Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem-cell transplantation, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone increased progression-free survival and the response rate at the cost of an increase in infections.

Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m 2 dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m 2, on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference −0·4%, 95% CI −14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9–16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1–15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5–11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6–10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1–80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1–85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

Background Early (often continuous) treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) with lenalidomide has become common practice, leading to an increase in lenalidomide‐refractory disease. Methods We report real‐world treatment patterns, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and outcomes for patients with lenalidomide‐refractory MM using data from Optum US Claims and Optum electronic health record (EHR) databases with index date from January 2016 to March 2022 (Claims) or December 2021 (EHR). Eligible patients had received 1–3 prior lines of therapy (LOT), including a proteasome inhibitor. Results A total of 1383 and 1597 patients with lenalidomide‐refractory disease were included from the Claims and EHR databases, respectively, with median ages of 72 and 68 years and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index scores of 4.0 and 3.1. The most common treatment combinations were daratumumab–pomalidomide–dexamethasone, daratumumab–bortezomib–dexamethasone, and pomalidomide–dexamethasone (~5% each). From LOT 2 to LOT 6, treatment attrition (patients who died or received no further treatment) was 95.2% to 95.9%. Median time to next treatment was 5.4 (Claims) and 5.9 months (EHR). Median OS was 35.2 (Claims) and 41.2 months (EHR). HCRU was consistent across LOT. Conclusions Patients with lenalidomide‐refractory MM who received 1–3 prior LOT had poor outcomes and moved quickly through available therapies, demonstrating an unmet need to improve outcomes in this difficult‐to‐treat patient population.

Background Relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is a disease that is nonresponsive or progressive on therapy, and although patients can achieve remission, relapse is common. As more treatment options become available for multiple myeloma (MM), it is important to understand patients' experiences of current and emerging therapies. Aims This study aimed to better understand patient experiences with treatment and therapies for MM using qualitative interviews and patient‐reported information (PRI) shared on social media. Methods Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with adults with RRMM who resided in the United States. In addition to the interviews, PRI was collected from YouTube and a patient advocacy website. Key themes from the interviews and PRI were summarized, and illustrative quotes were extracted. Results Twenty participants were interviewed; 11 were female, and mean (standard deviation) age was 60 (7.0) years. The PRI included 14 posts and 19 unique contributors (10 were female). Similar treatment‐related symptoms were reported in the interviews and PRI. Fatigue and pain were the most frequently reported symptoms while receiving treatment in both the interviews and PRI. These symptoms had a meaningful impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL); being off treatment and returning to normal living was described as an ideal treatment outcome. Nearly all interview participants (n = 18) preferred a treatment that would allow for a treatment‐free interval, if it had the same efficacy and safety profile as a continuous treatment. Conclusion The symptom experience reported in this study is consistent with known RRMM symptoms and HRQOL impacts. Additionally, this study highlighted that patients' treatment expectations are changing relative to their past treatment experience. Individuals living with RRMM strongly desire therapies with a treatment‐free interval and minimal impact on their HRQOL.

In a study involving patients with refractory multiple myeloma, the anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher rate of response than bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. Multiple myeloma is associated with organ dysfunction, including bone lesions, anemia, renal insufficiency, and hypercalcemia. 1 , 2 Proteasome inhibitors (e.g., bortezomib) in combination with glucocorticoids are standard regimens for relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma 3 (definitions of these terms are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org) and have contributed considerably to patient survival. 4 Nevertheless, almost all patients will have a relapse. Daratumumab is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38, which is highly expressed on myeloma cells and other hematopoietic cell types. 5 , 6 Daratumumab has direct and indirect antitumor activity and diverse . . .

CARTITUDE-1 aimed to assess the safety and clinical activity of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy with two B-cell maturation antigen-targeting single-domain antibodies, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with poor prognosis. This single-arm, open-label, phase 1b/2 study done at 16 centres in the USA enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, who received 3 or more previous lines of therapy or were double-refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory drug, and had received a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and anti-CD38 antibody. A single cilta-cel infusion (target dose 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg) was administered 5–7 days after start of lymphodepletion. The primary endpoints were safety and confirmation of the recommended phase 2 dose (phase 1b), and overall response rate (phase 2) in all patients who received treatment. Key secondary endpoints were duration of response and progression-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548207. Between July 16, 2018, and Oct 7, 2019, 113 patients were enrolled. 97 patients (29 in phase 1b and 68 in phase 2) received a cilta-cel infusion at the recommended phase 2 dose of 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg. As of the Sept 1, 2020 clinical cutoff, median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·6–15·2). 97 patients with a median of six previous therapies received cilta-cel. Overall response rate was 97% (95% CI 91·2–99·4; 94 of 97 patients); 65 (67%) achieved stringent complete response; time to first response was 1 month (IQR 0·9–1·0). Responses deepened over time. Median duration of response was not reached (95% CI 15·9–not estimable), neither was progression-free survival (16·8–not estimable). The 12-month progression-free rate was 77% (95% CI 66·0–84·3) and overall survival rate was 89% (80·2–93·5). Haematological adverse events were common; grade 3–4 haematological adverse events were neutropenia (92 [95%] of 97 patients), anaemia (66 [68%]), leukopenia (59 [61%]), thrombocytopenia (58 [60%]), and lymphopenia (48 [50%]). Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 92 (95%) of 97 patients (4% were grade 3 or 4); with median time to onset of 7·0 days (IQR 5–8) and median duration of 4·0 days (IQR 3–6). Cytokine release syndrome resolved in all except one with grade 5 cytokine release syndrome and haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. CAR T-cell neurotoxicity occurred in 20 (21%) patients (9% were grade 3 or 4). 14 deaths occurred in the study; six due to treatment-related adverse events, five due to progressive disease, and three due to treatment-unrelated adverse events. A single cilta-cel infusion at the target dose of 0·75 × 106 CAR-positive viable T cells per kg led to early, deep, and durable responses in heavily pretreated patients with multiple myeloma with a manageable safety profile. The data from this study formed the basis for recent regulatory submissions. Janssen Research & Development and Legend Biotech.

Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) plus autologous stem-cell transplantation is standard treatment in Europe for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We evaluated whether the addition of daratumumab to VTd before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation would improve stringent complete response rate in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In this two-part, randomised, open-label, phase 3 CASSIOPEIA trial, we recruited transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma at 111 European sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive four pre-transplant induction and two post-transplant consolidation cycles of VTd alone (VTd group) or in combination with daratumumab (D-VTd group). The primary endpoint of part 1 was stringent complete response assessed 100 days after transplantation. Part 2 (maintenance) is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02541383. Between Sept 22, 2015, and Aug 1, 2017, 1085 patients were enrolled at 111 European sites and were randomly assigned to the D-VTd group (n=543) or the VTd group (n=542). At day 100 after transplantation, 157 (29%) of 543 patients in the D-VTd group and 110 (20%) of 542 patients in the VTd group in the intention-to-treat population had achieved a stringent complete response (odds ratio 1·60, 95% CI 1·21–2·12, p=0·0010). 211 (39%) patients in the D-VTd group versus 141 (26%) in the VTd group achieved a complete response or better, and 346 (64%) of 543 versus 236 (44%) of 542 achieved minimal residual disease-negativity (10−5 sensitivity threshold, assessed by multiparametric flow cytometry; both p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival from first randomisation was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·33–0·67, p<0·0001). 46 deaths on study were observed (14 vs 32, 0·43, 95% CI 0·23–0·80). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (28% vs 15%), lymphopenia (17% vs 10%), and stomatitis (13% vs 16%). D-VTd before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation improved depth of response and progression-free survival with acceptable safety. CASSIOPEIA is the first study showing the clinical benefit of daratumumab plus standard of care in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology.

We describe two patients in whom malignant monoclonal T-cell lymphoproliferation developed after administration of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy with ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) in the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial. Monoclonal T cells from both patients had detectable CAR transgene expression and integration. The clinicogenomic features of these CAR transgenic T-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasms suggest that multiple potential intrinsic or extrinsic factors (or both) contributed to their pathogenesis, such as transduction of preexisting TET2 -mutated T cells, followed by acquisition of further oncogenic genomic variants. Other potential contributors include germline genomic variation, viral infections, and previous treatment for myeloma. In the absence of direct evidence, the contribution of insertional mutagenesis to the development of T-cell lymphoma is currently unclear. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and Legend Biotech USA; CARTITUDE-4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04181827 .) Two patients with refractory myeloma who had excellent antitumor responses to cilta-cel CAR T-cell therapy later had T-cell lymphomas that contained the lentivirus construct used to generate the CAR T-cell product.

Background and Objectives The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Patients and Methods Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN-1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥18 (MMY-3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1–3 (MMY-3021) or ≥1 (CAN-1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. Results Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUC last ): 155 vs. 151 ng·h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0.992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUC last : 195 vs. 241 ng·h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (C max ) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to C max (t max ) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (E max ) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect–time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %·h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %·h in CAN-1004. Time to E max was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. Conclusion Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established.