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.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your Multiple Myeloma Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe Multiple Myeloma 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 Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub 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. Digital educational resources delivered on the Multiple Myeloma Hub are supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. View funders.
Bookmark this article
Test your knowledge! Take our quick quiz before and after you read this article to find out if you improved your knowledge. Results help us to improve content and continually provide open-access education.
Lenalidomide maintenance is currently the standard-of-care treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) following high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation; however, 24–29% of patients discontinue treatment with lenalidomide due to adverse events (AEs) and poor tolerability.1
During the 65th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, Van de Donk presented first results from the EMN26 phase II trial (NCT04564703), in which iberdomide, a novel oral cereblon E3 ligase modulator, was investigated as an alternative treatment to address this unmet need. Here, we summarize the key points.
For more information on the top abstracts in multiple myeloma presented at the 65th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition, selected by our steering committee, check out our recent article.
EMN26 is an ongoing phase II trial, including 120 patients assigned to three cohorts.
An outline of the trial design and key eligibility criteria is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. EMN26 trial design*
ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; IMiD, immunomodulatory agents; MRD, measurable residual disease; NDMM, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; NGF, next-generation flow; PD, progressive disease; PI, proteasome inhibitor; PR, partial response.
*Adapted from Van de Donk.1
†Cohort 3 was added at a later stage.
Both Cohorts 1 and 2 experienced significant improvements in response after six and 12 cycles. After six treatment cycles, patients treated with 1.3 mg iberdomide experienced a larger response improvement. However, after 12 cycles, the 1.0 mg cohort had the largest overall improvement from baseline (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Response improvement within A six and B 12 treatment cycles*
C, cycle; CR, complete response; PR, partial response, sCR, stringent CR; VGPR, very good PR.
*Adapted from Van de Donk.1
Both groups maintained high PFS rates at 12 months:
AEs recorded between cohorts were comparable (Table 1). In both cohorts, infections of any grade were the most recorded AE, followed by neutropenia. In both cohorts, a significant percentage of neutropenia events were Grade 3–4 (50% and 42%, respectively).
Table 1. Adverse events*
Adverse events, % (unless otherwise stated) |
1.3 mg cohort |
1.0 mg cohort |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Grade 1–2 |
Grade 3–4 |
Grade 1–2 |
Grade 3–4 |
|
Hematologic |
||||
Neutropenia |
10 |
50 |
10 |
42 |
Febrile neutropenia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Thrombocytopenia |
15 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
Anemia |
5 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
Lymphopenia |
8 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
Non-hematologic |
||||
Fatigue |
18 |
15 |
18 |
10 |
Peripheral neuropathy |
15 |
3 |
13 |
0 |
Rash |
20 |
10 |
18 |
3 |
Infections |
55 |
10 |
52 |
13 |
COVID-19 |
18 |
0 |
30 |
0 |
Pneumonia |
8 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
*Adapted from Van de Donk.1 |
Overall, in both iberdomide cohorts, a response improvement of at least 50% was observed. As part of the EMN26 trial, lenalidomide was observed to result in a 31% improvement after 12 cycles. Conclusions across trials cannot be made; however, these results support further investigation of iberdomide vs lenalidomide maintenance post autologous stem cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox