4.7 Article

Daratumumab plus CyBorD for patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis: safety run-in results of ANDROMEDA

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 136, Issue 1, Pages 71-80

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.2019004460

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Janssen Research & Development, LLC
  2. Janssen Global Services, LLC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although no therapies are approved for light chain (AL) amyloidosis, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (CyBorD) is considered standard of care. Based on outcomes of daratumumab in multiple myeloma (MM), the phase 3 ANDROMEDA study (NCT03201965) is evaluating daratumumab-CyBorD vs CyBorD in newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. We report results of the 28-patient safety run-in. Patients received sub-cutaneous daratumumab (DARA SC) weekly in cycles 1 to 2, every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6, and every 4 weeks thereafter for up to 2 years. CyBorD was given weekly for 6 cycles. Patients had a median of 2 involved organs (kidney, 68%; cardiac, 61%). Patients received a median of 16 (range, 1-23) treatment cycles. Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with DARA SC in MM and CyBorD. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 1 patient (grade 1). No grade 5 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred; 5 patients died, including 3 after transplant. Overall hematologic response rate was 96%, with a complete hematologic response in 15 (54%) patients; at least partial response occurred in 20, 22, and 17 patients at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Renal response occurred in 6 of 16, 7 of 15, and 10 of 15 patients, and cardiac response occurred in 6 of 16, 6 of 13, and 8 of 13 patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Hepatic response occurred in 2 of 3 patients at 12 months. Daratumumab-CyBorD was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns versus the intravenous formulation, and demonstrated robust hematologic and organ responses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available