4.6 Article

Exposure-adjusted adverse events comparing blinatumomab with chemotherapy in advanced acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Journal

BLOOD ADVANCES
Volume 2, Issue 13, Pages 1522-1531

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018019034

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Amgen Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the phase 3 TOWER study, blinatumomab demonstrated an overall survival benefit over standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOC) in adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-) B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Nearly all patients in both treatment arms experienced an adverse event (AE), and the incidence rate of serious AEs was higher for blinatumomab. However, as treatment exposure differed between the 2 arms, we conducted an exploratory safety analysis comparing exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) of blinatumomab vs SOC. Analyses were conducted for all patientswho received therapy (safety population). Patients received a median (range) of 2 cycles (1-9) of blinatumomab (N = 267) vs 1 cycle (1-4) of SOC (N = 109). Grade >= 3 AE rates were generally higher in cycle 1 of blinatumomab than in cycle 2 (76% vs 37%). After adjusting for time on treatment, EAERs of grade >= 3 were significantly lower for blinatumomab vs SOC overall (10.73 vs 45.27 events per patient-year; P < .001) and for events of clinical interest, including infections (1.63 vs 6.49 events per patient-year; P < .001), cytopenias (3.64 vs 20.07 events per patient-year; P < .001), and neurologic events (0.38 vs 0.95 events per patient-year; P = .008). The EAER of grade >= 3 cytokine-release syndrome was higher for blinatumomab than for SOC (0.16 vs 0 events per patient-year; P = .038). These data further support the role of blinatumomab as an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with r/r Ph- ALL.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available