Search Results (3)

Background: In the randomized, phase-3 IKEMA trial, the triplet isatuximab, carfilzomib, and dexamethasone (IsaKd) demonstrated superior clinical benefit compared to those of carfilzomib and dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after 1–3 prior treatments. Methods: Our real-world, AENEID study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IsaKd in patients who relapsed after frontline lenalidomide treatment, poorly represented in the IKEMA trial. Specifically, in the present multicenter analysis, we enrolled eighty-two patients who received, between April 2022 and September 2024 and outside of clinical trials, at least one cycle of IsaKd as a second-line treatment at the first relapse after induction therapy, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and lenalidomide maintenance. Results: After a median follow-up time of 12.9 months (range, 1–77), the overall response rate, at least a very good partial response rate, and median progression-free survival time were 79.3%, 56.1%, and 24.4 months, respectively. This slightly lower performance compared to that in the IKEMA study may be attributed to the well-known poor prognostic impact of lenalidomide refractoriness (len-R), developed by all our patients during maintenance therapy, and to a higher proportion of patients with extramedullary disease present in our series, which was identified as the only factor significantly affecting the PFS in multivariable analysis. The median overall survival was not reached, as in the pivotal trial, while the 1-year survival probability was 85.1%. Regarding the safety profile, our findings were consistent with those of the IKEMA trial, with no new safety signals reported. Conclusions: These real-world data support the use of IsaKd as a valuable option for len-R MM patients relapsing after the first-line therapy, including ASCT and lenalidomide maintenance. Full article

Background: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Methods: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N  =  127) or RD (N  = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Results: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1–3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months (p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months (p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months (p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab—16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up. Conclusions: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies. Full article