- Completed
NCT00722566: Phase 3: A Study of Subcutaneous and Intravenous VELCADE in Patients With RRMM
Updated: Apr 26, 2022
NCT00722566: Phase 3: A Study of Subcutaneous and Intravenous VELCADE in Patients With Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma
A Study of Subcutaneous and Intravenous VELCADE in Patients With Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma
Randomized, open-label, international, multi-center, Phase 3 study in which patients are randomized to receive VELCADE administered by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion
Sponsor:
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Collaborator:
Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00722566
Official Title: An Open-Label Randomized Study of Subcutaneous and Intravenous VELCADE in Subjects With Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma
First Posted : July 25, 2008
Click here to see details on ClinicalTrials.gov
Drug: VELCADE Administered by subcutaneous injection
Drug: VELCADE Administered by intravenous infusion
Haematologica; 2015
Subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: subanalysis of patients with renal impairment in the phase III MMY-3021 study
Haematologica; 2012
Updated survival analysis of a randomized phase III study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma
Abstract
The phase III MMY-3021 study compared safety and efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in patients with relapsed myeloma. The initial report demonstrated non-inferior efficacy with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib for the primary end point: overall response rate after four cycles of single-agent bortezomib. We report updated outcome analyses after prolonged follow up. Best response rate (after up to ten cycles of bortezomib ± dexamethasone) remained 52% in each arm, including 23% and 22% complete or near-complete responses with subcutaneous and intravenous bortezomib, respectively. Time to progression (median 9.7 vs. 9.6 months; hazard ratio 0.872, P=0.462), progression-free survival (median 9.3 vs. 8.4 months; hazard ratio 0.846, P=0.319), and overall survival (1-year: 76.4% vs. 78.0%, P=0.788) were comparable with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Peripheral neuropathy rates remained significantly lower with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, with increased rates of improvement/resolution at the time of this analysis.
Lancet Oncol; 2011
Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study
Interpretation: Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile.
Locations
Belgium
France
Germany