In-class transition from bortezomib-based therapy to IRd is an effective approach in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of in-class transition to all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) following parenteral bortezomib (V)-based induction versus continued V-based therapy in US oncology clinics. Patients & methods: Non-transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) receiving in-class transition to IRd (N = 100; US MM-6), or V-based therapy (N = 111; INSIGHT MM). Results: Following inverse probability of treatment weighting, overall response rate was 73.2% with IRd versus 57.5% with V-based therapy (p < 0.0001). Median duration of treatment was 10.8 versus 5.3 months (p < 0.0001). Overall, 18/24% of patients discontinued IRd/V-based therapy due to adverse events. Conclusion: IRd after V-based induction was associated with significantly improved overall response rate and duration of treatment than continued V-based combination therapy. Clinical Trial Registration: US MM-6: NCT03173092; INSIGHT MM: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

In-class transition (iCT) of proteasome inhibitor-based therapy: a community approach to multiple myeloma management.

Long-term proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatment can improve multiple myeloma (MM) outcomes, but this can be difficult to achieve in clinical practice due to toxicity, comorbidities, and the burden of repeated parenteral administration. US MM-6 (NCT03173092) enrolled transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed MM to receive all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd; ≤39 cycles or until progression or toxicity) following three cycles of bortezomib-based induction. Primary endpoint: 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary/exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life (QoL), treatment satisfaction, and actigraphy. At datacut, in the fully accrued cohort of 140 patients, median age was 73 years with 42% aged ≥75 and 61% deemed frail; 10% of patients were ongoing on treatment. After a median follow-up of 27 months, the 2-year PFS rate was 71% (95% confidence interval: 61-78). ORR increased from 62% at the end of induction to 80% following in-class transition (iCT) to IRd for a median of 11 months. The 2-year OS rate was 86%. The overall safety profile/actigraphy levels were consistent with previous reports; QoL/treatment satisfaction scores were stable with ongoing therapy. iCT to IRd may allow prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy and a tolerable safety profile, while maintaining QoL.

Feasibility of Long-term Proteasome Inhibition in Multiple Myeloma by in-class Transition From Bortezomib to Ixazomib.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing US MM-6 study is investigating in-class transition (iCT) from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral IRd (ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) with the aim of increasing proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based treatment adherence and duration while maintaining patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and improving outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: US community sites are enrolling non-transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) with no evidence of progressive disease after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based therapy to receive IRd (up to 39 cycles or until progression or toxicity). The patients use mobile or wearable digital devices to collect actigraphy (activity and sleep) data and electronically complete HRQoL, treatment satisfaction and medication adherence questionnaires. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. The key secondary endpoints include response rates and therapy duration. RESULTS: At the data cutoff, 84 patients had been treated (median age 73 years; 44% aged ≥ 75 years; 49% men; 15% Black or African American; and 10% Hispanic or Latino). Of the 84 patients, 62% were continuing therapy. The mean duration of total PI therapy was 10.1 months and for the IRd regimen was 7.3 months. With an 8-month median follow-up, the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 86% (95% confidence interval, 73%-93%) from both the start of bortezomib-based treatment and the start of IRd. The overall response rate was 62% (complete response, 4%; very good partial response, 25%; partial response, 33%) after bortezomib-based induction and 70% (complete response, 26%; very good partial response, 29%; partial response, 15%) after iCT. The IRd safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial data, and HRQoL and treatment satisfaction were maintained. CONCLUSION: The patients included in the US MM-6 study are representative of the real-world US MM population. The use of iCT might permit prolonged PI-based therapy with promising efficacy, without impacting patients' HRQoL or treatment satisfaction.

Drug-drug interaction between methotrexate and levetiracetam resulting in delayed methotrexate elimination.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of delayed methotrexate (MTX) elimination while receiving concomitant levetiracetam. CASE REPORT: A 46-year-old man with relapsed osteosarcoma of the base of the skull receiving high-dose MTX tolerated his first cycle of MTX with elimination to nontoxic MTX levels (≤0.1 µmol/L) within 90 hours. After hospital discharge, the patient experienced seizures secondary to brain metastasis and started on levetiracetam, which was continued as maintenance therapy. The patient experienced delayed MTX elimination during cycles 2, 3, and 4 while receiving levetiracetam. On average, elimination to nontoxic MTX levels took 130 hours (106-144 hours). Before the fifth cycle of MTX, lorazepam was substituted for the levetiracetam. MTX was eliminated to nontoxic levels within 95 hours. During all cycles, the patient received standard supportive care and serum creatinine remained stable. No other drugs known to interact with MTX were administered. DISCUSSION: This possible drug interaction has only been reported once in the pediatric population. With a score of 6 on the Drug Interaction Probability Scale for evaluating causation of drug interactions, it is probable that the delayed MTX elimination was caused by an interaction with levetiracetam. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of levetiracetam and MTX may result in delayed elimination of MTX, increasing the likelihood of toxicity. Consideration should be given to temporarily switching from levetiracetam to another antiepileptic (ie, lorazepam) to prevent this interaction. This is particularly important in those experiencing delayed elimination with prior cycles of concomitant MTX and levetiracetam or those at greater risk for MTX toxicity.