Cancer Medicine (May 2023)

Isatuximab in combination with cemiplimab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A phase 1/2 study

  • Alexander Lesokhin,
  • Richard LeBlanc,
  • Meletios A. Dimopoulos,
  • Marcelo Capra,
  • Carmelo Carlo‐Stella,
  • Lionel Karlin,
  • Jean‐Francois Castilloux,
  • Peter Forsberg,
  • Gurdeep Parmar,
  • Axel Tosikyan,
  • Ludek Pour,
  • Vincent Ribrag,
  • Rossella Ribolla,
  • Al‐Ola Abdallah,
  • Nadia Le Roux,
  • Liyan Dong,
  • Helgi van deVelde,
  • Laurent Mayrargue,
  • Lucie Lépine,
  • Sandrine Macé,
  • Philippe Moreau

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5753
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 9
pp. 10254 – 10266

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Given the incurable nature of multiple myeloma (MM), efforts are made to improve the efficacy of anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies via combinations with other potentially synergistic therapies. This Phase 1/2 trial (NCT03194867) was designed to determine whether cemiplimab (anti‐PD‐1) enhances the anti‐myeloma activity of isatuximab (anti‐CD38) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), to confirm the feasibility of the combination, determine its efficacy, and further evaluate its safety. Methods Patients received isatuximab 10 mg/kg once weekly for 4 weeks followed by every 2 weeks (Isa), or isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus cemiplimab 250 mg every 2 (Isa + CemiQ2W) or every 4 weeks (Isa + CemiQ4W). Results Overall, 106 patients with RRMM treated with a median of 4 prior lines were included; 25.5% had high‐risk cytogenetics, 63.2% were refractory to proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, 26.4% were previously exposed to daratumumab, and 84.0% were refractory to their last treatment line. There were no major changes in the safety or pharmacokinetic profile of isatuximab with the addition of cemiplimab. As assessed by investigators, four patients (11.8%) in the Isa arm, nine patients (25.0%) in the Isa + CemiQ2W arm, and eight patients (22.2%) in the Isa + CemiQ4W arm were responders. Though response rates were numerically higher in cemiplimab‐containing arms, differences were not statistically significant and did not translate to improved progression‐free or overall survival after a median follow‐up of 9.99 months. Conclusion Our results suggest a marginal benefit by adding cemiplimab to isatuximab, despite demonstration of target engagement, without additional observed safety issues.