disruption in the balance of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. This hyperinflammatory response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), associated with the severity of the coronavirus disease, is called the cytokine storm. There is a growing concern regarding how patients on immunosuppressant biologic therapies might be at higher risk of being infected and whether they need to discontinue their treatment preemptively. Clinical data on COVID-19-infected patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are still scarce. Here, we presented seven cases of these type of patients. The patient infected with COVID-19 on apremilast and the one on apremilast with infected spouse showed the best safety profile and mildest symptoms. One of the secukinumab patients also presented a relatively good outcome. Infliximab patients and the one with serious comorbidities showed the worst outcome. Even though more clinical data are yet needed to draw strong conclusions, apremilast could be a safer alternative for dermatology and rheumatology patients in case of clinically important active infection.

Ixazomib-based frontline therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in real-life practice showed comparable efficacy and safety profile with those reported in clinical trial: a multi-center study.

The induction therapy containing ixazomib, an oral proteasome inhibitor, has shown favorable efficacy and safety in clinical trials, but its experience in real-life remains limited. In routine practice, few patients received ixazomib-based induction therapy due to reasons including (1) patients' preference on oral regimens, (2) concerns on adverse events (AEs) of other intravenous/subcutaneous regimens, (3) requirements for less center visits, and (4) fears of COVID-19 and other infectious disease exposures. With the aim of assessing the real-life effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-based induction therapy, we performed this multi-center, observational study on 85 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients from 14 medical centers. Ixazomib-based regimens included ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in 44.7% of patients, ixazomib-dexamethasone (Id) in 29.4%, and Id plus another agent (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, or daratumumab) in 25.9%. Different ixazomib-based therapies were applied due to (1) financial burdens or limitations on local health insurance coverage, (2) concerns on treatment tolerance, and (3) drug accessibility issue. Ten patients received ixazomib maintenance. The median age was 67 years; 43.5% had ISS stage III disease; 48.2% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≥ 2; and 17.6% with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Overall response rate for all 85 patients was 95.3%, including 65.9% very good partial response or better and 29.5% complete responses. The median time to response was 30 days. The response rate was similar across different ixazomib-based regimens. Median progression-free survival was not reached. Severe AEs (≥ grade 3) were reported in 29.4% of patients. No grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy (PN) occurred. Patients received a median of 6 (range 1-20) cycles of ixazomib treatment; 56.6% remained on treatment at data cutoff; 15.3% discontinued treatment due to intolerable AEs. These results support that the ixazomib-based frontline therapy was highly effective with acceptable toxicity in routine practice and the ixazomib oral regimens could be good alternative options for NDMM patients.

Outcome of COVID-19 in multiple myeloma patients in relation to treatment.

COVID-19 has emerged as a global pandemic. Cancer patients have been reported to be at higher risk for adverse outcome of COVID-19. Studies are ongoing to decipher the risk factors and risk groups among cancer patients as well as strategies to refine treatment approaches. Here, we report eight patients with multiple myeloma that underwent immunomodulatory therapies with daratumumab or lenalidomide-based combination treatments and one patient with smoldering multiple myeloma, all of which presented with symptomatic COVID-19. We report that patients that succumbed to COVID-19 presented with either progressive tumor disease under daratumumab treatment or were in remission under lenalidomide-dexamethasone treatment.