GSK is building a case to bring back its cancer therapy, Blenrep. Study outcomes disclosed Sunday suggest that combining this therapy with two other key multiple myeloma drugs impeded disease progression more than using Takeda’s Velcade and the same drug cocktail.
A similar trial report comparing Blenrep to Johnson & Johnson’s Darzalex came out on Saturday. These results could furnish GSK with enough data to invite the Food and Drug Administration to let them reintroduce Blenrep. In 2022, GSK pulled this drug from the market because it didn’t meet a trial’s standards. Despite this setback, GSK still researched Blenrep, a type of antibody-drug fusion,
aiming to get it back on the shelves. If successful, GSK will navigate a market transformed by the arrival of cell treatments and dual-functioning antibodies, similar to Blenrep, that target a protein marker called BCMA. Using Blenrep may raise queries about side effects, particularly vision issues and eye irritation. The latest data, unveiled at the American Society of Clinical Oncology,
originated from a GSK study known as DREAMM-8. The study combined Blenrep with Bristol Myers Squibb’s Pomalyst and a steroid, and compared its effectiveness to Velcade’s. Patients who had previously been treated with at least one therapy, including Bristol Myers’ Revlimid, and had a relapse afterwards, participated in the trial. Compared to the Velcade arm, Blenrep’s combination reduced disease progression or patient mortality by 48%. After almost two years of observation, over half of the patients treated with Blenrep didn’t die or experience a deterioration in their conditions, whereas patients who received Velcade had a median progression-free survival of about 13 months. Concurrently, data issued in The New England Journal of Medicine from the DREAMM-7 trial, which GSK declared successful in November, demonstrated similar support. Blenrep combined with Velcade and a steroid was tested against Darzalex and the same two drugs. The benefits of the Blenrep regimen were comparably strong versus Darzalex, reducing disease progression by 59%. The median progression-free survival increased to 37 months, contrasted with the 13 months observed in the Darzalex group. Suzanne Trudel, an associate professor at the Princess Margaret Centre in Toronto, expressed that doctors are becoming more skilled in managing Blenrep’s ocular side effects. These issues stem from the chemo that Blenrep delivers to sick cells. Trudel, the study’s main author who presented the data, said, “ADCs are difficult to develop due to toxicity issues. We’ve learned, particularly with antibody-drug conjugates in [acute myeloid leukemia], that modifying dosage can reduce toxicity.” For the DREAMM-8 study, Blenrep’s dosage frequency was adjusted.
The initial dose was the same, but follow-up doses were lowered and administered less often. In the wake of gaining more experience, doctors have improved in managing eye-related side effects. Tulio Rodriguez, director of hematology, bone marrow transplant and cellular therapy at City of Hope Chicago, asserted that steroids aren’t effective here for treating eye issues. He recommended using eye drops and adjusting dosages as required. Rodriguez believes this fresh data could give Blenrep a chance to revive its status as a BCMA-targeting alternative to CAR-T cell treatments such as J&J’s Carvykti and Bristol Myers’ Abecma. Treatments like these have a lengthy production period and can cause a reaction requiring patients to stay near their treatment centers. “Bispecific” antibodies from J&J and Pfizer also target BCMA and hit the market after Blenrep’s first release. Currently, these drugs can only be used after several rounds of therapy, however, both J&J and Pfizer have outlines to advance their use. Although more convenient than CAR-T treatments, these options also evoke immune responses that need close supervision.