MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2952975510 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-122765

Randomized, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority, Phase 3 Study of Subcutaneous (SC) Versus Intravenous (IV) Daratumumab (DARA) Administration in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Columba Update

2019· article· en· W2952975510 sur OpenAlexaff
Saad Z. Usmani, María‐Victoria Mateos, Hareth Nahi, Sebastian Grosicki, Vladimir Vorobyev, Ivan Špıčka, Vânia Hungria, Sibirina Korenkova, Max Flogegård, Joan Bladé, Philippe Moreau, Martin Kaiser, Shinsuke Iida, Jacob P. Laubach, Tara Masterson, Kristen Lantz, Lisa O’Rourke, Christoph Heuck, Xiang Qin, Dolly A. Parasrampuria, Ming Qi, Nizar J. Bahlis

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDaratumumabMedicineClinical endpointInternal medicineAdverse effectRefractory (planetary science)PopulationPhases of clinical researchMultiple myelomaGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialLenalidomideClinical trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab (DARA), a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, is approved for intravenous (IV; 16 mg/kg) administration as a single agent or in combination with standard-of-care regimens for treatment of multiple myeloma (MM).To improve safety and reduce patient and healthcare provider burden, a subcutaneous (SC) formulation of DARA (1,800 mg co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 [rHuPH20]; ENHANZE® drug delivery technology, Halozyme, Inc.) was developed. The phase 3, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority COLUMBA study (NCT03277105) evaluated the efficacy, PK, and safety of DARA SC vs DARA IV in patients (pts) with RRMM. The results, showing the study met both co-primary endpoints (overall response rate [ORR] and Ctrough) at a median follow-up of 7.5 months, were previously presented. Here, we present updated data with longer follow-up. METHODS: DARA SC (1,800 mg DARA + rHuPH20 [2,000 U/mL]) and DARA IV (16 mg/kg IV infusion) were given in 28-day cycles: QW Cycles 1-2, Q2W Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter. DARA SC (15 mL) was given by manual push over 3-5 mins at alternating left/right abdominal sites. Eligible pts (≥18 yrs) with RRMM had ≥3 prior lines of therapy (LOT), including a PI and an IMiD, or were double refractory. Co-primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR; analyzed by Farrington-Manning test, with non-inferiority defined as 60% retention of ORR) and maximum DARA Ctrough (pre-dose concentration on Cycle 3 Day 1; non-inferiority defined as the lower bound of 90% confidence interval [CI] for the ratio of the geometric means [GM] ≥80%). Secondary endpoints included rates of infusion-related reactions (IRRs), progression-free survival (PFS), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), and complete response or better (≥CR). RESULTS: A total of 522 pts were randomized to receive DARA SC (n = 263) or DARA IV (n = 259). Median age was 67 yrs (20% ≥75 yrs). Median baseline body weight was 73 kg. Pts received a median of 4 LOT and 100% of pts were previously treated with both PI(s) and IMiD(s). 82.2% of pts were refractory to the last line of prior therapy, and 49.4% were refractory to both PI and IMiDs. 26.3% and 17.3% of pts had a high-risk cytogenetic abnormality at baseline in the DARA SC and DARA IV groups, respectively. After a median follow-up of 13.8 months, ORR was improved from 41.1% to 43.7% for DARA SC and 37.1% to 39.4% for DARA IV (Figure). ORR were comparable across all subgroups, including body weight. Rates of deep responses (≥VGPR, ≥CR) were similar between DARA SC and DARA IV, and deeper with longer follow-up (Figure). Median duration of treatment (~5.5 months) was similar for DARA SC and DARA IV. A significantly lower rate of IRRs was observed with DARA SC vs DARA IV. At the time of data cutoff, 118 pts (evenly distributed across both arms) continued treatment on study. CONCLUSIONS: With longer follow-up, safety and efficacy data continue to support that DARA SC and DARA IV have similar safety profiles with a statistically significant reduction in IRR rates. DARA SC has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and DARA SC pts reported higher treatment satisfaction. Collectively, the data demonstrate a favorable benefit/risk profile for the use of an 1800 mg flat dose of DARA SC. Disclosures Usmani: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant. Mateos:Amgen Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc: Other: Data and Monitoring Committee; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Adaptive: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biotech Inc, Mundipharma EDO, PharmaMar, Roche Laboratories Inc, Takeda Oncology: Other: Advisory Committee; Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Takeda Oncology.: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, Abbvie, EDO, Pharmar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vorobyev:Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hungria:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bladé:Irctures: Honoraria; Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kaiser:Abbvie, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Abbvie, Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene, Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses. Iida:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Teijin Pharma: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Masterson:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lantz:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. O'Rourke:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Heuck:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Parasrampuria:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: This presentation/paper includes information/discussion of a subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab, which is currently under investigation in several clinical trials, but has not yet been approved. The intravenous formulation of daratumumab is approved as monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for the treatment of MM.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,038

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations16
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207