No abstract

This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCR) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care), and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg/day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n=158) or CCR (n=161). Median age was 71 years. Median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3-1270) and CCR was 36 days (1-1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. Median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio] 0.86; P=.23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median 4.9 months, vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR 0.68; P=.008), TTF (median 4.9 vs 1.9 months, HR 0.53; P<.001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P<.001), HI (42.4% vs 11.2%), and RBC-TI (31.7% vs 9.3%). Enasidenib safety was consistent with prior reports. The primary study endpoint was not met but OS was confounded by early dropout and subsequent AML-directed therapies. Enasidenib provided meaningful benefits in EFS, TTF, ORR, HI, and RBC-TI in this heavily pretreated older mutant-IDH2 R/R AML population.

No abstract

Introduction: Despite recent advances in available treatments, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains an incurable disease, and the vast majority of patients (pts) will relapse and require additional lines of therapy. Thus, prolonging remission is a key treatment goal in CLL. This multicenter, randomized, double-blinded phase 3 trial (NCT00774345) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide (LEN) vs placebo (PBO) as maintenance therapy in previously treated CLL pts. Methods: Eligible CLL pts must have had at least a partial response (PR) to second-line therapy. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive either LEN 2.5 mg once daily on days 1-28 of the first 28-day cycle, or matching PBO. If LEN was well tolerated, escalation to 5 mg/day was permitted from cycle 2, and further escalation to 10 mg/day at cycle 7 and thereafter. Pts were stratified by their response at the end of second-line therapy (PR, nodular PR, complete response [CR], or CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery; vs minimal residual disease [MRD]-negative CR by flow cytometry); age (≤ 70 vs > 70 years); and presence of at least one of the following poor prognostic factors: del(11q), del(17p), unmutated IGHV, or b2M > 0.4 mg/L (Yes vs No vs Unknown). Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS; IRAC assessed) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included: safety, tumor response, duration of response, second PFS (PFS2, time from randomization to second disease progression or death), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results: Overall, 314 pts were enrolled (LEN, n = 160; PBO, n = 154). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment arms: median age was 63 years (range 37-82) and 63 years (range 37-84), 71.9% and 72.1% were male, 9.4% and 11.7% had MRD-negative CR to second-line treatment, and 47.5% and 47.4% had at least one poor prognostic factor, in the LEN and PBO arms, respectively. On review of the primary analysis, 30 Sept 2015 data cutoff, the required number of progression events to complete the co-primary analysis had occurred, and the data monitoring committee recommended that the study be unblinded. Median follow-up time was 31.5 months, and the median PFS was significantly longer for LEN vs PBO: 33.9 vs 9.2 months, respectively (HR 0.40 [95% CI 0.29, 0.55]; P < 0.001). At the time of the analysis there were 86 deaths and there was no significant difference in the OS (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.63, 1.48]; P = 0.856). Subsequent CLL therapy was received by 35.7% of pts in the LEN arm and 58.4% of pts in the PBO arm, of these pts 16% in the LEN arm and 20% in the PBO arm were treated with a BTK or PI3K inhibitor. Median PFS2 was significantly longer for LEN vs PBO: 57.5 vs 32.7 months, respectively (HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.29, 0.70]; P <0.001). Median number of treatment cycles received was 18 vs 9 cycles, for LEN vs PBO, respectively; a higher proportion of pts in the LEN arm started ≥25 cycles vs the PBO arm (38.9% vs 24.0%, respectively). Median dose intensity in the LEN arm was 4.2 mg/day. The most common adverse events (AEs) of all grades were neutropenia (66.2% vs 30.5%) and diarrhea (40.8% vs 16.2%) in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1.9% vs 0%, deep vein thrombosis in 1.9% vs 0%, and pulmonary embolism in 2.5% vs 0.6% of pts in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively. Most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (59.9% vs 22.7%), thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs 6.5%), and diarrhea (8.3% vs 0.6%) in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively; all other grade 3/4 AEs occurred in <5% of pts in either arm. While there was a significant difference in the incidence of neutropenia, the rate of grade 3/4 infections was 16.6% for LEN vs 10.4% for PBO-treated pts. There were 13 (8.3%) vs 14 (9.1%) pts with at least one invasive second primary malignancy (SPM) in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively. Hematologic invasive SPMs occurred in 7 vs 2 pts, and solid tumor invasive SPMs occurred in 7 vs 12 pts, in the LEN vs PBO arm, respectively. Overall, 44 pts in the LEN arm and 41 pts in the PBO arm died; 1 pt died on treatment in the LEN arm, and 2 pts in the PBO arm. There was no clinically meaningful difference in HRQoL for LEN vs PBO, as measured by FACT-Leu and EQ-5D, during maintenance treatment. Conclusions: LEN maintenance therapy significantly improved PFS from 9.2 to 33.9 months following second-line treatment in pts with CLL. The incidence of invasive SPMs was similar in both arms, and LEN maintenance treatment had an expected and acceptable safety profile. Disclosures Foà: Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead,: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer, Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Genentech, Janssen, BMS: Consultancy. Schuh:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Celgene, Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zaritskey:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Semochkin:Celgene, Sandoz, Novartis, Astellas, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Bayer Healthcare, Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; City Clinical Hospital 52, Moscow, Russia: Consultancy. Simpson:Amgen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene, Roche, Janssen: Honoraria. Vokurka:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Purse:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Introduction. The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged health professionals and patients suffering from haematological diseases with embarrassed diagnosis, treatment, surveillance, social distancing and other constraints.Aim — addressing therapy for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the light of own experience, as well as national and international professional medical community guidelines.Main findings. A standard choice in COVID-19-negative ITP patients are conventional, e.g., glucocorticosteroid (GCS) and intravenous immunoglobulin therapies. An early transfer to thrombopoietin receptor agonists (rTPO) appears optimal as reducing the infection risk in GCS withdrawal and significantly improving the stable remission rate without supportive treatment. Combined ITP–COVID-19 patients should consider a prednisolone treatment of 20 mg/day, provided an absent active bleeding. The dose may increase to 1 mg/kg/day in no response after 3–5 days. ITP patients admitted for COVID-19 should start weight‐based LMWH thromboprophylaxis upon attaining a platelet count of ≥ 30 × 109 /L. Chronic ITP patients should carry on usual treatment with standard SARS-CoV-2 preventive and social distancing measures. We exemplify three contrasting clinical cases of COVID-19-comorbid thrombocytopenia and discuss the ITP differential diagnosis and therapy. Two patients received GCSs and rTPO agonists (romiplostim, eltrombopag), while GCSs alone provided for platelet response in the third case. All patients showed a good clinical and biological response. Issues in SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are discussed.