MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389219865 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-174993

Prevention of Ocular Toxicity Using Protective Contact Lenses in Multiple Myeloma Patients Receiving Belantamab Mafodotin, Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone: A Sub-Study of the Cmrg-007 Trial

2023· article· en· W4389219865 sur OpenAlexaff
Martha Louzada, Donna Reece, Arleigh McCurdy, Rami Kotb, Ibraheem Othman, Hira Mian, Toni E. Lin, Michael P. Chu, Darrell White, Stephen Parkin, Engin Gul, Aniba Khan, Suzanne Trudel

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensDalhousie UniversityWestern UniversityAlberta HealthOttawa HospitalAlberta Health ServicesLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityVancouver General HospitalHealth Sciences CentreCancerCare Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineLenalidomideDexamethasonePomalidomideTolerabilityAdverse effectMultiple myelomaInternal medicineContact lensRefractory (planetary science)SurgeryOphthalmology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a monomethyl auristatin-F containing antibody drug conjugate that targets BMCA on myeloma cells. Single agent belamaf has shown clinical meaningful activity in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) but ocular adverse events (AEs) affect 53-72% of trials'participants. In DREAMM-2, prophylactic corticosteroid eye drops did not effectively reduce the risk of keratopathy. It is therefore imperative that strategies to mitigate corneal AEs be explored. This 2-part study is designed to evaluate belamaf and pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) in RRMM. Here we report the efficacy and ocular AEs of patients (pts) receiving 2.5 mg/kg (maximum tolerated dose) or 1.92 mg/kg IV belamaf and administrated on various schedules aimed to define the optimal balance of efficacy and tolerability. We also present results of an ocular sub-study exploring the use of bandage contact lens (BCLs) to reduce the risk and severity of belamaf-associated ocular AEs. Methods: Eligibility: > 1 prior lines of therapy (LoT), lenalidomide, proteasome inhibitors exposed, and refractory to the last LoT. Pd was administered per standard of care and belamaf (1.92 or 2.5 mg/kg) Q4W or 2.5 mg/kg Q8W, Q12W or SPLIT equally on days 1 and 8, Q4W. Pts enrolled on the ocular sub-study received the recommended part two dose (RP2D): 2.5 mg /kg Q8W. A BCL (Bausch and Lomb Pure Vision) was placed in the right (R) eye for the 1st 2 doses of belamaf with the left (L) eye serving as control. Subsequently, BCLs were placed in both eyes. Pts wore BCLs for up to 28 days after each belamaf dose. Evaluation by an eyecare specialist for a comprehensive eye exam and BCL placement occurred every 15-28 days during BCLs use and prior to each belamaf dose. Corneal findings were graded (Gr) by the keratopathy and visual acuity (KVA) scale and findings of local infection were reported. Keratitis prophylaxis during BCLs use included gatifloxacin 0.3% or tobramycin 1.3% eye drops. Results: This analysis comprises 92 pts including 14 on the ocular sub-study. Baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and ocular comorbidities were similar across all cohorts: with median 20/20 BCVA 46.7% R and 50% L eye. Abnormal fundoscopy was 21.7% in R and 16.3% in L eye. There was a trend to lower incidence and less severity of ocular AEs for the 1.92 mg/kg dose (Table 1). Gr 3-4 keratopathy, decrease in BCVA and subjective Gr >2 blurred vision by CTCAE were 33.3% (4/12), 41.7% (5/12) and 25% (3/12) for the 1.92 mg/kg and 75% (9/12), 75% (9/12) and 33.3% (4/12) for 2.5 mg/kg Q4W cohorts. Preliminary data indicated superior clinical efficacy (ORR, >VGPR rate and mPFS) for the 2.5 mg/kg dose, 100% (12/12), 91.7% (11/12) and 25.1 months (11.8-NYR) versus 66.7% (8/12), 63.6% (7/12) and 16.9 months (5.3-19.7) for the 1.92 mg/kg dose (Table 2). To preserve efficacy but reduce ocular AEs additional cohorts exploring 2.5 mg/kg dosed every 8 and 12 weeks were included. Extended dosing schedules showed lower rates of Gr 3-4 keratopathy, decrease in BCVA, and Gr ≥2 blurred vision: 58.3% (7/12), 91.7% (11/12) and 16.7% (2/12) of pts treated Q8W; and 58.3%, 58.3% and 16.7% (2/12) of pts treated Q12W versus the Q4W schedule. Importantly, the efficacy was preserved with ORRs of 91.7% (11/12) and 100% (11/11), >VGPR rates of 83.3% (10/12) and 63.6% (7/11) and mPFS of 18.3 months (95% CI: 10.1-NYR) and 22.5 (95% CI: 8.9-NYR) for Q8W and Q12W groups, respectively. In the ocular sub-study, assessment of R and L eye during the first 2 belamaf doses showed a significant delay in onset of BCVA decrease in the R eye (p<0.0001) compared to the L. Comparing pts treated at the RP2D, moderate to severe (Gr ≥2) keratopathy and decrease BCVA were significantly lower (p=0.0004 and 0.010), in the BCL cohort versus no-BCL group. Further there was a trend towards less symptomatic blurred vision (p=0.256). BCL pts were able to complete 90% of the pre-planned belamaf cycles compared to 70% in the RP2D no-BCL group (p=0.029). No cases of infectious keratitis were reported in the BCL cohort. Conclusions: Our data suggest that extended dosing intervals may be a significant step forward in mitigating corneal AEs of belamaf. This preliminary report on the efficacy of BCLs in 14 pts demonstrates a decrease in moderate to severe corneal AEs and reduction in dose holds for corneal AEs, noting however a short follow up at this time. The data support the further evaluation of BCLs in preventing belamaf associated ocular toxicities.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
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 enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
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 Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,263 · 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

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→