Efficacy and safety of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent-naive, transfusion-dependent, lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (COMMANDS): interim analysis of a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Author(s): Prof Uwe Platzbecker, MD1; Prof Matteo Giovanni Della Porta, MD2; Prof Valeria Santini, MD3; Amer M Zeidan, MD4; Rami S Komrokji, MD5; Prof Jake Shortt, PhD6; David Valcarcel, MD7; Anna Jonasova, MD8; Sophie Dimicoli-Salazar, MD9; Ing Soo Tiong, MBChB10; Chien-Chin Lin, MD11; Jiahui Li, PhD12; Jennie Zhang, MSc12; Ana Carolina Giuseppi, MD12; Sandra Kreitz, PhD13; Veronika Pozharskaya, MD12; Karen L Keeperman, MPA12; Shelonitda Rose, MD12; Jeevan K Shetty, MD13; Sheida Hayati, PhD12; Sadanand Vodala, PhD12; Thomas Prebet, MD12; Andrius Degulys, MD14,15; Stefania Paolini, MD16; Prof Thomas Cluzeau, MD17; Prof Pierre Fenaux, MD18; Prof Guillermo Garcia-Manero, MD19
Source: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00874-7
Maem Hussein MD

Dr. Maen Hussein's Thoughts

Luspaterecpt before epoetin in low grade MDS patients.


Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are the standard-of-care treatment for anaemia in most patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes but responses are limited and transient. Luspatercept promotes late-stage erythroid maturation and has shown durable clinical efficacy in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. In this study, we report the results of a prespecified interim analysis of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa for the treatment of anaemia due to lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes in the phase 3 COMMANDS trial.


The phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled COMMANDS trial is being conducted at 142 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes of very low risk, low risk, or intermediate risk (per the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System), were ESA-naive, and required red blood cell transfusions (2–6 packed red blood cell units per 8 weeks for ≥8 weeks immediately before randomisation). Integrated response technology was used to randomly assign patients (1:1, block size 4) to luspatercept or epoetin alfa, stratified by baseline red blood cell transfusion burden (<4 units per 8 weeks vs ≥4 units per 8 weeks), endogenous serum erythropoietin concentration (≤200 U/L vs >200 to <500 U/L), and ring sideroblast status (positive vs negative). Luspatercept was administered subcutaneously once every 3 weeks starting at 1·0 mg/kg body weight with possible titration up to 1·75 mg/kg. Epoetin alfa was administered subcutaneously once a week starting at 450 IU/kg body weight with possible titration up to 1050 IU/kg (maximum permitted total dose of 80 000 IU). The primary endpoint was red blood cell transfusion independence for at least 12 weeks with a concurrent mean haemoglobin increase of at least 1·5 g/dL (weeks 1–24), assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The COMMANDS trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03682536 (active, not recruiting).


Between Jan 2, 2019 and Aug 31, 2022, 356 patients were randomly assigned to receive luspatercept (178 patients) or epoetin alfa (178 patients), comprising 198 (56%) men and 158 (44%) women (median age 74 years [IQR 69–80]). The interim efficacy analysis was done for 301 patients (147 in the luspatercept group and 154 in the epoetin alfa group) who completed 24 weeks of treatment or discontinued earlier. 86 (59%) of 147 patients in the luspatercept group and 48 (31%) of 154 patients in the epoetin alfa group reached the primary endpoint (common risk difference on response rate 26·6; 95% CI 15·8–37·4; p<0·0001). Median treatment exposure was longer for patients receiving luspatercept (42 weeks [IQR 20–73]) versus epoetin alfa (27 weeks [19–55]). The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events with luspatercept (≥3% patients) were hypertension, anaemia, dyspnoea, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, pneumonia, COVID-19, myelodysplastic syndromes, and syncope; and with epoetin alfa were anaemia, pneumonia, neutropenia, hypertension, iron overload, COVID-19 pneumonia, and myelodysplastic syndromes. The most common suspected treatment-related adverse events in the luspatercept group (≥3% patients, with the most common event occurring in 5% patients) were fatigue, asthenia, nausea, dyspnoea, hypertension, and headache; and none (≥3% patients) in the epoetin alfa group. One death after diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia was considered to be related to luspatercept treatment (44 days on treatment).


In this interim analysis, luspatercept improved the rate at which red blood cell transfusion independence and increased haemoglobin were achieved compared with epoetin alfa in ESA-naive patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Long-term follow-up and additional data will be needed to confirm these results and further refine findings in other subgroups of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, including non-mutated SF3B1 or ring sideroblast-negative subgroups.


Celgene and Acceleron Pharma.

Author Affiliations

1Medical Clinic and Policlinic 1, Hematology and Cellular Therapy, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; 2Cancer Center IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 3MDS Unit, Hematology, University of Florence, AOUC, Florence, Italy; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine and Yale Cancer Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; 5Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; 6Monash University and Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 7Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain; 8Medical Department, Hematology, Charles University General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; 9Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France; 10Malignant Haematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, The Alfred Hospital, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 11Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 12Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA; 13Celgene International, Boudry, Switzerland; 14Hematology, Oncology and Transfusion Medicine Center, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, Vilnius, Lithuania; 15Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania; 16IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna, “Seràgnoli” Institute of Hematology, Bologna, Italy; 17Département d’Hématologie Clinique, Université Cote d’Azur, CHU Nice, Nice, France; 18Service d’Hématologie Séniors, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris 7, Paris, France; 19Department of Leukemia, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles