TRANSLATE

The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

FDA approves Isa-VRd for transplant-ineligible NDMM

By Jennifer Reilly

Share:

Sep 23, 2024

Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to cite a new clinical development in newly diagnosed MM.


On September 20, 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved isatuximab in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) for adult patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.1

This approval was based on data from the phase III IMROZ (NCT03319667) trial.

IMROZ pivotal data2

IMROZ, an open-label, phase III trial, enrolled adult patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for transplant. Patients were randomly assigned 3:2 to receive isatuximab-VRd (Isa-VRd) or VRd alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary endpoints including complete response, measurable residual disease negativity, and overall survival (OS).

  • At a median follow-up of 59.7 months, median primary endpoint of PFS was not reached in the Isa-VRd arm and was 54.3 months in the VRd arm.
  • Key secondary outcomes in the Isa-VRd arm vs VRd arm were as follows:
    • The overall response rate and the complete response or better rate were 91.3% and 74.7% vs 92.3% and 64.1%
    • The MRD negativity rates were 58.1% vs 43.6%
    • Sustained MRD negativity at ≥12 months were 46.8% vs 24.3%
    • The 60-month OS rates were 72.3% vs 66.3%
  • Common adverse effects included infections, diarrhea, fatigue, neuropathy, and pneumonia.

References

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

The content was clear and easy to understand

The content addressed the learning objectives

The content was relevant to my practice

I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content