Untreated bleeds in people with hemophilia A in a noninterventional study and intrapatient comparison after initiating emicizumab in HAVEN 1-3

Background

Bleeding in people with hemophilia A can be life threatening, and intra‐articular bleeds can result in joint damage. Most clinical studies focus on treated bleeds, while bleeds not treated with coagulation factor(s) (untreated bleeds) are underreported.

Objectives

We assessed the incidence of untreated bleeds during a noninterventional study (NIS) wherein people with hemophilia A, with or without factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors, were managed according to standard practice.

Patients/Methods

Using the Bleed and Medication Questionnaire, we prospectively collected data from three cohorts: Cohort A, adults/adolescents (age ≥12 years) with FVIII inhibitors; Cohort B, children (aged <12 years) with FVIII inhibitors; Cohort C, adults/adolescents without FVIII inhibitors. Untreated bleeds were analyzed for site, frequency, and etiology of bleeding and compared with those during emicizumab prophylaxis in the same individuals after transferring to a Phase III HAVEN trial.

Results

In the 221 participants enrolled in the NIS (Cohort A, n = 103; Cohort B, n = 24; Cohort C, n = 94), the incidence of untreated bleeds was approximately 40% of all bleeds in people with FVIII inhibitors and 26.2% in adolescents/adults without inhibitors. Approximately 70% of treated bleeds and approximately 54% of untreated bleeds in adults/adolescents were in joints. Untreated joint bleeds were less common (7.1%) in children. Overall, intra‐individual comparisons showed reduced treated/untreated bleeds following transition from standard to emicizumab prophylaxis.

Conclusion

A significant proportion of bleeding events are untreated in people with hemophilia A. There is a need to further understand why bleeds remain untreated and to capture such events in clinical studies.

Long-term outcomes with emicizumab prophylaxis for hemophilia A with or without FVIII inhibitors from the HAVEN 1-4 studies

Prophylaxis with emicizumab, a subcutaneously administered bispecific humanized monoclonal antibody, promotes effective hemostasis in persons with hemophilia A (PwHAs). The primary efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of emicizumab were reported previously, but long-term data were limited. Here, data from 401 pediatric and adult PwHAs with/without factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors who were enrolled in the phase 3 HAVEN 1, HAVEN 2, HAVEN 3, and HAVEN 4 studies (NCT02622321, NCT02795767, NCT02847637, NCT03020160) have been pooled to establish a long-term efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics profile. Across a median efficacy period of 120.4 weeks (interquartile range, 89.0-164.4) (data cutoff 15 May 2020), the model-based treated annualized bleed rate (ABR) was 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.7). ABRs declined and then stabilized at <1 in an analysis of 24-week treatment intervals; at weeks 121 to 144 (n = 170), the mean treated ABR was 0.7 (95% CI, 0-5.0). During weeks 121 to 144, 82.4% of participants had 0 treated bleeds, 97.6% had ≤3 treated bleeds, and 94.1% reported no treated target joint bleeds. Bleeding into target joints decreased substantially. Emicizumab was well tolerated, and no participant discontinued because of adverse events beyond the 5 previously described. This data cutoff includes the previously reported 3 thrombotic microangiopathies (one in the PwHA with fatal rectal hemorrhage) and 2 thromboembolic events, all associated with activated prothrombin complex concentrate use, as well as a myocardial infarction and a venous device occlusion. With 970.3 patient-years of exposure, emicizumab prophylaxis maintained low bleed rates in PwHAs of all ages with/without FVIII inhibitors and remains well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified.

Outcomes in children with hemophilia A with inhibitors: Results from a noninterventional study

BACKGROUND

Data regarding management of pediatric persons with hemophilia A (PwHA) with factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors are limited. This prospective noninterventional study (NCT02476942) evaluated annualized bleeding rates (ABRs), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in pediatric PwHA with FVIII inhibitors.

PROCEDURE

PwHA aged <12 years with current FVIII inhibitors and high-titer inhibitor history were enrolled. Participants remained on usual treatment; no interventions were applied. Outcomes included ABR, safety, and HRQoL.

RESULTS

Twenty-four PwHA aged 2-11 years (median 7.5) were enrolled and monitored for 8.7-44.1 weeks (median 23.4). In the episodic (n = 10) and prophylactic (n = 14) groups, respectively, 121 of 185 (65.4%) and 101 of 186 (54.3%) bleeds were treated using activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) and/or recombinant activated FVII (rFVIIa). ABRs (95% confidence interval) were 19.4 (13.2-28.4) and 18.5 (14.2-24.0) for treated bleeds, and 32.7 (20.5-52.2) and 33.1 (22.4-48.9) for all bleeds, respectively. Most prophylactic group participants (92.9%) were prescribed aPCC; 50% adhered to their prescribed treatment regimen. Adherence to prophylactic rFVIIa was not assessed. Serious adverse events included hemarthrosis (12.5%) and mouth hemorrhage (12.5%); the most common nonserious adverse event was viral upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%). HRQoL showed functional impairment at baseline; scores remained stable throughout, with little intergroup variation.

CONCLUSIONS

ABRs remained high in pediatric PwHA with inhibitors receiving standard treatment. This study demonstrates the need for more effective treatments, with reduced treatment burden, to prevent bleeds, increase prophylaxis adherence, and improve patient outcomes.

Efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis versus factor VIII prophylaxis for treatment of hemophilia A without inhibitors: network meta-analysis and sub-group analyses of the intra-patient comparison of the HAVEN 3 trial

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis with that of factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors using two approaches: network meta-analyses (NMA) and additional sub-group analyses from the HAVEN 3 trial.Methods: The NMA used data from trials identified using a systematic literature review and compared bleed rates in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and patients receiving FVIII prophylaxis using a Bayesian, random effects generalized linear model with log link Poisson likelihood. Additional sub-groups of the HAVEN 3 trial included here were defined as patients whose dose-taking behavior met either European label or World Federation of Hemophilia guidelines. A negative binomial regression model was used to conduct an intra-patient comparison of bleed rates within the sub-groups, during treatment with FVIII prophylaxis before entering HAVEN 3 and treatment with emicizumab prophylaxis during HAVEN 3.Results: Four studies were included in the base-case NMA. Evidence showed that the total treated bleed rate was lower with emicizumab prophylaxis compared with FVIII prophylaxis (rate ratio [RR] = 0.36 [95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.13-0.95]). Similar associations were observed in sensitivity analyses. The additional HAVEN 3 analyses also showed lower rates of treated bleeds with emicizumab prophylaxis than with FVIII prophylaxis (RRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.380 [0.186-0.790] and 0.472 [0.258-0.866] in two sub-groups). These results confirm the original HAVEN 3 intra-patient comparison findings.Conclusions: Combined findings from NMA and additional sub-group analyses of HAVEN 3 support the superiority of emicizumab prophylaxis over FVIII prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.

Safety analysis of rFVIIa with emicizumab dosing in congenital hemophilia A with inhibitors: Experience from the HAVEN clinical program

BACKGROUND

Recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa; eptacog alfa activated, NovoSeven® , Novo Nordisk A/S) is a bypassing agent used in congenital hemophilia A patients with inhibitors. Emicizumab (Hemlibra® ; F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd) is a recombinant, humanized, bispecific monoclonal antibody used for routine prophylaxis in patients with congenital hemophilia A with inhibitors. Concomitant use of the hemostatic agents rFVIIa and emicizumab carries a theoretical increased risk of thrombotic complications. Roche and Novo Nordisk collaboratively analyzed all available data on the use of rFVIIa in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis in the Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of Prophylactic Emicizumab Versus no Prophylaxis in Hemophilia A Participants With Inhibitors (HAVEN) clinical development program.

OBJECTIVE

Obtain further insights into the concomitant clinical use and safety of rFVIIa and emicizumab.

METHODS

The initial individual rFVIIa dose, dosing intervals and cumulative dosing were evaluated in the HAVEN 1, HAVEN 2, and HAVEN 4 trials. All adverse events reported in each of the three trials in patients treated with rFVIIa, including available narratives, were assessed.

RESULTS

The vast majority of bleeds occurred in HAVEN 1. When rFVIIa was used to treat a bleeding episode, a 100 ± 20 μg/kg dose was used to initiate treatment in the majority of cases. The dosing interval, as well as cumulative dosing were consistent with prescribing information and current practice. No serious adverse events, no thrombotic microangiopathy cases, or thromboembolic events were assessed to be associated with rFVIIa when used in conjunction with emicizumab prophylaxis in the HAVEN trials.

CONCLUSION

rFVIIa use in the context of emicizumab prophylaxis does not change the rFVIIa safety profile as described in the product information.

Health-related quality of life and health status in persons with haemophilia A with inhibitors: A prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study (NIS)

INTRODUCTION

Real-world data (RWD) on health-related outcomes in persons with haemophilia A (PwHA) provide insights into patient needs and can guide clinical study design. A global, prospective, non-interventional study (NIS; NCT02476942) collected detailed RWD on bleeding outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health status in PwHA treated per local routine clinical practice.

AIM

To report HRQoL and health status in the adult/adolescent PwHA with inhibitors cohort in the NIS.

METHODS

This cohort enrolled PwHA aged ≥12 years with high-titre factor VIII inhibitor history. Participants remained on their usual treatment (no protocol-specified interventions). Health-related outcomes: Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL), Haemophilia-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for Children Short Form (Haemo-QoL SF), EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels (EQ-5D-5L) index utility score (IUS) and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS).

RESULTS

One hundred three participants were enrolled on episodic (n = 75) or prophylactic treatment (n = 28); median (range) age, 31 (12-75) years; median (range) observation time, 26 (4-70) weeks. Haem-A-QoL scores indicated impairments in HRQoL aspects; comparable between episodic/prophylactic regimens and relatively consistent over time. Haemo-QoL SF scores with both regimens varied over time, and appeared poorer with episodic than prophylactic treatment. IUS and EQ-VAS were comparable between regimens, stable over time and lower on bleeding days. Mean proportions of missed work and school days were 16% and 23%, respectively; mean (standard deviation) number of days hospitalized was 3.2 (8.8) (comparable between groups).

CONCLUSIONS

These RWD demonstrate that PwHA with inhibitors have impaired HRQoL, despite standard treatment, and that more effective treatment options are needed.

The effect of emicizumab prophylaxis on health-related outcomes in persons with haemophilia A with inhibitors: HAVEN 1 Study

INTRODUCTION

Persons with haemophilia A (PwHA) with inhibitors to factor VIII often experience decreased health-related outcomes. In HAVEN 1 (NCT02622321), there was a statistically significant reduction in bleeding with emicizumab prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis.

AIM

Describe health-related outcomes in PwHA with inhibitors in HAVEN 1.

METHODS

PwHA with inhibitors aged ≥12 years previously on episodic bypassing agents (BPAs) were randomized to emicizumab prophylaxis (Arm A; n = 35) or no prophylaxis (Arm B; n = 18); participants previously on BPA prophylaxis received emicizumab prophylaxis (Arm C; n = 49). Health-related outcomes assessed at baseline and monthly thereafter: Haemophilia Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adults (Haem-A-QoL), Haemophilia-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire for Children Short Form (Haemo-QoL SF), EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels (EQ-5D-5L) index utility score (IUS) and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and work/school days. Days hospitalized also recorded.

RESULTS

At week 25, differences (ANCOVA) in adjusted mean scores (95% confidence interval) favoured Arm A versus B for Haem-A-QoL "Total" score (14.0 [5.6, 22.5]; P = 0.002) and "Physical Health" (21.6 [7.9, 35.2]; P = 0.003); EQ-VAS (-9.7 [-17.6, -1.82]; P = 0.017); and IUS (-0.16 [-0.25, -0.07]; P = 0.001); mean scores are comparable in Arms A and C. Throughout the study, a greater proportion of participants on emicizumab prophylaxis than no prophylaxis exceeded questionnaire-specific responder thresholds. Mean proportion of missed work days and number of days hospitalized were lower with emicizumab prophylaxis than no prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

In PwHA with inhibitors, emicizumab prophylaxis was associated with substantial and meaningful improvements in health-related outcomes.

Bleeding events and safety outcomes in persons with haemophilia A with inhibitors: A prospective, multi-centre, non-interventional study

INTRODUCTION

Prospectively collected, real-world data on bleeds, haemophilic treatment and safety outcomes in persons with haemophilia A (PwHA) with factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors are limited. A prospective, global, multi-centre, non-interventional study (NIS; NCT02476942) collected detailed real-world data in PwHA treated per local routine clinical practice.

AIM

To characterize bleeding rates, haemophilic treatment practices, prophylaxis adherence and adverse events (AEs) in adult/adolescent PwHA with inhibitors in the NIS.

METHODS

Participants aged ≥12 years with congenital haemophilia A/documented high-titre FVIII inhibitor history were enrolled. Participants remained on their usual treatment; no interventions were applied.

RESULTS

Overall, 103 PwHA with inhibitors enrolled, (median [range] age 31 [12-75] years) and were monitored for median (range) 26.0 (4.1-69.6) weeks. In the episodic (n = 75) and prophylactic (n = 28) treatment groups, respectively, 1244 and 325 bleeds were reported, and 528 (42.4%) and 104 (32.0%) were not treated; annualized bleeding rates (ABRs; 95% confidence interval) were 18.6 (15.2-22.8) and 14.9 (10.5-21.2) for treated bleeds, and 32.7 (27.3-39.1) and 25.0 (18.4-34.0) for all bleeds. Coagulation products used included activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) and/or recombinant activated FVII. Among participants prescribed aPCC prophylaxis, 35.0% adhered to both prescribed frequency of aPCC administration and prescribed dose. Serious AEs of haemarthrosis and muscle haemorrhage were reported; most common AEs were arthralgia, viral upper respiratory tract infection and pyrexia.

CONCLUSIONS

ABRs (treated bleeds and all bleeds) remain high on standard treatment; this prospective NIS demonstrates the need for more effective treatments for PwHA with inhibitors to reduce/prevent bleeds, with potential to improve prophylaxis adherence and further improve outcomes.

Emicizumab Prophylaxis in Patients Who Have Hemophilia A without Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Emicizumab is a bispecific monoclonal antibody that bridges activated factor IX and factor X to replace the function of missing activated factor VIII, thereby restoring hemostasis. In a phase 3, multicenter trial, we investigated its use as prophylaxis in persons who have hemophilia A without factor VIII inhibitors.

METHODS

We randomly assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, participants 12 years of age or older who had been receiving episodic treatment with factor VIII to receive a subcutaneous maintenance dose of emicizumab of 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight per week (group A) or 3.0 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks (group B) or no prophylaxis (group C). The primary end point was the difference in rates of treated bleeding (group A vs. group C and group B vs. group C). Participants who had been receiving factor VIII prophylaxis received emicizumab at a maintenance dose of 1.5 mg per kilogram per week (group D); intraindividual comparisons were performed in those who had participated in a noninterventional study.

RESULTS

A total of 152 participants were enrolled. The annualized bleeding rate was 1.5 events (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.5) in group A and 1.3 events (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3) in group B, as compared with 38.2 events (95% CI, 22.9 to 63.8) in group C; thus, the rate was 96% lower in group A and 97% lower in group B (P<0.001 for both comparisons). A total of 56% of the participants in group A and 60% of those in group B had no treated bleeding events, as compared with those in group C, who all had treated bleeding events. In the intraindividual comparison involving 48 participants, emicizumab prophylaxis resulted in an annualized bleeding rate that was 68% lower than the rate with previous factor VIII prophylaxis (P<0.001). The most frequent adverse event was low-grade injection-site reaction. There were no thrombotic or thrombotic microangiopathy events, development of antidrug antibodies, or new development of factor VIII inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Emicizumab prophylaxis administered subcutaneously once weekly or every 2 weeks led to a significantly lower bleeding rate than no prophylaxis among persons with hemophilia A without inhibitors; more than half the participants who received prophylaxis had no treated bleeding events. In an intraindividual comparison, emicizumab therapy led to a significantly lower bleeding rate than previous factor VIII prophylaxis. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical; HAVEN 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02847637 .).

Emicizumab Prophylaxis in Hemophilia A with Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Emicizumab (ACE910) bridges activated factor IX and factor X to restore the function of activated factor VIII, which is deficient in persons with hemophilia A. This phase 3, multicenter trial assessed once-weekly subcutaneous emicizumab prophylaxis in persons with hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.

METHODS

We enrolled participants who were 12 years of age or older. Those who had previously received episodic treatment with bypassing agents were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to emicizumab prophylaxis (group A) or no prophylaxis (group B). The primary end point was the difference in bleeding rates between group A and group B. Participants who had previously received prophylactic treatment with bypassing agents received emicizumab prophylaxis in group C.

RESULTS

A total of 109 male participants with hemophilia A with inhibitors were enrolled. The annualized bleeding rate was 2.9 events (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 5.0) among participants who were randomly assigned to emicizumab prophylaxis (group A, 35 participants) versus 23.3 events (95% CI, 12.3 to 43.9) among those assigned to no prophylaxis (group B, 18 participants), representing a significant difference of 87% in favor of emicizumab prophylaxis (P<0.001). A total of 22 participants in group A (63%) had zero bleeding events, as compared with 1 participant (6%) in group B. Among 24 participants in group C who had participated in a noninterventional study, emicizumab prophylaxis resulted in a bleeding rate that was significantly lower by 79% than the rate with previous bypassing-agent prophylaxis (P<0.001). Overall, 198 adverse events were reported in 103 participants receiving emicizumab prophylaxis; the most frequent events were injection-site reactions (in 15% of participants). Thrombotic microangiopathy and thrombosis were reported in 2 participants each (in the primary analysis) who had received multiple infusions of activated prothrombin complex concentrate for breakthrough bleeding. No antidrug antibodies were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Emicizumab prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower rate of bleeding events than no prophylaxis among participants with hemophilia A with inhibitors. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical; HAVEN 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02622321 .).

Comparison of design strategies for a three-arm clinical trial with time-to-event endpoint: Power, time-to-analysis, and operational aspects

To optimize resources, randomized clinical trials with multiple arms can be an attractive option to simultaneously test various treatment regimens in pharmaceutical drug development. The motivation for this work was the successful conduct and positive final outcome of a three-arm randomized clinical trial primarily assessing whether obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in patients with chronic lympocytic lymphoma and coexisting conditions is superior to chlorambucil alone based on a time-to-event endpoint. The inference strategy of this trial was based on a closed testing procedure. We compare this strategy to three potential alternatives to run a three-arm clinical trial with a time-to-event endpoint. The primary goal is to quantify the differences between these strategies in terms of the time it takes until the first analysis and thus potential approval of a new drug, number of required events, and power. Operational aspects of implementing the various strategies are discussed. In conclusion, using a closed testing procedure results in the shortest time to the first analysis with a minimal loss in power. Therefore, closed testing procedures should be part of the statistician's standard clinical trials toolbox when planning multiarm clinical trials.

Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions

BACKGROUND

The monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, combined with chemotherapeutic agents, has been shown to prolong overall survival in physically fit patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) but not in those with coexisting conditions. We investigated the benefit of the type 2, glycoengineered antibody obinutuzumab (also known as GA101) as compared with that of rituximab, each combined with chlorambucil, in patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 781 patients with previously untreated CLL and a score higher than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) (range, 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating worse health status) or an estimated creatinine clearance of 30 to 69 ml per minute to receive chlorambucil, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituximab plus chlorambucil. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.

RESULTS

The patients had a median age of 73 years, creatinine clearance of 62 ml per minute, and CIRS score of 8 at baseline. Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil or rituximab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil monotherapy, increased response rates and prolonged progression-free survival (median progression-free survival, 26.7 months with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.24; P<0.001; and 16.3 months with rituximab-chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.57; P<0.001). Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil alone, prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.74; P=0.002). Treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil, as compared with rituximab-chlorambucil, resulted in prolongation of progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.49; P<0.001) and higher rates of complete response (20.7% vs. 7.0%) and molecular response. Infusion-related reactions and neutropenia were more common with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil than with rituximab-chlorambucil, but the risk of infection was not increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining an anti-CD20 antibody with chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. In this patient population, obinutuzumab was superior to rituximab when each was combined with chlorambucil. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01010061.).

Obinutuzumab (GA101) monotherapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large b-cell lymphoma or mantle-cell lymphoma: results from the phase II GAUGUIN study

PURPOSE

Obinutuzumab (GA101), a type II, glycoengineered, humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, was superior to rituximab in human diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) xenograft models. In phase I of our study, obinutuzumab (GA101) exhibited encouraging activity but no clear dose-response relationship, and few patients had aggressive histologies. The efficacy and safety of two doses of obinutuzumab (GA101) were explored in our randomized phase II trial in patients with heavily pretreated DBLCL and MCL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive eight cycles of obinutuzumab (GA101) either as a flat dose of 400 mg for all infusions (days 1 and 8 of cycle 1; day 1 of cycles 2 to 8) or 1,600 mg on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and 800 mg on day 1 of cycles 2 to 8.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled: 21 patients in the 400/400-mg treatment arm (DLBCL, n = 10; MCL, n = 11) and 19 patients in the 1,600/800-mg arm (DLBCL, n = 15; MCL, n = 4). End-of-treatment response was 28% (32% and 24% in the 1,600/800-mg and 400/400-mg study arms, respectively). Best overall response rates were 37% in the 1,600/800-mg arm and 24% in the 400/400-mg study arm (DLBCL, eight [32%] of 25 patients; MCL, four [27%] of 15 patients). Five (20%) of 25 rituximab-refractory patients exhibited treatment response, including four of 12 in the 1,600/800-mg group. The most common adverse events were infusion-related reactions (IRRs), which were manageable. Three patients had grade 3/4 IRRs. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was seen in only one patient.

CONCLUSION

Obinutuzumab (GA101) 1,600/800 mg achieves early steady-state concentration and clinical activity with an acceptable safety profile in relapsed/refractory DLBCL and MCL, supporting further exploration.

Obinutuzumab (GA101) plus chlorambucil (Clb) or rituximab (R) plus Clb versus Clb alone in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and preexisting medical conditions (comorbidities): Final stage 1 results of the CLL11 (BO21004) phase III trial

7004

Background: Chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) is standard of care in young and physically fit patients (pts) with CLL. Development of CIT for older and less fit CLL pts is ongoing, but data from phase III trials are sparse. CLL11 is the largest trial to evaluate three treatments in previously untreated CLL pts with comorbidities: Clb alone, GA101 + Clb (GClb), R + Clb (RClb). The final analysis of CLL11 stage 1 efficacy and safety results is presented here. Methods: Treatment-naïve CLL pts with a Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) total score >6 and/or an estimated creatinine clearance (CrCl) <70 mL/min were eligible. Pts received Clb alone (0.5 mg/kg po d1, d15 q28 days, 6 cycles), GClb (100 mg iv d1, 900 mg d2, 1000 mg d8, d15 of cycle 1, 1000 mg d1 cycles 2-6), or RClb (375 mg/m2 iv d1 cycle 1, 500 mg/m2 d1 cycles 2-6). Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Median age, CIRS score, and CrCl at baseline were 73 years, 8, and 61.1 mL/min for stage 1a (Clb vs GClb, 356 pts) and 73 years, 8, and 62.1 mL/min for stage 1b (Clb vs RClb, 351 pts, triggered by a different event rate). Key efficacy and safety results are shown in the Table.Grade 3-4 infusion-related reactions with GClb occurred at first infusion only. Management required splitting the first dose over 2 days. Conclusions: CIT with GClb or RClb significantly prolongs PFS vs Clb alone. The results demonstrate that GClb and RClb are very active in CLL and superior treament options in this population. GClb vs RClb will be compared in stage 2 analysis with more follow-up available. Clinical trial information: NCT01010061. [Table: see text]