The novel combination of sirolimus and bortezomib prevents graft-versus-host disease but maintains the graft-versus-leukemia effect after allogeneic transplantation

Background We have previously shown that bortezomib induces a depletion of alloreactive T cells and allows the expansion of T cells with suppressive properties. In the current study, we analyzed the potential synergistic effect of bortezomib in conjunction with sirolimus in order to reduce-graft-versus-host disease without hampering graft-versus-leukemia effect in the allogeneic transplant setting. DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated the effect of sirolimus, bortezomib or the combination of both in the proliferation and activation of in vitro stimulated T lymphocytes. Pathways involved in this synergy were also analyzed using Western blot assays. Finally, BALB/c mice receiving C57BL/6 allogeneic donor bone marrow with splenocytes were used to measure in vivo the effect of this novel combination on the risk of graft-versus-host disease. RESULTS: The combination of both drugs synergistically inhibited both activation and proliferation of stimulated T cells. Also, the production of Th1 cytokines (IFN γ, IL-2 and TNF) was significantly inhibited. This effect was due, at least in part, to the inhibition of Erk and Akt phosphorylation. In vivo, the combination reduced the risk of graft-versus-host disease without hampering graft-versus-leukemia effect, as shown in mice receiving graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis with sirolimus plus bortezomib being infused with tumor WEHI cells plus C57BL/6 donor BM and splenocytes. Conclusions The current study reveals a synergistic effect of the combination sirolimus and bortezomib to prevent graft-versus-host disease while maintaining the graft-versus-leukemia effect.     

Four‐year allograft survival in a highly sensitized combined liver–kidney transplant patient despite unsuccessful anti‐HLA antibody reduction with rituximab,splenectomy, and bortezomib

Although donor‐specific lymphocytotoxic antibodies are regarded as a contraindication for kidney transplantation (KTx), the data available for liver or combined liver or kidney transplantation (cLKTx) are scarce. Here, we report a case of a highly sensitized young man receiving his sixth liver and second kidney graft. Multiple anti‐HLA antibodies were present at the time of transplantation. As a result of suspected antibody‐mediated graft damage, the patient was treated with rituximab, plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulins, splenectomy, and bortezomib to decrease the antibody production. So far, patient and allograft survival has reached 4 years despite failure to achieve a permanent reduction of anti‐HLA antibodies, and particularly nondonor directed antibodies.     

布鲁顿酪氨酸激酶抑制剂联合硼替佐米对人多发性骨髓瘤细胞的作用及其机制

目的 探讨布鲁顿酪氨酸激酶(Bruton,s tyrosine kinase,BTK)抑制剂依鲁替尼(ibrutinib)和AVL-292单药及联合蛋白酶体抑制剂硼替佐米对人多发性骨髓瘤细胞系H929和RPMI8226的作用及其机制.方法 用不同浓度的依鲁替尼、AVL-292单药以及联合硼替佐米处理H929、RPMI8226细胞.采用CCK-8法检测细胞增殖情况,流式细胞术检测细胞凋亡情况,蛋白质印迹法检测药物处理前后细胞内BTK信号通路蛋白及凋亡相关蛋白的表达水平.结果 依鲁替尼和AVL-292均可抑制H929、RPMI8226细胞增殖,其抑制作用呈浓度依赖性,依鲁替尼对H929、RPMI8226细胞48 h的半数抑制浓度(median inhibitory concentration,IC50)分别为(10.41±3.29) μmol/L和(51.65±13.58) μmol/L,AVL-292对H929、RPMI8226细胞48 h的IC50分别为(7.77±2.99) μmol/L和(6.44±1.06) μmol/L.不同浓度的依鲁替尼(5、10 μmol/L)和AVL-292(5、10 μmol/L)分别与不同浓度的硼替佐米(5、10、20、50 nmol/L)联合应用对H929、RPMI8226细胞增殖的抑制率均高于相应浓度单药组(P＜0.05,P＜0.01),不同组合的协同系数R均＞1.0.10 μmol/L依鲁替尼、10 μmol/L AVL-292和20 nmol/L硼替佐米单独作用48 h后,H929细胞的凋亡率分别为(15.12±1.59)％、(18.23±6.38)％和(10.71±1.62)％,均高于对照组[(6.46±1.18)％;P＜0.05,P＜0.01];RPMI8226细胞的凋亡率分别为(9.29±1.44)％、(15.01±4.99)％和(7.58±1.13)％,10 μmol/L依鲁替尼和10 μmol/L AVL-292单药组与对照组[(5.54±1.61)％]比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);10μmol/L依鲁替尼和10 μmol/L AVL-292分别与20 nmol/L硼替佐米联合后,H929细胞凋亡率分别为(40.31±3.94)％和(51.55±6.39)％,RPMI8226细胞凋亡率分别为(31.86±1.93)％和(43.23±4.03)％,均高于相应单药组(P＜0.01).10 μmol/L依鲁替尼单药和10 μmol/L AVL-292单药作用24 h后,H929细胞内BTK、NF-κB p65、Akt和ERK的磷酸化水平及Bcl-XL蛋白表达水平均较对照组降低(P＜0.05),cleaved caspase-3表达水平均较对照组升高(P＜0.01);两药分别联合20 nmol/L硼替佐米后,对上述蛋白的调节作用均较相应单药组增强(P＜0.05,P＜0.01).结论 BTK抑制剂依鲁替尼和AVL-292对多发性骨髓瘤细胞系H929、RPMI8226有增殖抑制和凋亡诱导作用,并与蛋白酶体抑制剂硼替佐米有协同作用,其机制可能与抑制细胞内BTK活性及下游NF-κB、Akt、ERK信号通路活性,下调抗凋亡蛋白Bcl-xL表达、激活caspase-3依赖的凋亡途径有关.     

Bortezomib-based chemotherapy reduces early mortality and improves outcomes in patients with ultra-high-risk light-chain amyloidosis: a retrospective case control study

Background: Patients with amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis who have advanced cardiac damage are at risk of premature mortality. Currently, bortezomib is the mainstay in the treatment of AL amyloidosis, but the benefits of bortezomib in patients with ultra-high-risk (2004 Mayo stage IIIb or 2012 Mayo stage IV) AL amyloidosis have not been proved definitively.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients newly diagnosed with ultra-high-risk AL amyloidosis who received a bortezomib-based regimen or supportive treatment. We aimed to establish the effects of bortezomib on early mortality and long-term outcomes in this high-risk population.

Results: Patients receiving bortezomib-containing chemotherapy (n?=?62) and patients receiving no chemotherapy (n?=?24) were included. Median overall survival (OS) was 30?months in the bortezomib group and 2?months in the control group (p?<?.001), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 15.8?months (bortezomib) and 2?months (control; p?<?.001). The early-death rate (within 6?months of treatment) was 32.3% (bortezomib) and 66.7% (control; p?<?.001). In a landmark analysis assessing outcomes in patients surviving beyond 6?months, the 2-year OS and PFS in the bortezomib group were 77.3% and 65.8%, respectively.

Conclusions: Bortezomib-based regimens can help to reduce early mortality and improve long-term survival in patients with ultra-high-risk AL amyloidosis.     

Comparison of efficacy from two different dosing regimens of bortezomib: an exposure–response analysis

Bortezomib is a first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The originally approved dosing schedule of bortezomib results in significant toxicities that require dose interruptions and discontinuations. Consequentially, less frequent dosing has been explored to optimise bortezomib’s benefit–risk profile. Here, we performed exposure–response analysis to compare the efficacy of the original bortezomib dosing regimen with less frequent dosing of bortezomib over nine 6-week treatment cycles using data from the VISTA clinical trial and the control arm of the ALCYONE clinical trial. The relationship between cumulative bortezomib dose and clinical response was evaluated with a univariate logit model. The median cumulative bortezomib dose was higher in ALCYONE versus VISTA (42·2 vs. 38·5 mg/m²) and ALCYONE patients stayed on treatment longer (mean: 7·2 vs. 5·8 cycles). For all endpoints and regimens, probability of clinical response correlated with cumulative bortezomib dose. Similar to results observed for VISTA, overall survival was longer in ALCYONE patients with ≥ 39·0 versus < 39·0 mg/m² cumulative dose (hazard ratio, 0·119; P < 0·0001). Less frequent bortezomib dosing results in comparable efficacy, and a higher cumulative dose than the originally approved bortezomib dosing schedule, which may be in part be due to reduced toxicity and fewer dose reductions/interruptions.     

Efficacy of bortezomib for reducing donor‐specific antibodies in children and adolescents on a steroid minimization regimen

AMR is increasingly being recognized as an important cause of renal allograft injury, contributing to significant morbidity and graft loss. There are few controlled trials and no well‐established treatment guidelines for AMR in renal transplant recipients. We retrospectively reviewed the outcome of four pediatric renal transplant recipients on a steroid minimization immunosuppression protocol treated with bortezomib for elevated DSA and acute AMR from 2012 to 2013. All patients received four doses of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² given on days one, four, eight, and 11. All patients also received other treatments prior to bortezomib, which may have included rituximab, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and/or IVIg. While bortezomib in addition to other therapies significantly decreased DSA titers, DSA remained very elevated months after treatment. All four patients had immediate improvement or stabilization of renal function but one eventually lost her graft. There were no adverse events related to bortezomib six months after treatment.     

Real‐world health care costs of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma during the era of novel cancer agents

What is known and objective: High costs of novel agents increasingly put pressure on limited healthcare budgets. Demonstration of their real‐world costs and cost‐effectiveness is often required for reimbursement. However, few published economic evaluations of novel agents for multiple myeloma exist. Moreover, existing cost analyses were heavily based on conventionally treated patients. We investigated real‐world health care costs of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Dutch daily practice. Methods: A retrospective medical chart review was conducted for 139 patients treated between January 2001 and May 2009. Total monthly costs attributable to each cost component were described across all regimens and for bortezomib‐, thalidomide‐ and lenalidomide‐based treatment regimens. Results: Mean monthly total costs (€3,981) varied depending on the sequence of therapy (range: €442–€31,318). Significant cost drivers across all regimens included costs of therapy and hospital admissions. The acquisition costs for novel agents in particular accounted for 32% of mean total monthly costs. Prognostic factors associated with increased mean total monthly costs in multivariate regression analysis included low platelet counts (P = 0·01) and worsening performance status (P < 0·001). Mean total monthly costs of bortezomib‐ and lenalidomide‐based regimens were significantly higher than those for thalidomide‐based regimens in second, third and fourth treatment line. What is new and conclusions: Real‐world costs during treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma vary greatly. Cost drivers include hospital admissions and acquisition costs of novel agents. Costs also vary by prognostic factors and treatment‐related resource use. Future studies assessing the costs of combination therapy consisting of two or more novel agents are encouraged.