• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

PORT: A Randomized, Cross-Over, Phase 2 Study of Melflufen Peripheral Versus Central Intravenous Administration in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

L. Pour, I. Micheva, G. Usenko, G. Mikala, T. Masszi, K. Simeonova, M. Thuresson, G. Huledal, S. Norin, NA. Bakker, J. Minarik

. 2024 ; 24 (6) : e267-e275.e2. [pub] 20240223

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, randomizované kontrolované studie, klinické zkoušky, fáze II, multicentrická studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24013749

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.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24013749
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240905134139.0
007      
ta
008      
240725s2024 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.clml.2024.02.012 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38490927
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Pour, Ludek $u Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
245    10
$a PORT: A Randomized, Cross-Over, Phase 2 Study of Melflufen Peripheral Versus Central Intravenous Administration in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma / $c L. Pour, I. Micheva, G. Usenko, G. Mikala, T. Masszi, K. Simeonova, M. Thuresson, G. Huledal, S. Norin, NA. Bakker, J. Minarik
520    9_
$a 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.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a mnohočetný myelom $x farmakoterapie $x patologie $7 D009101
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    12
$a klinické křížové studie $7 D018592
650    _2
$a fenylalanin $x analogy a deriváty $x aplikace a dávkování $x farmakokinetika $7 D010649
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a melfalan $x aplikace a dávkování $x terapeutické užití $x analogy a deriváty $7 D008558
650    _2
$a lokální recidiva nádoru $x farmakoterapie $7 D009364
650    _2
$a intravenózní podání $7 D061605
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a intravenózní infuze $7 D007262
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a klinické zkoušky, fáze II $7 D017427
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
700    1_
$a Micheva, Ilina $u Hematology Clinic, University Hospital "St. Marina," Medical University, Varna, Bulgaria
700    1_
$a Usenko, Ganna $u City Clinical Hospital #4 of Dnipro, Dnipro, Ukraine
700    1_
$a Mikala, Gabor $u Department of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, National Institute for Hematology and Infectious Diseases, South Pest Central Hospital, Budapest, Hungary
700    1_
$a Masszi, Tamas $u Department of Internal Medicine and Hematology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
700    1_
$a Simeonova, Kameliya $u Specialized Hospital for Active Treatment of Hematological Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria
700    1_
$a Thuresson, Marcus $u Oncopeptides AB, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Huledal, Gunilla $u Oncopeptides AB, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Norin, Stefan $u Oncopeptides AB, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Bakker, Nicolaas A $u Oncopeptides AB, Stockholm, Sweden
700    1_
$a Minarik, Jiri $u Department of Hemato-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc and University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic. Electronic address: abretina@email.cz
773    0_
$w MED00180199 $t Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia $x 2152-2669 $g Roč. 24, č. 6 (2024), s. e267-e275.e2
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38490927 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240725 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240905134133 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2143511 $s 1225615
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 24 $c 6 $d e267-e275.e2 $e 20240223 $i 2152-2669 $m Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia $n Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk $x MED00180199
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240725

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

    Možnosti archivace