Rocafiguera, Albert Oriol

7563 Background: Subcutaneous (SC) drug delivery options have become more widely available in multiple myeloma (MM). SC delivery of isatuximab (Isa), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, has been investigated across clinical trials via a novel hands-free on-body injector (OBI). Isa SC OBI features a small, retractable needle, establishing the first device-enabled delivery of an oncologic treatment. The Phase 3 IRAKLIA, Phase 2 IZALCO, and Phase 1b (TCD15484) trials consistently demonstrated similar efficacy and safety of Isa SC OBI vs Isa IV in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients (pts). Here, we present a cross-trial analysis exploring safety and reliability of Isa SC OBI in RRMM pts. Methods: Pts with RRMM in IRAKLIA (N=263) and the Phase 1b expansion cohort (N=22) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (d). In IZALCO, RRMM pts (N=64) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI + carfilzomib (K)-d. Pts were monitored for 4 hrs (IRAKLIA) or 1-2 hrs (IZALCO) following first administration and for 1 hr for the following cycle (C) 1 administrations to assess local tolerability. Pre-infusion medications included montelukast (C1), steroids, acetaminophen and H1 antihistamines. Pts without systemic infusion-related reactions (IRRs) after 4 consecutive administrations of Isa SC OBI had subsequent pre-medication reassessed at investigator’s discretion. Safety and device performance explored in this cross-trial analysis of company sponsored studies were assessed in the Isa SC OBI cohorts by the duration of injection, IRRs, local injection-site reactions (ISRs), and injection/device success, which were defined similarly across all trials. Results: The median duration of Isa SC OBI injection was 13 mins in IRAKLIA, 12 mins in IZALCO, and 10 mins in the Phase 1b trial (6426 total injections, N=349 pts). IRRs across trials occurred in 6/6426 (0.09%) injections and 4/349 (1.15%) pts. IRRs were mostly grade 1 (G; 3/6426, 0.05%) with 1 G3 (0.02%); none leading to discontinuation. In IRAKLIA, 80/263 (30.4%) pts did not require premedication (931/5145 injections, 18.1%); no IRRs occurred in this group. Across trials, ISRs occurred in 21/349 (6.02%) pts resulting in 35 (0.54%) ISR events. Most ISRs were G1 (33, 0.51%), the remaining were G2 (2, 0.03%) and generally occurred on the day of injection. 99.9% (6421/6426) of injections in 98.6% (344/349) pts were successful (completed without interruption) across all trials. Conclusions: These findings support overall low, self-limiting rates of IRRs and ISRs across trials, with >6000 (99.9%) Isa SC OBI injections successfully delivered. Isa SC OBI shows reproducible safety and reliability in IRAKLIA, IZALCO and Phase 1b trials, supporting it as a novel administration option for MM pts and its potential for future exploration in at-home administration. Clinical trial information: NCT04045795 , NCT05405166 , and NCT05704049 .

7516 Background: With the growing use of anti-CD38 therapies in early multiple myeloma (MM) management, there is a need for data in patients previously exposed to anti-CD38 therapy to guide decision making. In the Phase 3 IRAKLIA trial (NCT05405166), patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) received the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody isatuximab (Isa) subcutaneously (SC) delivered via an innovative on-body injector (OBI) or intravenously (IV), with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd). In this post hoc analysis, we examined outcomes in IRAKLIA patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Methods: RRMM patients ≥18 years with ≥1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized to receive Isa SC (n=263) or IV (n=268) weekly in Cycle 1, then every 2 weeks, with Pd. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure <9 months (mos) before randomization or intolerance to anti-CD38 were excluded. Refractory patients were defined as those who failed to achieve minimal response on treatment or had progression within 60 days after last dose. Patients receiving Isa SC or IV were pooled. Results: Overall, 67 patients (12.6%) had prior anti-CD38 exposure with a median washout period of 20.2 mos, of which 26 (38.8%) were anti-CD38 refractory. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent between patients with or without prior anti-CD38 exposure; the median follow-up for the overall population was 12 mos. Patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure had an overall response rate (ORR) of 52.2%, 12-mo progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 40.6%, and median PFS of 8.5 mos. In patients without prior exposure, an ORR of 73.5%, 12-mo PFS of 68.8%, and non-estimable (NE) median PFS were reported. Anti-CD38 non-refractory vs refractory patients had an ORR of 48.8% vs 57.7%, 12-mo PFS of 38.9% vs 42.2%, and median PFS of 9.0 vs 7.5 mos. Patients with a longer washout period (>median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 63.6%, 12-mo PFS of 61.8% and NE median PFS, whereas patients whose prior anti-CD38 therapy ended more recently (≤median of 20.2 mos) had an ORR of 41.2%, 12-mo PFS of 19.2%, and median PFS of 6.7 mos. The safety profile of Isa + Pd was similar in patients with vs without prior anti-CD38 exposure. Conclusions: Isa + Pd demonstrated clinical benefit across anti-CD38–naïve, anti-CD38–exposed, and anti-CD38–refractory patients. A washout period >median of 20.2 mos resulted in outcomes comparable to those in anti-CD38–naïve patients, and outcomes were consistent between anti-CD38–exposed and anti-CD38–refractory patients after a >9-mo washout period. Efficacy of Isa + Pd in patients with prior anti-CD38 exposure from the IRAKLIA trial presents an opportunity to address an unmet need in a difficult-to-treat patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT05405166 .

8583 Background: Poor prognosis and therapy exhaustion have been associated with reduced QOL in RRMM. In MM-003, a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial, POM + LoDEX (n = 302) significantly improved progression-free and overall survival vs. high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX; n = 153) in pts who failed lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) and progressed on their last therapy. This analysis evaluated QOL changes in these pts. Methods: To assess pt-reported outcomes, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed. Minimal important differences for 5 clinically relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains (Global Health Status, Physical Functioning, Fatigue, Emotional Functioning, and Pain) were calculated as meaningful change thresholds (1 standard error of measurement) from baseline through cycle (C) 5. Time to QOL worsening was compared between arms using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Favorable trends were observed for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in each of the 5 relevant domains. The cross-sectional analysis indicated statistically or marginally significant (P < .10) differences favoring POM + LoDEX in Global Health Status (C2, 4), Physical Function (C2, 3, 4), Emotional Function (C2, 3, 4), and Fatigue (C2) scores. Longitudinal comparisons between arms confirmed the significance of score changes for Global Health Status (C2; P = .01), Physical Functioning (C3 and 4; P = .018 and .028, respectively), Emotional Functioning (C3; P = .018), and Fatigue (C5; P = .008) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX. HiDEX pts exhibited clinically meaningful worsening in Global Health Status and Physical Functioning scores vs. POM + LoDEX by C2 (P = .04) and C3 (P = .02), respectively. POM + LoDEX extended median time to meaningful worsening vs. HiDEX for Global Health Status (114 vs. 85 days, P = .05), Physical Functioning (174 vs. 106 days; P = .09), Fatigue (113 vs. 60 days; P = .02), Emotional Functioning (190 vs. 124 days; P = .04), and Pain (147 vs. 113 days; P = .2). Conclusions: In heavily pretreated pts who failed LEN and BORT, POM + LoDEX resulted in better clinical outcomes as well as improvement in clinically relevant QOL measurements over the course of treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8527 Background: Pts who have exhausted lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) treatment (Tx) have a poor prognosis. A significant proportion of pts have RI with increasing incidence during disease course. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT, including those with RI. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination) and must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days). Pts with creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 45 mL/min were excluded. Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) qw; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-D cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and AEs. This analysis examined pts with or without moderate RI (CrCl < 60 vs ≥ 60mL/min). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX; 153 pts received HiDEX, 31% and 39% had moderate RI, respectively. Pts with moderate RI were more likely to be older (64% vs 36% aged > 65 y) vs no RI. Median follow-up was 4 mo. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs HiDEX regardless of RI (Table). Similar AE rates for POM + LoDEX as well as HiDEX Tx were seen in pts with and without moderate RI (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was 5% vs 7% (no moderate RI) and 11% vs 5% (moderate RI). Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs HiDEX in pts with or without moderate RI. Tolerability of POM + LoDEX was acceptable across subgroups, with few discontinuations due to AE. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

8510 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who have exhausted treatment (Tx) with bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide (LEN) or thalidomide have a poor prognosis with short overall survival (OS). HiDEX is a well-established standard Tx in RRMM. POM has demonstrated clinical efficacy in pts refractory to LEN and BORT. MM-003 compared POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT and who progressed on their last Tx. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during Tx or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive 28-day cycles of POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20. Tx continued until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR; ≥ partial response), and safety. Analyses were based on intent to treat. Results: 455 pts were randomized to POM + LoDEX (n = 302) or HiDEX (n = 153). The median number of prior Tx was 5 (range 1-17). 72% were refractory to LEN and BORT. Median follow-up was 4 months. POM + LoDEX significantly extended median PFS (3.6 vs. 1.8 months, HR = 0.45, P < .001) and OS (not reached vs. 7.8 months, HR = 0.53, P < .001) vs. HiDEX. The OS benefit was observed despite 29% of HiDEX pts receiving POM after PD. The trial met the primary endpoint of PFS, crossed the upper boundary for OS superiority, and the Data Monitoring Committee recommended crossover from HiDEX to POM ± DEX. With updated data, the ORR was 21% for POM + LoDEX vs. 3% for HiDEX (P < .001) and 24% vs 3% for pts randomized ≥ 6 months post-enrollment (P < .001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) for POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX were neutropenia (42% vs. 15%), anemia (27% vs. 29%), and infection (24% vs. 23%). Discontinuation due to AEs was infrequent (7% vs. 6%). Updated data will be presented. Conclusions: POM + LoDEX significantly extended PFS and OS vs. HiDEX in pts who failed LEN and BORT. POM + LoDEX should become a standard of care in RRMM pts who have exhausted Tx with LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687.

Introduction: Despite advances in treatment strategy, multiple myeloma (MM) remains a challenging, incurable disease as patients (pts) often relapse. Here we describe preclinical data of a novel cereblon (CRBN) E3 ligase modulatory compound (CELMoD), iberdomide (IBER; CC-220), as well as clinical and translational data from a current phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT02773030). These data support a differentiated profile for IBER from immunomodulatory agents (IMiD agents), and development of IBER as a foundation of combination therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Methods: Preclinical analyses were performed on pomalidomide (POM)-sensitive and acquired-resistant MM cell lines and peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy volunteers. Eligible pts enrolled on the clinical trial had RRMM and had received ≥ 2 prior regimens, containing at least an IMiD agent and proteasome inhibitor (PI), and had experienced disease progression within 60 days of last MM therapy. Escalating doses of IBER were given on Days 1-21, in combination with dexamethasone (DEX; 40 mg; 20 mg in pts aged > 75 years) on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22, of each 28-day cycle. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) data on CRBN, Ikaros, Aiolos, and ZFP91 expression was obtained from pt bone marrow specimens at screening and at Cycle 2, Day 15. Immune profiling was evaluated by flow cytometry of peripheral blood at Cycle 1, Day 1 and Cycle 2, Day 15. Primary objectives were to evaluate maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), safety, and preliminary efficacy. Results: Preclinically, IBER exhibited potent tumoricidal anti-MM and immunostimulatory activity. IBER was more potent than lenalidomide (LEN) or POM in overcoming the immunosuppressive activity of bortezomib (BORT), inducing a more than twofold increase in T cell proliferation in the presence of BORT. IBER also enhanced the antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity of daratumumab (DARA), leading to deeper responses than combinations with LEN or POM. Further differentiating from both LEN and POM, IBER showed activity alone and in combination with BORT or DARA in POM-resistant MM cell lines. As of June 28, 2019, 69 pts with RRMM had received IBER + DEX. Median age was 65 years (range 33-80), and median number of prior regimens was 5 (range 2-12). Prior therapies included autologous stem cell transplantation (80%), LEN (100%), POM (70%), PIs (100%), DARA (71%) and anti-BCMA (6%), including CAR T cells. Clinical activity was observed across all dose levels with an overall response rate (ORR) of 29%, clinical benefit rate of 45%, and disease control rate of 80%. ORR was 30%, 28% and 29% in IMiD agent-refractory, DARA-refractory and Quad-class (IMiD agents/PIs/steroids/CD-38 antibodies)-refractory pts, respectively. IBER + DEX showed a favorable safety profile, with grade 3-4 neutropenia, infections, and thrombocytopenia, occurring in 29%, 25%, and 12% of pts, respectively. To date, IBER doses range from 0.3 to 1.3 mg and the MTD/RP2D has not yet been reached. Pharmacodynamic immunophenotyping changes were dose-dependent. Treatment with IBER (at doses > 0.75mg) + DEX doubled the percentage of proliferating T cells and NK cells (P < 0.001 for each) and increased activated and effector memory CD8+ and CD4+ T cells by > 50% (P < 0.01 for each subset). Pharmacodynamic changes in pt bone marrow by quantitative IHC scoring showed significant degradation of substrates (Ikaros, P = 0.006; Aiolos, P < 0.001; ZFP91, P < 0.001) and downregulation of c-myc (P = 0.027), including in pts refractory to POM and with low CRBN expression. Conclusions: IBER + DEX has shown notable clinical activity and favorable tolerability in heavily pretreated pts with RRMM, including pts refractory to prior IMiD therapy. Preclinical and translational data suggest a differentiated profile of IBER from IMiD agents in regard to activity in POM-resistant models, potency in combination with BORT and DARA, and by inducing changes in CD4+ T cells that were not observed in pts treated with POM from prior studies. Taken together, these data support a differentiated profile for IBER from IMiD agents, and the clinical development of IBER as a foundation of combination therapy for the treatment of RRMM. This study is ongoing, and includes cohorts evaluating the combinations of IBER + DEX with DARA, BORT, and carfilzomib. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Lonial: Karyopharm: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Amatangelo:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Popat:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings. Minnema:Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Jansen Cilag: Honoraria. Zonder:Alnylam: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Intellia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Oriol Rocafiguera:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Rodriguez Otero:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy. Badros:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Siegel:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Merck & Co.: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Bringhen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy. Gironella:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kaiser:Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Abbvie, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Abbvie, Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene, Janssen: Research Funding. Cook:Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squib, GlycoMimetics, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gamberi:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:SkylineDx: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Nguyen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Homan:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Bjorklund:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pierceall:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bensmaine:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Thakurta:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Peluso:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Van De Donk:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.