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, 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
During March 2019, several applications were filed with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for potential new combined drug regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). These are summarized below and the founding trial information is included in Tables 1 and 2.
A type II variation application (having a significant effect on quality, safety or efficacy of a medicinal product) was submitted to the EMA for this 4-drug regimen in transplant eligible NDMM, alongside a supplemental biologics license (sBLA) to the FDA.1,2 These applications are based on the findings from part 1 of the CASSIOPEIA trial.
Table 1: Summary of CASSIOPEIA clinical trial part 11–3
ASCT, autologous stem cell transplant; dara, daratumumab; NDMM, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; sCR, stringent complete response; VTd, bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone |
|
Trial name |
CASSIOPEIA (MMY3006) |
---|---|
NCT reference |
|
Drug combination |
Dara-VTd VTd |
Patient setting |
Transplant eligible NDMM |
Trial phase |
Phase III |
Trial design |
Dara-VTd versus VTd |
N |
1,085 |
Dosing schedule |
Four cycles of VTd induction +/- daratumumab (16 mg/kg), high-dose therapy and ASCT followed by two cycles of VTd consolidation +/- daratumumab (16 mg/kg) |
Primary endpoint |
sCR |
Efficacy
|
sCR (dara-VTd vs VTd): 28.9% vs 20.3% (odds ratio: 1.60, 95% CI, 1.21–2.12, P ≤ 0.001) |
Safety |
Safety profile of dara-VTd consistent with that of VTd and daratumumab alone. |
A type II variation application was submitted to the EMA for DRd in transplant ineligible NDMM, alongside a sBLA to the FDA.4 These applications are based on the findings from the MAIA trial.
Table 2: Summary of MAIA clinical trial4,5
CR, complete response; DRd, daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; HR, hazard ratio; NDMM, newly dianosed multiple myeloma; ORR, overall response rate; PFS, progression free survival |
|
Trial name |
MAIA (MMY3008) |
---|---|
NCT reference |
|
Drug combination |
DRd Rd |
Patient setting |
Transplant ineligible NDMM |
Trial phase |
Phase III |
Trial design |
DRd versus Rd |
N |
737 |
Dosing schedule |
Rd: oral lenalidomide (25 mg) on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle with 40 mg dexamethasone once per week. DRd: As per Rd arm with the addition of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg) once weekly for cycles 1–2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3–6 and every 4 weeks for cycle 7 onwards until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or study end |
Primary endpoint |
PFS |
Efficacy (Given as DRd vs Rd) |
Median follow-up: 28 months Median PFS: not reached vs 31.9 months ≥ CR: 47.6% vs 24.7% ORR: 93% vs 81% Risk of reduction of disease progression or death with DRd vs Rd alone: 44% (HR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.43–0.73, P < 0.0001) |
Safety
|
In the DRd arm, there were higher rates (≥5% difference) of grade 3/4 pneumonia, neutropenia and leukopenia Safety profile is in line with previously reported daratumumab studies |
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox