Explore the vast range of titles available.

The substitution of bortezomib for vincristine in R-CHOP resulted in higher rates of complete response and nearly a doubling in progression-free survival among patients with advanced mantle-cell lymphoma not eligible for stem-cell transplantation. Mantle-cell lymphoma is an incurable, aggressive hematologic cancer with a poor prognosis (median survival, 4 to 5 years). 1 , 2 It comprises 5 to 6% of all non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, including approximately 5000 cases per year in the United States. 3 For previously untreated patients who are either ineligible or not considered for intensive chemotherapy and stem-cell transplantation, R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) is a standard of care 4 – 6 and produces complete response rates of up to 48%. However, progression-free survival is limited (median, 16.6 months). 7 The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was initially approved for the treatment of relapsed mantle-cell lymphoma in . . .

Background CD38 has been established as an important therapeutic target for multiple myeloma (MM), for which two CD38 antibodies are currently approved—daratumumab and isatuximab. CD38 is an ectoenzyme that degrades NAD and its precursors and is involved in the production of adenosine and other metabolites. Aim Among the various mechanisms by which CD38 antibodies can induce MM cell death is immunomodulation, including multiple pathways for CD38‐mediated T‐cell activation. Patients who respond to anti‐CD38 targeting treatment experience more marked changes in T‐cell expansion, activity, and clonality than nonresponders. Implications Resistance mechanisms that undermine the immunomodulatory effects of CD38‐targeting therapies can be tumor intrinsic, such as the downregulation of CD38 surface expression and expression of complement inhibitor proteins, and immune microenvironment‐related, such as changes to the natural killer (NK) cell numbers and function in the bone marrow niche. There are numerous strategies to overcome this resistance, which include identifying and targeting other therapeutic targets involved in, for example, adenosine production, the activation of NK cells or monocytes through immunomodulatory drugs and their combination with elotuzumab, or with bispecific T‐cell engagers. Daratumumab and isatuximab are two CD38 targeting antibodies approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma. In this review we summarize the biology of the CD38 target, various assets targeting CD38, mechanism of action of daratumumab and isatuximab and their immunomodulatory properties, resistance mechanisms and approaches to overcome resistance against CD38 antibodies. We also discuss the similarities and differences of the mechanism of action of these two antibodies, which might be important for immune modulation and overcoming immunosuppression in the myeloma bone marrow environment.

The primary analysis of the ICARIA-MM study showed significant improvement in progression-free survival with addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide–dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report a prespecified updated overall survival analysis at 24 months after the primary analysis. In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 were recruited from 102 hospitals in 24 countries across Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Patients were excluded if they had anti-CD38 refractory disease or previously received pomalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive response technology with permuted blocked randomisation (block size of four) and stratified by number of previous treatment lines (2–3 vs >3) and aged (<75 vs ≥75 years), to isatuximab–pomalidomide–dexamethasone (isatuximab group) or pomalidomide–dexamethasone (control group). In the isatuximab group, intravenous isatuximab 10 mg/kg was administered on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first 4-week cycle, and then on days 1 and 15 of subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide 4 mg on days 1–21 of each cycle, and weekly oral or intravenous dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg if aged ≥75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Here' we report a prespecified second interim analysis of overall survival (time from randomisation to any-cause death), a key secondary endpoint, in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who provided informed consent and allocated a randomisation number) at 24 months after the primary analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose or part dose of study treatment. The prespecified stopping boundary for the overall survival analysis was when the derived p value was equal to or less than 0·0181. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02990338, and is active, but not recruiting. Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, 387 patients were screened and 307 randomly assigned to either the isatuximab (n=154) or control group (n=153). Median follow-up at data cutoff (Oct 1, 2020) was 35·3 months (IQR 33·5–37·4). Median overall survival was 24·6 months (95% CI 20·3–31·3) in the isatuximab group and 17·7 months (14·4–26·2) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·57–1·01]; one-sided log-rank p=0·028, not crossing prespecified stopping boundary). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events in the isatuximab group versus the control group were neutropenia (76 [50%] of 152 patients vs 52 [35%] of 149 patients), pneumonia (35 [23%] vs 31 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (20 [13%] vs 18 [12%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 111 (73%) patients in the isatuximab group and 90 (60%) patients in the control group. Two (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the isatuximab group (one due to sepsis and one due to cerebellar infarction) and two (1%) occurred in the control group (one due to pneumonia and one due to urinary tract infection). Addition of isatuximab plus pomalidomide–dexamethasone resulted in a 6·9-month difference in median overall survival compared with pomalidomide–dexamethasone and is a new standard of care for lenalidomide-refractory and proteasome inhibitor-refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma. Final overall survival analysis follow-up is ongoing. Sanofi.

The randomized, phase 3 ICARIA-MM study investigated isatuximab (Isa) with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) versus Pd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and ≥2 prior lines. This prespecified subgroup analysis examined efficacy in patients with renal impairment (RI; estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m²). Isa 10 mg/kg was given intravenously once weekly in cycle 1, and every 2 weeks in subsequent 28-day cycles. Patients received standard doses of Pd. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with RI was 9.5 months with Isa-Pd ( n  = 55) and 3.7 months with Pd ( n  = 49; hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30–0.85). Without RI, median PFS was 12.7 months with Isa-Pd ( n  = 87) and 7.9 months with Pd ( n  = 96; HR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38–0.88). The overall response rate (ORR) with and without RI was higher with Isa-Pd (56 and 68%) than Pd (25 and 43%). Complete renal response rates were 71.9% (23/32) with Isa-Pd and 38.1% (8/21) with Pd; these lasted ≥60 days in 31.3% (10/32) and 19.0% (4/21) of patients, respectively. Isa pharmacokinetics were comparable between the subgroups, suggesting no need for dose adjustment in patients with RI. In summary, the addition of Isa to Pd improved PFS, ORR and renal response rates.

Multicentric Castleman's disease is a rare lymphoproliferative disorder driven by dysregulated production of interleukin 6. No randomised trials have been done to establish the best treatment for the disease. We assessed the safety and efficacy of siltuximab—a chimeric monoclonal antibody against interleukin 6—in HIV-negative patients with multicentric Castleman's disease. We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study at 38 hospitals in 19 countries worldwide. We enrolled HIV-negative and human herpesvirus-8-seronegative patients with symptomatic multicentric Castleman's disease. Treatment allocation was randomised with a computer-generated list, with block size six, and stratification by baseline corticosteroid use. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to siltuximab (11 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks) or placebo; all patients also received best supportive care. Patients continued treatment until treatment failure. The primary endpoint was durable tumour and symptomatic response for at least 18 weeks for the intention-to-treat population. Enrolment has been completed. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01024036. We screened 140 patients, 79 of whom were randomly assigned to siltuximab (n=53) or placebo (n=26). Durable tumour and symptomatic responses occurred in 18 (34%) of 53 patients in the siltuximab group and none of 26 in the placebo group (difference 34·0%, 95% CI 11·1–54·8, p=0·0012). The incidence of grade 3 or more adverse events (25 [47%] vs 14 [54%]) and serious adverse events (12 [23%] vs five [19%]) was similar in each group despite longer median treatment duration with siltuximab than with placebo (375 days [range 1–1031] vs 152 days [23–666]). The most common grade 3 or higher were fatigue (five vs one), night sweats (four vs one), and anaemia (one vs three). Three (6%) of 53 patients had serious adverse events judged reasonably related to siltuximab (lower respiratory tract infection, anaphylactic reaction, sepsis). Siltuximab plus best supportive care was superior to best supportive care alone for patients with symptomatic multicentric Castleman's disease and well tolerated with prolonged exposure. Siltuximab is an important new treatment option for this disease. Janssen Research & Development.

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.

CD38 is a transmembrane glycoprotein with ectoenzymatic activity involved in regulation of migration, signal transduction, and receptor-mediated adhesion. CD38 is highly expressed on various malignant cells, including multiple myeloma (MM), and at relatively low levels in other tissues, making it a suitable target for therapeutic antibodies. Several anti-CD38 therapies have been, or are being, developed for the treatment of MM, including daratumumab and isatuximab (SAR650984), respectively. Studies have shown that anti-CD38 therapies are effective in the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM and are well tolerated, with infusion reactions being the most common side effects. They can be used as monotherapy or in combination with immunomodulatory agents, such as pomalidomide, or proteasome inhibitors to potentiate their activity. Here we examine isatuximab and several anti-CD38 agents in development that were generated using new antibody engineering techniques and that may lead to more effective CD38 targeting. We also summarize trials assessing these antibodies in MM, other malignancies, and solid organ transplantation. Finally, we propose that further research on the mechanisms of resistance to anti-CD38 therapy and the development of biomarkers and new backbone regimens with CD38 antibodies will be important steps in building more personalized treatment for patients with MM.