Sarosiek, Shayna

Background: In patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), continuous once-daily ibrutinib-based therapy has been associated with long-term progression-free survival. In addition, patients who continued ibrutinib-based treatment had better survival outcomes than those who discontinued treatment within the first few years. Evidence based on a single-center retrospective study suggests that dose reduction (DR) can be used to effectively manage ibrutinib-related adverse events (AEs) and avoid early treatment discontinuation. However, real-world data on outcomes in patients with WM after ibrutinib DR are limited. In this real-world study, we analyzed short-term (1-year follow-up) dosing patterns and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) in patients with WM, with and without DR, who were receiving first-line (1L) ibrutinib. Methods: Medicare Fee-for-Service closed-claim medical or pharmacy records were used to identify patients diagnosed with WM who initiated 1L single-agent ibrutinib (420 mg/day) from January 2014 to December 2020. Observed patients were enrolled in Medicare ≥12 months before and after ibrutinib initiation and had post-initiation AEs (both prevalent and incident AEs with DR recommendation from the US Prescribing Information), as identified via ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes. Ibrutinib DR was defined as a reduction of the starting dose following the first AE within the 1-year follow-up period. Patients without a DR were defined as those who had received ibrutinib 420 mg per day during the 1-year follow-up period. Patients with a DR in the absence of AEs and patients with a DR prior to any AE were excluded from the analysis. Demographics, clinical characteristics, time to first AE, and TTD were analyzed among cohorts with and without DR. TTD was defined and evaluated as the time from first observed AE after ibrutinib initiation to the earliest occurrence of (1) a gap of >120 days between the end of 1L therapy and the follow-up period, (2) initiation of a next line of therapy, or (3) death. TTD was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methodology, log rank test, and a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline and time-varying covariates. Results: We identified 404 patients (DR, n = 58 [14%]; no DR, 346 [86%]). Overall, 249 patients (62%) were men, 267 patients (66%) had hypertension, 55 patients (14%) had atrial fibrillation, and 114 patients (28%) had other cardiovascular conditions at baseline. The mean ± SD age at baseline was 77 ± 8 years. In both cohorts, the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 4.0. Among the 404 patients, mean ± SD time from ibrutinib initiation to first AE was 28 ± 44 days. Mean ± SD time between first AE and DR was 137 ± 102 days. Mean TTD was 8.3 months (DR) and 6.2 (no DR) ( P = 0.018; Figure). At 6 and 12 months of follow-up, fewer patients with DR discontinued treatment compared with patients without DR (6 months: 24% vs 46%, P = 0.002; 12 months: 36% vs 50%, P = 0.064). After controlling for baseline and time-varying demographic and clinical characteristics, patients with DR were not significantly more likely to discontinue treatment compared with patients without DR (hazard ratio [95% CI], DR vs no DR: 1.24 [0.86-1.78]). Conclusion: These short-term (1-year follow-up) findings suggest TTD was not impacted by DR of ibrutinib following AEs. Thus, ibrutinib DR can be an effective strategy to manage AEs while maintaining clinical efficacy. Of note, causal association between AE and subsequent DR cannot be inferred from the claims database due to the cross-sectional nature of this study.

AbstractIbrutinib is a first-generation inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) that is currently approved to treat patients with B-cell malignancies, including Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), R/R marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). Off-target adverse effects, such as atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and bleeding, have been observed and may limit a patient’s tolerance for treatment. Currently, there is no well-established treatment regimen for patients who cannot tolerate ibrutinib. Approaches to address such patients include managing ibrutinib side effects with supportive care or dose reductions, switching to an alternative covalent BTK inhibitor, or abandoning covalent BTK inhibitors for alternative forms of treatment. Here we review the literature and provide guidance on treating ibrutinib-intolerant patients with B-cell malignancies.

Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma with a variable clinical presentation that can impact a patient’s quality of life by causing anemia, peripheral neuropathy, serum hyperviscosity, extramedullary disease, and other symptoms. There are several safe and effective treatment regimens for patients with WM, and the choice of therapy should be made in a personalized fashion considering the patient’s symptoms, comorbidities, and genomic profile. Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are a new option to treat patients with WM. Zanubrutinib is a next-generation covalent BTK inhibitor designed to have fewer off-target effects than previous BTK inhibitors. This review summarizes the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of zanubrutinib as well as safety and efficacy findings. Then, it explores the health economic and outcomes research associated with the costs of treating patients with WM and the reasons why zanubrutinib may be a more cost-effective treatment option compared with ibrutinib, a first-generation BTK inhibitor. Future directions for the treatment of WM focus on the use of zanubrutinib in combination therapy. Combinations based on effective ibrutinib or acalabrutinib treatments may be effectively applied with zanubrutinib given the similar mechanism of action for these BTK inhibitors. Combination therapies could also help prevent the development of disease resistance, minimize toxicity, and support treatment regimens of finite duration.

7566 Background: Parenteral limited-duration BR chemoimmunotherapy and continuous orally administered Ibr, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, dominate the treatment landscape of WM, a rare B cell lymphoma. No trials have assessed the comparative effectiveness of these 2 vastly different approaches. We conducted a multiinstitutional, international, collaborative study to compare BR and single-agent Ibr in patients (pts) with treatment naïve (TN) WM. Methods: Data from 347 pts with active TN WM, seen between 2011 and 2021 in the US and Europe, were analyzed. The pts on rituximab maintenance were excluded. The modified IWWM-6 criteria (based on IgM alone) were used for response assessment. All time-to-event analyses were performed from the frontline therapy initiation, using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median age of the pts treated with BR (n=208) and Ibr (n=139) was 66 (range 40-86) years (y) and 69 (39-97) y, respectively, (p=0.005). With a median follow up of 4.2 y (95% CI 3.8-4.5), the 4-y progression free survival (PFS) was 73% in each group, p=0.6, and 4-y overall survival (OS) was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in the BR group versus ( v) 82% (95% CI 75-90) in the Ibr group, p=0.01. In a bivariate analysis adjusting for age and the treatment type, only age emerged as a predictor for OS (HR 7.2, p=0.0001). Therefore, a 1:1 age-matched analysis of 246 pts who received Ibr (n=123) or BR (n=123) was performed. Pts with a known MYD88WT status who had received Ibr and their age matched controls on BR were excluded. The international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) WM was comparable between the 2 groups (Table). A higher proportion of pts on BR attained very good partial or deeper response (≥VGPR) as the best response in comparison to the pts on Ibr (Table). The 4-y PFS for the BR and Ibr groups was similar [72% (95% CI 63-82) v 78% (95% CI 70-87), p=0.14] and 4-y OS was 95% (95% CI 91-99) with BR v 86% (95% CI 80-93) with Ibr (p=0.3). Premature discontinuation, during active treatment, due to adverse effects (AEs) or lack of response was noted in 13% and 33% of pts on BR and Ibr, respectively. A detailed assessment of the AEs will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Both BR and Ibr lead to comparable outcomes in pts with TN WM, although deeper responses are attained with BR. These findings require confirmation in prospective studies. For pts who harbor MYD 88L265P mutation, selection between the 2 approaches should be dictated by their potential toxicities, pt comorbidities, pt/clinician preference (parenteral fixed-duration v continuous oral) and access to therapies. [Table: see text]

Background: Isatuximab (SAR650984) is an IgG1k monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to CD38 expressed on plasma cells in AL amyloidosis. It has been shown to be efficacious and well tolerated in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma as a single agent and in combination. Here we report on the preliminary results of a prospective multi-center, phase II study of isatuximab in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis (NCT03499808). Methods: Eligibility included age ≥ 18 years, relapsed or refractory systemic AL amyloidosis, ≥ 1 prior line of therapy, measurable disease (defined as a positive monoclonal serum immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) or urine IFE, a serum free light chain ratio outside of the normal range (0.25-1.65), and a difference in the involved versus the uninvolved serum free light chain of ≥ 4.5 mg/dL), at least one organ involved, not refractory to daratumumab, ECOG performance status 0-2, creatinine clearance ≥25 mL/min as measured by 24-hour urine collection or as estimated by Cockcroft and Gault formula, and NT-proBNP ≤8500 pg/mL. Patients received isatuximab intravenously 20 mg/kg weekly during the first 28 day cycle and every other week during cycles 2 through 24 for a maximum of 24 cycles. The primary objective was hematologic response with secondary objectives of organ response, safety, progression free survival, and overall survival. Results: At data cut-off (July 24, 2020), 43 patients were registered from March 2018 to September 2019 at 14 institutions. Thirty six patients were eligible with 35 patients receiving at least one dose of isatuximab. Of the eligible patients, the median age was 70 (range 40-81). Prior therapies included proteasome inhibitors in 32 patients (89%), high dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant in 17 patients (47%), immunomodulatory therapy in 9 patients (25%), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy in 2 patients (6%). Single organ system involvement was seen in 19 patients (53%), ≥ 2 organ systems in 17 patients (47%), 16 patients (44%) had renal involvement, and 24 (67%) had cardiac involvement. For those with cardiac involvement, 7 patients (29%) had cardiac biomarker stage II and 9 patients (38%) had stage III disease using the Revised Mayo Staging (Kumar S et al., J Clin Oncol, 2012). A total of 17 patients remain on therapy. The median duration on treatment for eligible patients is currently 11.8 months (current range, 0.3-22.1). Of the 19 patients who discontinued treatment, the most common reasons included adverse events in 5 patients (26%), disease progression in 4 patients (21%), sub-optimal response in 2 patients (11%), and concerns related to COVID-19 in 2 patients (11%). The current median follow up is 16.3 months. The most common drug-related AEs were infusion related reactions in 18 patients (50%) with the majority (16/18) being grade I or II, anemia in 9 patients (25%) with the majority (8/9) being grade I, and lymphopenia in 8 patients (22%). Patient characteristics and preliminary safety data were previously presented at the International Symposium on Amyloidosis. The overall hematologic response rate was 77%. Hematological complete response (CR) was observed in 1 of 35 evaluable (completing at least 1 dose) patients (3%), very-good-partial response (VGPR) in 19 patients (54%), and partial response (PR) in 7 patients (20%). Conclusions: Isatuximab demonstrates encouraging efficacy in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis. The administration of isatuximab in these patients is associated with a good safety profile similar to other monoclonal antibodies against CD38. The data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures Sanchorawala: Prothena: Research Funding; Caelum: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Regeneron: Other: advisory board; Caleum: Other: advisory board; Proclara: Other: advisory board; Abbvie: Other: advisory board; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Neparidze:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Eidos Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Diagnostic committee member . Sarosiek:Spectrum: Research Funding. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Usmani:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Orlowski:Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; STATinMED Research: Consultancy; Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties; Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Isatuximab is FDA approved for relapsed refractory myeloma in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Isatuximab is not FDA approved for AL amyloidosis.