MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096400445 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136415

Isatuximab Plus Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone Versus Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Patients with Renal Impairment: Ikema Subgroup Analysis

2020· article· en· W3096400445 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Marcelo Capra, Thomas G. Martin, Philippe Moreau, Ross Baker, Luděk Pour, Chang‐Ki Min, Xavier Leleu, Mohamad Mohty, Marta Reinoso Segura, Mehmet Turgut, Richard LeBlanc, Marie‐Laure Risse, Laure Malinge, Sandrine Schwab, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCarfilzomibMedicineLenalidomidePomalidomideDexamethasoneInternal medicineRenal functionMultiple myelomaAdverse effectInterim analysisOncologyUrologyGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Renal impairment (RI) is a common feature in multiple myeloma (MM) and an adverse predictor of survival. Anti-myeloma treatments that can also improve renal function in patients (pts) with MM are required. Isatuximab (Isa), a monoclonal CD38 antibody, is approved in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (d), in the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, and Japan for the treatment of adult pts with relapsed/refractory MM who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. IKEMA (NCT03275285) was a randomized, open-label, multicenter, Phase 3 study that demonstrated the benefit of adding Isa to carfilzomib (K) plus d vs Kd in pts with relapsed MM. This subgroup analysis of IKEMA examined efficacy, renal response, and safety in pts with RI. Methods: Pts with 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 3:2 and stratified by number of prior lines and revised international staging system (R-ISS) stage to receive Isa-Kd or Kd. The Isa-Kd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly for 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks thereafter. Both arms received recommended doses of Kd. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. Interim efficacy analysis was planned when 65% of the total expected progression-free survival (PFS) events determined by an Independent Response Committee were observed. RI was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate ([eGFR]; using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation) <60 mL/min/1.73m² at baseline. Complete renal response (CrR) was defined as improvement in eGFR from <50 mL/min/1.73m² at baseline to ≥60 mL/min/1.73m² (no RI) in at least one post-baseline assessment (International Myeloma Working Group recommendations), and was classified as durable if lasting ≥60 days. Results: A total of 302 pts (179 Isa-Kd; 123 Kd) were randomized. Pts with baseline eGFR as low as 15 mL/min/1.73m² (severe RI) were allowed to enroll. more pts with RI in the Isa-Kd arm (26.1%) vs Kd (16.2%). As expected, elderly pts had more RI. The median age in years (range) was 67 (39-86) for Isa-Kd vs 69 (49-90) for Kd among RI pts, and 64 (37-81) for Isa-Kd vs 62 (33-78) for Kd among pts with no RI. In RI pts, 60.5% vs 72.2% pts had ≥2 prior lines of therapy, 11.6% vs 16.7% had R-ISS stage III, and 20.9% vs 27.8% had high risk cytogenetics, in Isa-Kd vs Kd, respectively. More RI pts were still on treatment at the cut-off date in Isa-Kd (55.8%) vs Kd (16.7%). Median PFS for RI pts was not reached for Isa-Kd vs 13.4 months for Kd (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11-0.66), and not reached for both study arms among pts with no RI (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.39-1.00). The overall response rate, ≥very good partial response rate, and minimal residual disease negativity for RI pts was higher with Isa-Kd than Kd: 93.0% vs 61.1%, 79.1% vs 44.4%, and 30.2% vs 11.1%, respectively. CrR accessed in pts with eGFR <50 mL/min/1.73m² (15.2% Isa-Kd vs 11.7% Kd) occurred more frequently in Isa-Kd (52%) vs Kd (30.8%), and these were durable in 32.0% vs 7.7% pts. The treatment exposure was higher in RI pts treated with Isa-Kd, with median number of cycles started and median duration of exposure being 20 vs 9 cycles and 81.0 vs 35.7 weeks in Isa-Kd vs Kd. In pts with RI, Grade ≥3 and serious treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 79.1% (Isa-Kd) vs 77.8% (Kd) and 62.8% (Isa-Kd) vs 77.8% (Kd) pts, respectively. Grade 5 TEAEs (Isa-Kd, 0%; Kd, 11.1%) and TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were lower with Isa-Kd (Isa-Kd, 7.0%; Kd, 27.8%). End-stage renal disease on treatment occurred in 1.8% Isa-Kd vs 2.7% Kd pts. The most common TEAEs in RI pts in Isa-Kd vs Kd were diarrhea (41.9% vs 22.2%), upper respiratory tract infection (39.5% vs 27.8%), infusion reaction (37.2% vs 5.6%), hypertension (34.9% vs 27.8%), fatigue (34.9% vs 22.2%), and dyspnea (32.6% vs 11.1%). The most common Grade ≥3 TEAEs in RI pts in Isa-Kd vs Kd were hypertension (20.9% vs 22.2%) and pneumonia (11.6% vs 22.2%). Conclusions: The addition of Isa to Kd improved PFS and disease response in pts with RI, with a manageable safety profile, consistent with the benefit observed in the overall IKEMA study population. Also, more pts treated with Isa-Kd showed reversal of RI and durable renal responses compared with Kd. Finally, RI pts treated with Isa-Kd received twice the number of cycles and had a lower treatment discontinuation rate compared with Kd pts. Disclosures Martin: AMGEN: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Baker:Sanofi: Research Funding. Leleu:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS-celgene: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Mohty:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Leblanc:Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene Canada; Janssen Inc.; Amgen Canada; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Risse:Sanofi: Current Employment. Malinge:AIXIAL: Consultancy. Schwab:Sanofi: Current Employment. Dimopoulos:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
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 non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,012
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,251
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · 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 non 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

Citations13
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207