Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia · 2024
PORT: A Randomized, Cross-Over, Phase 2 Study of Melflufen Peripheral Versus Central Intravenous Administration in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеКлиническое исследование II фазыМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pour Ludek, Micheva Ilina, Usenko Ganna, Mikala Gabor, Masszi Tamas, Simeonova Kameliya, Thuresson Marcus, Huledal Gunilla, Norin Stefan, Bakker Nicolaas A, Minarik Jiri
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Melflufen, a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, rapidly enters tumor cells and metabolizes to melphalan. In previous studies, melflufen was administered via central venous catheter (CVC). However, administration by peripheral venous catheter (PVC) may be preferable.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: PORT was a two-period, phase 2 crossover study of CVC versus PVC melflufen administration in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Adults with ≥ 2 prior therapies refractory to/intolerant of an immunomodulatory drug and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to weekly oral dexamethasone plus melflufen (40 mg) via CVC or PVC infusion on day 1 of 28-day cycle 1. In cycle 2, patients continued dexamethasone and crossed over to the other melflufen administration route. In cycle 3, all patients received melflufen until progression; PVC or CVC routes were allowed based upon investigator decision. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed during and after melflufen infusion. Primary endpoints were melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-∞)) and frequency and severity of PVC-related local reactions.
RESULTS: The 90% CIs for adjusted geometric mean ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters following CVC versus PVC administration were within the 0.8-1.25 bioequivalence range (Cmax 0.946 [90% CI: 0.849, 1.053]; AUC(0-t) 0.952 [90% CI: 0.861, 1.053]; AUC(0-∞) 0.955 [90% CI: 0.863, 1.058]). In both arms, adverse events were primarily hematological and similar; no phlebitis or local infusion-related reactions occurred.
CONCLUSION: Melflufen PVC and CVC administrations are bioequivalent based on melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters. Melflufen via PVC was well tolerated, with no infusion-related reactions or new safety signals and may represent an alternative route of administration.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: PORT was a two-period, phase 2 crossover study of CVC versus PVC melflufen administration in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Adults with ≥ 2 prior therapies refractory to/intolerant of an immunomodulatory drug and a proteasome inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to weekly oral dexamethasone plus melflufen (40 mg) via CVC or PVC infusion on day 1 of 28-day cycle 1. In cycle 2, patients continued dexamethasone and crossed over to the other melflufen administration route. In cycle 3, all patients received melflufen until progression; PVC or CVC routes were allowed based upon investigator decision. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed during and after melflufen infusion. Primary endpoints were melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-∞)) and frequency and severity of PVC-related local reactions.
RESULTS: The 90% CIs for adjusted geometric mean ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters following CVC versus PVC administration were within the 0.8-1.25 bioequivalence range (Cmax 0.946 [90% CI: 0.849, 1.053]; AUC(0-t) 0.952 [90% CI: 0.861, 1.053]; AUC(0-∞) 0.955 [90% CI: 0.863, 1.058]). In both arms, adverse events were primarily hematological and similar; no phlebitis or local infusion-related reactions occurred.
CONCLUSION: Melflufen PVC and CVC administrations are bioequivalent based on melphalan pharmacokinetic parameters. Melflufen via PVC was well tolerated, with no infusion-related reactions or new safety signals and may represent an alternative route of administration.