Bendamustine in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A phase II trial.

Treatment of patients with resistant/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) is an unmet need. In this phase II study, we evaluated the role of bendamustine, pomalidomide and dexamethasone combination in this setting. Between February 2020 and December 2021, 28 patients were recruited. Patients received bendamustine 120 mg/m2 day 1, pomalidomide 3 mg days 1-21, and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 11, 22, regimen given for a maximum of six cycles. The median (range) age of the patients was 54 (30-76) years and 15 (53.6%) were males. Patients had received a median (range) of three (two-six) prior lines and 85.7% were refractory to both lenalidomide and bortezomib. The primary end-point was the overall response rate (ORR) defined as ≥partial response after at least three cycles. Secondary objectives were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression and overall survival (OS). An intent-to-treat analysis was done. An ORR of 57.6% was achieved. Patients with extramedullary myeloma had a better response rate. At a median follow-up of 8.6 months, the median PFS and OS were 6.2 and 9.7 months respectively. Toxicity was manageable; mainly haematological (neutropenia, 46.4%; anaemia, 42.8%; and thrombocytopenia, 7.1%). Bendamustine, pomalidomide and dexamethasone could be a novel combination for the heavily pretreated, lenalidomide-refractory myeloma population.

Infections in relapsed myeloma patients treated with isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone during the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial results of a UK-wide real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: There are no real-world data describing infection morbidity in relapsed/refractory myeloma (RRMM) patients treated with anti-CD38 isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex). In this UK-wide retrospective study, we set out to evaluate infections experienced by routine care patients who received this novel therapy across 24 cancer centres during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The primary endpoint was infection morbidity (incidence, grading, hospitalization) as well as infection-related deaths. Secondary outcomes were clinical predictors of increased incidence of any grade (G2-5) and high grade (≥G3) infections. RESULTS: In a total cohort of 107 patients who received a median (IQR) of 4 cycles (2-8), 23.4% of patients experienced ≥1 any grade (G2-5) infections (total of 31 episodes) and 18.7% of patients experienced ≥1 high grade (≥G3) infections (total of 22 episodes). Median time (IQR) from start of therapy to first episode was 29 days (16-75). Six patients experienced COVID-19 infection, of whom 5 were not vaccinated and 1 was fully vaccinated. The cumulative duration of infection-related hospitalizations was 159 days. The multivariate (MVA) Poisson Regression analysis demonstrated that a higher co-morbidity burden with Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) score ≥4 (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 3, p = 0.012) and sub-optimal myeloma response less than a partial response (

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.

Can roflumilast become steroid-sparing alternative in the treatment of COVID-19?

According to WHO the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is yet to come. Despite of the exceptional measures being undertaken by regulatory agencies to expedite vaccine development, we may be several months if not years away from an effective vaccine. In such unprecedented times, the only resort nations have at their disposal is to identify and repurpose existing drugs against COVID-19 based on their known clinical or pharmacological profile which can provide direct or corroborative evidence of favorable benefit: risk in the management of COVID-19. Immune-mediated inflammation remains the hallmark of severe complications related to COVID-19 and while corticosteroids have shown preliminary evidence of benefit, they can act like a double-edged sword for majority of COVID-19 patients. Therefore, there is a need to identify 'non-steroid' potent and safe anti-inflammatory agents for use in therapeutic armamentarium against COVID-19. This article makes a case for one such existing drug, roflumilast, that can emerge as a steroid-sparing alternative against COVID-19.

Clinical efficacy, speed of improvement and safety of apremilast for the treatment of adult Psoriasis during COVID-19 pandemic.

Time to improvement is a crucial characteristic for effective treatments of chronic inflammatory conditions, such as psoriasis. Apremilast is a recently approved drug, belonging to the small molecule phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, whose optimal safety and efficacy profile is somewhat affected by slow activity rate in clinical trials. Real world case series are suggesting a more consistent improvement, and with this additional personal investigation on 48 patients, we signal that 58% of patients achieved Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, and 19% PASI 75 improvement in the first 8 weeks of treatment. Results at 16-week are remarkable, with overall 55% of patients achieving PASI 75, 21% PASI 90 and 14% PASI 100. Only 8 patients (18, 6%) had slightly improved, although satisfied with the regimen, and determined to continue. Noteworthy, our population was rather problematic in terms of comorbidities (86%), and resistance to other treatments, with only 28% naïve to systemics, including biologics. Moreover, the observation period includes the Italian outbreak of COVID-19 epidemic, and further information on apremilast safety are provided, no one of the patients having stopped treatment. In such a critical period, the apremilast satisfactory speed of therapeutic response in a real-world setting has further strengthens patient's compliance to remain safely at home, which is the best strategy to limit contagion.