Explore the vast range of titles available.

The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in superior response rate and progression-free survival, as compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone, at a cost of more frequent neutropenia and infusion reactions. The incorporation of proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs into the standard of care has improved outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma over the past 10 years, 1 – 3 but most patients still eventually have a relapse. 4 Relapse can occur even after standard complete remission in the context of first-line therapy, and studies are therefore evaluating deeper responses in a category termed “minimal residual disease–negative” (i.e., results below the threshold for minimal residual disease) that is prognostic with regard to a rate of disease progression in a time-to-event analysis and overall survival. 5 , 6 However, this category of minimal residual disease status has . . .

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.

The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide achieved results that were similar to those of rituximab plus chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated patients with advanced follicular lymphoma.

In patients ineligible for transplantation, the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression achieved significantly improved progression-free survival, as compared with melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide therapy. For patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the standard therapy is melphalan and prednisone (MP) combined with either thalidomide (MPT) or bortezomib (VMP). 1 – 10 Lenalidomide (Revlimid, Celgene) is an immunomodulatory drug that, in combination with dexamethasone, is a standard treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy as approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. 7 – 13 In a randomized trial that included both younger and older patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was associated with fewer adverse . . .

In this trial, 700 patients with myeloma were randomly assigned to receive RVD therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) with or without autologous stem-cell transplantation. Patients who underwent transplantation had significantly longer progression-free survival. For the past 20 years, high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation has been the standard treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in adults up to 65 years of age. 1 – 3 However, this treatment requires hospitalization and can be associated with substantial toxic effects. Over the past decade, immunomodulatory drugs 4 – 14 and proteasome inhibitors 15 – 17 have been shown to have substantial activity in patients with multiple myeloma. The use of combination therapy with immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and dexamethasone has yielded increased rates of complete response and improved outcomes, both among patients who are eligible for transplantation and among those who . . .

In patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma, 1-year progression-free survival was 20 percentage points higher with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone than with bortezomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds a specific epitope on the human CD38 receptor and has antitumour activity via multiple mechanisms of action. In a previous phase 1b study, around 65% of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma achieved an overall response with a combination of isatuximab with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to determine the progression-free survival benefit of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study at 102 hospitals in 24 countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Eligible participants were adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged ≥75 years), or pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified according to the number of previous lines of treatment (2–3 vs >3) and age (<75 years vs ≥75 years). Treatments were assigned based on a permuted blocked randomisation scheme with a block size of four. The isatuximab–pomalidomide–dexamethasone group received isatuximab intravenously on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in the first 28-day cycle, then on days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles. Both groups received oral pomalidomide on days 1 to 21 in each cycle, and oral or intravenous dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Dose reductions for adverse reactions were permitted for pomalidomide and dexamethasone, but not for isatuximab. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by an independent response committee and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02990338. Between Jan 10, 2017, and Feb 2, 2018, we randomly assigned 307 patients to treatment: 154 to isatuximab–pomalidomide–dexamethasone, and 153 to pomalidomide–dexamethasone. At a median follow-up of 11·6 months (IQR 10·1–13·9), median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·9–13·9) in the isatuximab–pomalidomide–dexamethasone group versus 6·5 months (4·5–8·3) in the pomalidomide–dexamethasone group; hazard ratio 0·596, 95% CI 0·44–0·81; p=0·001 by stratified log-rank test. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade; isatuximab–pomalidomide–dexamethasone vs pomalidomide–dexamethasone) were infusion reactions (56 [38%] vs 0), upper respiratory tract infections (43 [28%] vs 26 [17%]), and diarrhoea (39 [26%] vs 29 [20%]). Adverse events with a fatal outcome were reported in 12 patients (8%) in the isatuximab–pomalidomide–dexamethasone group and 14 (9%) in the pomalidomide–dexamethasone group. Deaths due to treatment-related adverse events were reported for one patient (<1%) in the isatuximab–pomalidomide–dexamethasone group (sepsis) and two (1%) in the pomalidomide–dexamethasone group (pneumonia and urinary tract infection). The addition of isatuximab to pomalidomide–dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Isatuximab is an important new treatment option for the management of relapsed and refractory myeloma, particularly for patients who become refractory to lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Sanofi. [Display omitted]

In this study, the addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone improved response rates and overall survival among patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Survival rates have improved for patients with multiple myeloma, yet relapse remains common, 1 indicating an ongoing need for new therapeutic approaches. The immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide in combination with high-dose dexamethasone is approved for use in relapsed multiple myeloma on the basis of phase 3 trials showing superiority to dexamethasone alone, with a median progression-free survival of 11.1 months and an overall response rate of 60%. 2 – 4 In previously untreated patients, lower weekly doses of dexamethasone proved less toxic and more effective than high-dose dexamethasone. 5 Indeed, in a recent phase 3 study, lenalidomide with weekly dexamethasone, administered until disease progression, was . . .

Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60–65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1–21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction–consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1–2 and 15–16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1–21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases. Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction–intensification–consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7–55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44–3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9–41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68–82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58–72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44–0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group. Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone. Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Apremilast (APM) is a novel, orally administered small molecule drug approved for treatment of psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. Due to its low solubility and permeability, it is classified as a class IV drug according to BCS classification. Dose titration is recommended during APM treatment due to its tolerability and twice-daily dosing regimen issues. In this study, three different APM-loaded PLGA nanoparticles (F1-F3) were prepared by single emulsion and evaporation method. Based on particle size, PDI, zeta potential (ZP), entrapment efficiency (%EE), drug loading (%DL), and spectral characterization, the nanoparticles (F3) were optimized. The F3 nanoparticles were further evaluated for in vitro release and in vivo pharmacokinetic studies in rats. The optimized nanoparticles (F3) had particles size 307.3±8.5 nm with a low PDI value 0.317, ZP of -43.4±2.6 mV, EE of 61.1±1.9% and DL of 1.9±0.1%. The in vitro release profile showed a sustained release pattern of F3 nanoparticles of APM. The pharmacokinetic results showed 2.25 times increase in bio-availability of F3 nanoparticles compared to normal APM suspension. Moreover, significant increase in half-life and mean residence time confirms long-term retention of F3 nanoparticles. Bioavailability enhancement along-with long-term retention of the APM-loaded PLGA nanoparticles might be helpful for the once-daily regimen treatment.