All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.

  TRANSLATE

The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

EHA 2018 | The phase III OPTIMISMM study of pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone

By Fiona Chaplin

Share:

Featured:

Paul RichardsonPaul Richardson

Jun 28, 2018


The 23rd Congress of the European Hematology Association (EHA) took place in Stockholm from 14–17 June 2018. On Saturday 16 June, an oral session took place during which, Paul G. Richardson from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), Boston, USA, presented final data from the phase III OPTIMISMM trial. This study assessed the efficacy of pomalidomide (P), bortezomib (V) and low-dose dexamethasone (d) in comparison to the efficacy of Vd alone, in lenalidomide-exposed patients that had received 1–3 prior therapies.

Pomalidomide is an oral immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) which prevented proliferation of lenalidomide-resistant cells in pre-clinical assays. It is currently approved as a treatment for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients that have received more than two prior regimens which include both lenalidomide and bortezomib, and who progressed on the last therapy. Since lenalidomide is an established upfront therapy, patients that become refractory to lenalidomide require other options, therefore the OPTIMISMM study sought to establish the efficacy of PVd in this patient population, with the primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.

Key Data:

  • Data cutoff = October 2017
  • Patients (pts) (N = 559) were randomized 1:1 to receive either PVd (n = 281) or Vd (n= 278) in 21-day cycles
  • Pomalidomide (P) = 4 mg/day on days 1–14; Bortezomib (V) = 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of cycles 1–8 and on days 1 and 8 of cycle 9 onwards; Dexamethasone (d) = 20 mg/day (10 mg/day if aged > 75 years) on the same day as bortezomib treatment and the day after

Data is given as PVd treatment arm vs Vd treatment arm:

  • Pt characteristics were well-balanced between the two treatment arms
  • Refractory to last regimen = 70% vs 66%
  • Prior lenalidomide = 100% in both arms; lenalidomide refractory = 71% vs 69%
  • Prior bortezomib = 72% vs 73%; bortezomib refractory = 9% vs 12%
  • Median number of prior lines of therapy = 2 (1 prior line in PVd = 40% and Vd = 41%)
  • Median follow-up = 15.9 months
  • Discontinuation: due to progressive disease (PD) = 65.8% vs 80.9%; due to adverse events (AEs) = 10.7 vs 17.6%
  • Deaths (all causes) = 6.4% vs 3.2%
  • Responses for: ITT group and pts with only 1 prior therapy:
    • Median PFS (months): = 11.20 vs 7.10; HR = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.49–0.77), P < 0.0001, and 20.73 vs 11.63; HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.36–0.82)
    • Overall response rate (ORR): 82.2% vs 50% and 90.1% vs 54.8%
    • ≥ Very good response rate (VGPR) = 52.7 vs 18.3% and 61.3% vs 22.6%
    • Median TTR (ITT) = 0.9 vs 1.4 months
    • Median duration of response (ITT) = 13.7 vs 10.9 months
  • PFS was improved with PVd across all sub-groups
  • Time to next treatment (TTNT) (months): 22.24 vs 8.51; HR = 0.42 (95% CI, 0.33–0.54), P < 0.001
  • PFS2 (months): 22.44 vs 16.95; HR = 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59–0.99), P < 0.041
  • Median treatment duration (months) = 8.8 vs 4.9
  • Most common grade 3–4 AEs: Neutropenia = 42% vs 9%, infections = 31% vs 18%, and thrombocytopenia = 27% vs 29%, secondary primary malignancies (SPMs) = 3.2% vs 1.5%

Conclusion

Treatment with PVd reduced the risk of progression or death by 39%, compared to treatment with Vd alone, with this benefit consistent among patient subgroups, with the greatest benefit seen in patients that had received only one prior line of therapy. This study looked exclusively at lenalidomide-exposed patients, 75% of them refractory to lenalidomide, and therefore addresses the needs of a growing patient population for whom lenalidomide is no longer an option.

Expert Opinion

“ This trial establishes the real world value of a pomalidomide and a proteasome-inhibitor based approach after lenalidomide-based therapy fails a patient, and in particular in the early relapse setting.”

Paul RichardsonPaul Richardson

References

Your opinion matters

Are you currently re-using anti-CD38 therapy in patients with multiple myeloma who have been previously exposed but were not refractory to it?