4.5 Article

Dose and Schedule Selection of the Oral Proteasome Inhibitor Ixazomib in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Clinical and Model-Based Analyses

期刊

TARGETED ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 643-654

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-017-0524-3

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib has been approved by regulatory authorities around the world, including in the United States and the European Union, for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least one prior therapy, based on the pivotal phase III TOURMALINE-MM1 study. Objective The objective of this study was to quantitatively characterize the benefit-risk profile of ixazomib in relapsed/refractory MM in support of the approved dose and schedule. Methods We report early-phase study data and exposure-response analyses of TOURMALINE-MM1 data that support the selection of the recommended ixazomib dose and schedule. Results Single-agent ixazomib studies showed a favorable efficacy/safety profile with weekly versus twice-weekly dosing; a phase I/II study of ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) identified a weekly ixazomib dose that offered an acceptable efficacy/safety profile. In IRd exposure-response analyses from TOURMALINE-MM1, ixazomib systemic exposure was not a significant predictor of progression-free survival or probability of response. Significant associations were observed between ixazomib exposure and the probability of grade >= 3 anemia and thrombocytopenia, and grade = 2 diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, peripheral neuropathy, and rash. Additionally, higher ixazomib exposure was associated with lower lenalidomide relative dose intensity. Conclusions These analyses support a favorable benefit-risk profile for weekly ixazomib 4.0 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles, which was selected for the phase III TOURMALINE registration program.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据