MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaratumumabMedicineClinical endpointInternal medicineAdverse effectRefractory (planetary science)PopulationPhases of clinical researchMultiple myelomaGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialLenalidomideClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207