MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405042663 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-198408

Mezigdomide (MEZI) Plus Dexamethasone (DEX) and Bortezomib (BORT) or Carfilzomib (CFZ) in Patients (pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Updated Results from the CC-92480-MM-002 Trial

2024· article· en· W4405042663 sur OpenAlexaff
Irwindeep Sandhu, Paul G. Richardson, Albert Oriol, Darrell White, Richard LeBlanc, Noopur Raje, Enrique M. Ocio, Aurore Perrot, Thierry Façon, Cesar Rodriguez, Ralph Wäsch, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Tracy T. Chow, Allison Gaudy, Jing Gong, Zehua Zhou, Tiziana Civardi, Joseph T. Hadala, Yue Zhu, Jessica Katz, Marc S. Raab

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCarfilzomibBortezomibMedicineDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaLenalidomideInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)OncologyPomalidomide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: MEZI is a novel, potent, oral CELMoD™ agent with enhanced tumoricidal and immune-stimulatory effects compared with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs®). Preclinically, MEZI has shown marked synergy with DEX and other antimyeloma therapies, including proteasome inhibitors (PIs). In the phase 1/2 CC-92480-MM-002 trial (NCT03989414), MEZI combined with DEX and BORT (MeziVd) or DEX and CFZ (MeziKd) showed meaningful clinical activity and manageable tolerability in pts with RRMM. Here we report updated results with longer follow-up from the MeziVd and MeziKd dose-escalation cohorts (A and C) and the MeziVd dose-expansion cohort (D). Methods: Eligible pts had RRMM, 2-4 (Cohorts A and C) or 1-3 (Cohort D) prior regimens including lenalidomide, and documented progressive disease (PD) during or after the last myeloma therapy. Oral MEZI was given at escalating doses of 0.3, 0.6, or 1.0 mg (Cohort A) or at 0.6 or 1.0 mg (Cohort D) on days (D)1-14 of each 21-D cycle with BORT + DEX, or at escalating doses (0.3, 0.6, or 1.0 mg) on D1-21 of each 28-D cycle with CFZ + DEX (Cohort C). Pharmacokinetics samples were collected on D1 and D8 of cycle (C)1 and D8 of C2-8, and also on C1D11 for Cohorts A and D. Biomarker analyses included peripheral blood samples collected on C1D1 to mid-C3 for substrate degradation and immunomodulation by flow cytometry. The primary objectives were to determine the recommended dose and regimen (dose-escalation cohorts) and evaluate safety and efficacy. Results: As of May 9, 2024, 104 pts were enrolled in Cohorts A, C, and D; 28 pts received MeziVd (Cohort A) and 27 pts received MeziKd (Cohort C) in the dose-escalation cohorts. Median (range) age was 65.5 (46-86) and 68 (41-76) years (y), median time since diagnosis was 4.8 (1.9-17.1) and 5.4 (0.7-15.7) y, median number of prior regimens was 3 (2-4) and 2 (2-4), 24 (85.7%) and 24 (88.9%) pts were refractory to IMiD agents, and 14 (50.0%) and 14 (51.9%) to PIs, respectively. Median follow-up was 13.6 (MeziVd) and 15.2 months (mo) (MeziKd); 3 (10.7%) and 5 (18.5%) pts continue on treatment, with 12.5 and 12 median cycles received, and PD being the main reason for discontinuation (64.3% and 48.1%), respectively. In the dose-escalation cohorts, the most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were neutropenia (35.7%), thrombocytopenia (21.4%), and infections (17.9%) with MeziVd; and neutropenia (44.4%) and infections (33.3%) with MeziKd. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic TEAEs, including rash and diarrhea, were low or absent. MEZI dose reductions due to TEAEs were needed in 7 (25.0%) and 8 (29.6%) pts. The overall response rate (ORR) was 75.0% (21/28 pts) and 85.2% (23/27 pts), with ≥ very good partial responses (VGPR) in 39.3% and 44.4% pts. Median (95% CI) duration of response (DOR) was 10.9 (8.1-18.7) and 11.9 (6.4-NA) mo and median (95% CI) progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.8 (9.0-18.0) and 13.5 (8.4-19.7) mo, respectively. As of May 9, 2024, 49 pts received MeziVd in the Cohort D dose-expansion cohort. Median age was 64 (43-83) y, median time since diagnosis was 4.2 (0.9-20.5) y, and median number of prior regimens was 1 (1-3). Overall, 31 (63.3%) pts were refractory to IMiD agents, and 8 (16.3%) to PIs. Median follow-up was 18.3 mo; 9 (18.4%) pts continue on treatment, with 15 median cycles received. Discontinuations were mainly due to PD (53.1%). The most common grade 3/4 TEAEs were neutropenia (63.3%), infections (32.7%), and thrombocytopenia (26.5%); grade 3/4 non-hematologic TEAEs remained low or absent. MEZI dose reductions due to TEAEs were needed in 18 (36.7%) pts. ORR was 85.7% (42/49 pts) with ≥ VGPR in 63.3% of pts; median DOR was 19.4 (9.7-NA) mo, median PFS was 17.5 (9.4-24.0) mo. MEZI exposure increased in a dose-linear manner over the dose range, and exposures were similar when comparing pts treated with MeziVd and MeziKd. MEZI showed pharmacodynamic activity with BORT or CFZ across all doses tested, with 1.0 mg MEZI inducing the greatest pharmacodynamic effects including substrate degradation and T-cell proliferation, supporting the use of 1.0 mg MEZI in combination with PIs. Conclusions: With longer follow-up, MeziVd and MeziKd in RRMM confirmed promising efficacy and a manageable safety profile at all dose levels tested, with no cumulative toxicity and low grade 3/4 non-hematologic TEAEs (including rash and diarrhea). These results informed ongoing and planned phase 3 trials. Updated data will be presented at the meeting.

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 randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,277
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · 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

Citations5
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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