-
Categories
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
-
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
-
Food Additives
- Industrial Coatings
- Agrochemicals
- Dyes and Pigments
- Surfactant
- Flavors and Fragrances
- Chemical Reagents
- Catalyst and Auxiliary
- Natural Products
- Inorganic Chemistry
-
Organic Chemistry
-
Biochemical Engineering
- Analytical Chemistry
- Cosmetic Ingredient
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
Promotion
ECHEMI Mall
Wholesale
Weekly Price
Exhibition
News
-
Trade Service
The DREAMM-1 trial is a BM-related prospective phase I trial that demonstrated the clinical activity of BM in RRMM treated with multiple lines of therapy
However, the selection of subjects for clinical trials is often highly selective, and many patients are excluded due to older age and/or comorbidities
A multicenter retrospective real-world study (P-114)
Scholars from Israel conducted a retrospective real-world study to analyze the efficacy and safety of RRMM patients aged ≥18 years who received at least two doses of BM at 12 centers in Israel between July 2019 and March 2021
Table 1
101 patients were evaluated for efficacy, and the results showed that the ORR was 45.
figure 1
Ophthalmic toxicity (40% grade 3, 1% grade 4) occurred in 66 patients (69%)
The results of this study show that BM has good efficacy in the treatment of real-world RRMM patients, with ORR, DOR and toxicity comparable to the results in the DREAMM-1 trial, further confirming the value of BM in the late-line treatment of RRMM
A single-center retrospective real-world study (P-233)
Scholars at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted a single-center retrospective real-world study of all MM patients who received BM monotherapy or combination therapy at the center from January 11, 2020 to November 30, 2021.
An analysis was performed reporting the efficacy and safety of real-world BM standard of care in patients with RRMM
.
The 39 patients included in the study had a median line of prior treatment of 7 and a median age of 66 years (range: 39-89) (Table 2)
.
The median number of injections for BM was 2 (range: 1-9)
.
Table 2
Notably, the majority (69%) of the patients included in this study did not meet the inclusion criteria for the DREAMM-2 study
.
The results of the study showed that among 37 patients with evaluable efficacy, the best ORR (≥PR) was 27%, and 3% of patients achieved VGPR or better efficacy
.
The clinical benefit rate (≥mild response [MR]) was 35% (Table 3)
.
Of the 8 BCMA-refractory patients, 1 achieved PR and 1 achieved MR
.
With a median follow-up of 10.
1 months, the median PFS for all patients was 1.
8 months, and the median OS was 9.
2 months
.
table 3
Thirty-three patients underwent ophthalmologic examination after treatment, and 25 patients (76%) developed keratopathy
.
The median time to first keratopathy or best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change was 1.
3 months (Table 4)
.
The most common reasons for discontinuing treatment were disease progression (75%) and adverse events (AEs)
.
Table 4
Results of this real-world study showed that ORR, PFS, and ocular-related AEs remained consistent with standard BM treatment in RRMM patients with prior multi-line therapy, even when the majority of patients did not meet the inclusion criteria for the DREAMM-2 trial.
Comparable to the DREAMM-2 test results
.
In future studies, the optimal regimen and sequence of administration of BM should be further determined, especially in patients who have received other BCMA-targeted therapies
.
Reference source:
1.
Tamir Shragai, et al.
2022 IMS.
Abstract #P-114.
2.
Melody Becnel, et al.
2022 IMS.
Abstract#P-233.
Click "Read the original text" to see more content