PORT: A Randomized, Cross-Over, Phase 2 Study of Melflufen Peripheral Versus Central Intravenous Administration in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, randomizované kontrolované studie, klinické zkoušky, fáze II, multicentrická studie
PubMed
38490927
DOI
10.1016/j.clml.2024.02.012
PII: S2152-2650(24)00091-0
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Catheter, Central venous, Melphalan, Peripheral venous,
- MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- fenylalanin analogy a deriváty aplikace a dávkování farmakokinetika MeSH
- intravenózní infuze MeSH
- intravenózní podání MeSH
- klinické křížové studie * MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- lokální recidiva nádoru farmakoterapie MeSH
- melfalan aplikace a dávkování terapeutické užití analogy a deriváty MeSH
- mnohočetný myelom * farmakoterapie patologie MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- klinické zkoušky, fáze II MeSH
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- fenylalanin MeSH
- melfalan MeSH
- melflufen MeSH Prohlížeč
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.
City Clinical Hospital 4 of Dnipro Dnipro Ukraine
Department of Internal Medicine and Hematology Semmelweis University Budapest Hungary
Department of Internal Medicine Hematology and Oncology University Hospital Brno Brno Czech Republic
Hematology Clinic University Hospital St Marina Medical University Varna Bulgaria
Oncopeptides AB Stockholm Sweden
Specialized Hospital for Active Treatment of Hematological Diseases Sofia Bulgaria
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org