Alodhaibi, Ibrahim

Abstract Kidney injury is a major medical burden and one of the most common reasons for hospitalization and poor life quality. Kidney injury can include acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and immune-mediated kidney diseases most of which have no definitive therapy. The spleen is a secondary lymphoid organ in the reticuloendothelial system that plays an important role in protecting the body from various diseases. Notably, spleen tyrosine kinase, a non-receptor tyrosine kinase, is a crucial player that aids in immunity and protection and is highly expressed in the kidney and hematopoietic cells. It has been shown that alterations in spleen tyrosine kinase function or expression could lead to a wide range of diseases and abnormalities. Over the past decade, the role of spleen and spleen tyrosine kinase in multiple kidney diseases has emerged. Evidence suggests that modulating the spleno-renal connection through activation of the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway can be a promising strategy for protecting against kidney injury. Imitating the protective function of the spleen through interleukin-10-extracellular vesicles can also be of therapeutic value. In addition, evidence showed that inhibition of the spleen tyrosine kinase leads to amelioration of the kidney injury. However, further exploration and long-term studies are needed to unravel the spleno-renal connection, as well as the efficacy of spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitors, before they can be used as means for treatment of kidney injury. Graphical Abstract

Background: GLUT4 inhibition via the use of a protease inhibitor, such as nelfinavir (NEL), is an attractive therapeutic option in multiple myeloma (MM), given the dependence of MM cells on glucose. Furthermore, combining a GLUT4 inhibitor with an oxidative phosphorylation inhibitor, such as metformin (MET), may counter the possibility of therapeutic resistance to GLUT4 inhibition in MM cells, showing synergistic promise (Dalva-Aydemir et al., Clin Can Res 2015). In addition to GLUT4 inhibition, NEL also lowers the cytotoxicity resistance of MM cells against proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib (BOR) (Driessen et al., Blood 2018). Thus, this study evaluated the safety and tolerability of repurposing MET and NEL, in combination with BOR for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) that had progressed on all standard of care (SOC) therapies. Methods: This trial utilized a 3+3 dose escalation design with 3 dose levels planned for up to a maximum of six (21-day) cycles. MET was administered for 14/21 days and started at a dose of 500 mg BID with plans to be investigated at a maximum dose of 1000 mg BID. NEL was administered for 14/21 days and started at a dose of 1250 mg BID with plans to be investigated to a maximum dose of 2500 mg BID. SubQ BOR was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 21-day cycle at a dose of 1.3 mg/m 2 to a portion of patients. Patients with RRMM were required to have had 2 prior lines of therapy and prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulators (IMiDs), and Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. The primary objective was to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of this combination. The secondary objective was to evaluate the safety as well as the overall response rate (ORR) of this combination. This trial was funded by the Helen Diller Family Foundation. Results: From 4/2019 until 9/2022, nine patients were accrued with a median age of 65 (range: 42-81) that received a median of 7 prior lines of therapy (Range: 6-13). All but one patient had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Only one patient was not triple-class refractory, and 2/3 rd (n = 6) also had prior anti-BCMA therapy. The first three patients received only MET (500 mg BID) and NEL (1250 mg BID) at the first dose level for up to one cycle before experiencing progressive disease and coming off the study. Given the limited activity of MET and NEL in the initial treatment of these three patients, two subsequent amendments to the protocol allowed for the upfront addition of BOR 1.3 mg/m2 to the original combination, as well as shortened the DLT evaluation period from two cycles to just one. Thus, the following six patients received MET (500 mg BID) and NEL (1250 mg BID) at the first dose level in addition to weekly BOR at 1.3 mg/m2. Four (44%) patients experienced grade 3+ hematological AEs and six (67%) experienced grade 3+ non-hematological AEs. The most common hematologic grade 3+ AE observed was anemia (44%). The nonhematologic grade 3+ AEs observed were dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting (11% each). None of the AEs were possibly related to treatment, suggesting good overall safety of the combination. While eight of nine patients have since died of progressive disease, no deaths were attributable to the treatment. All six patients who received BOR upfront with MET and NEL were previously refractory to BOR in prior lines of therapy; however, none had received BOR as their last line of therapy prior to accrual to this study. Four of these six patients had progressive disease after one cycle of therapy and went off study. However, the remaining two were able to receive 2 or more cycles of therapy, with one experiencing an unconfirmed minor response (MR) in the first cycle and the other experiencing stable disease (SD) for all six cycles. The patient who experienced SD was safely able to transition to a subsequent clinical trial utilizing an anti-BCMA bispecific antibody therapy and remains alive at the time of this analysis. The study was closed before accrual to the next dose level was started. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this repurposed drug combination in this very difficult-to-treat population of RRMM. While no ORR was observed, identification of biomarkers used for selection of patients with no other SOC options who could experience at least SD responses may be beneficial in allowing this combination to slow or stabilize the disease progression until other novel therapies or clinical trials are available.