CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR CARFILZOMIB

505(b)(2) Clinical Trials for carfilzomib

This table shows clinical trials for potential 505(b)(2) applications. See the next table for all clinical trials

Trial Type	Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
New Combination	NCT02188368 ↗	Pomalidomide for Lenalidomide for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients	Active, not recruiting	Celgene Corporation	Phase 2	2014-08-01	The purpose of this clinical research study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness (good and bad effects) of pomalidomide given as part of a combination therapy that include more than just steroids to treat subjects with relapsed (subjects whose disease came back) or refractory (subjects whose disease did not respond to past treatment) multiple myeloma (MM). Pomalidomide (alone or in combination with dexamethasone) has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of their last therapy. However, the use of pomalidomide in combination with other drugs used to treat MM, such as chemotherapeutic agents and proteasome inhibitors, is currently being tested and is not approved. Pomalidomide is in the same drug class as thalidomide and lenalidomide. Like lenalidomide, pomalidomide is a drug that alters the immune system and it may also interfere with the development of small blood vessels that help support tumor growth. Therefore, in theory, it may reduce or prevent the growth of cancer cells. The testing done with pomalidomide thus far has shown that it is well-tolerated and effective for subjects with MM both on its own and in combination with dexamethasone. Using another drug class, namely proteasome inhibitors, we have demonstrated that simply replacing a proteasome inhibitor with another in an established anti-myeloma treatment regimen can frequently overcome resistance regardless of the other agents that are part of the anti-myeloma regimen. Importantly, the toxicity profile of the new combinations closely resembled that of the proteasome inhibitor administered as a single agent. Based on this experience, we hypothesize that the replacement of lenalidomide with pomalidomide will yield similar results in a similar relapsed/refractory MM patient population.
New Combination	NCT02188368 ↗	Pomalidomide for Lenalidomide for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients	Active, not recruiting	Oncotherapeutics	Phase 2	2014-08-01	The purpose of this clinical research study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness (good and bad effects) of pomalidomide given as part of a combination therapy that include more than just steroids to treat subjects with relapsed (subjects whose disease came back) or refractory (subjects whose disease did not respond to past treatment) multiple myeloma (MM). Pomalidomide (alone or in combination with dexamethasone) has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of MM patients who have received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and bortezomib, and have demonstrated disease progression on or within 60 days of completion of their last therapy. However, the use of pomalidomide in combination with other drugs used to treat MM, such as chemotherapeutic agents and proteasome inhibitors, is currently being tested and is not approved. Pomalidomide is in the same drug class as thalidomide and lenalidomide. Like lenalidomide, pomalidomide is a drug that alters the immune system and it may also interfere with the development of small blood vessels that help support tumor growth. Therefore, in theory, it may reduce or prevent the growth of cancer cells. The testing done with pomalidomide thus far has shown that it is well-tolerated and effective for subjects with MM both on its own and in combination with dexamethasone. Using another drug class, namely proteasome inhibitors, we have demonstrated that simply replacing a proteasome inhibitor with another in an established anti-myeloma treatment regimen can frequently overcome resistance regardless of the other agents that are part of the anti-myeloma regimen. Importantly, the toxicity profile of the new combinations closely resembled that of the proteasome inhibitor administered as a single agent. Based on this experience, we hypothesize that the replacement of lenalidomide with pomalidomide will yield similar results in a similar relapsed/refractory MM patient population.

All Clinical Trials for carfilzomib

Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
NCT00150462 ↗	Safety Study of the Proteasome Inhibitor PR-171 (Carfilzomib for Injection) in Patients With Hematological Malignancies	Completed	Amgen	Phase 1	2005-09-01	The purpose of this study is to test the safety and tolerability of carfilzomib at different dose levels on hematological cancers such as multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, or Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Carfilzomib is a proteasome inhibitor, an enzyme responsible for degrading a wide variety of cellular proteins.
NCT00150462 ↗	Safety Study of the Proteasome Inhibitor PR-171 (Carfilzomib for Injection) in Patients With Hematological Malignancies	Completed	Onyx Pharmaceuticals	Phase 1	2005-09-01	The purpose of this study is to test the safety and tolerability of carfilzomib at different dose levels on hematological cancers such as multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, or Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Carfilzomib is a proteasome inhibitor, an enzyme responsible for degrading a wide variety of cellular proteins.
NCT00461045 ↗	Phase 2 Clinical Trial of NPI-0052 in Patients With Relapsed or Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma	Completed	Celgene	Phase 2	2007-03-01	This is a Phase 2, open-label, multicenter study examining the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and best overall response to escalating doses of the proteasome inhibitor NPI-0052 (also known as marizomib) in patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. NPI-0052 is a novel, second generation proteasome inhibitor that prevents the breakdown of proteins involved in signal transduction which blocks growth and survival in cancer cells. The study is a Phase 2 study and is a 2-stage efficacy design in a selected subgroup of patients (Arm C) treated with the recommended phase 2 dose of NPI-0052, as determined in a previously completed Phase 1 study. The study is to evaluate the safety and any preliminary evidence of efficacy of NPI-0052 in multiple myeloma patients who have previously received carfilzomib (PR-171, Kyprolis™) and subsequently had disease progression.

Clinical Trial Conditions for carfilzomib

Condition Name

Condition Name for carfilzomib
Intervention	Trials
Multiple Myeloma	128
Recurrent Plasma Cell Myeloma	14
Refractory Plasma Cell Myeloma	13

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for carfilzomib
Intervention	Trials
Multiple Myeloma	199
Neoplasms, Plasma Cell	180
Lymphoma	22

Clinical Trial Locations for carfilzomib

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for carfilzomib
Location	Trials
United States	964
Japan	106
Canada	92
Spain	71
Germany	61

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for carfilzomib
Location	Trials
New York	69
Texas	58
California	56
Florida	45
New Jersey	45

Clinical Trial Progress for carfilzomib

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for carfilzomib
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
PHASE4	1
PHASE3	5
PHASE2	6

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for carfilzomib
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Recruiting	77
Completed	63
Active, not recruiting	45

Clinical Trial Sponsors for carfilzomib

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for carfilzomib
Sponsor	Trials
Amgen	81
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc.	35
National Cancer Institute (NCI)	32

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for carfilzomib
Sponsor	Trials
Industry	272
Other	255
NIH	33

Carfilzomib Clinical Trials Update, Market Analysis, and Patent-Driven Generic/Biosimilar Outlook (2026)

Last updated: July 28, 2026

Carfilzomib (Kyprolis) is an established multiple myeloma proteasome inhibitor with ongoing studies focused on earlier lines, combination regimens, and subcutaneous (SC) delivery. Market growth is constrained by an aging MYELOMA cohort, penetration of competing proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, and competitive pressure from newer agents, while patent and exclusivity windows continue to shape generic timing.

---

What is the latest clinical trials update for carfilzomib in multiple myeloma?

Carfilzomib clinical development in 2026 centers on (1) line-of-therapy expansion, (2) regimen optimization with IMiDs and anti-CD38 antibodies, and (3) route/formulation refinement (notably SC). The highest-intent trial signals for business planning are designs that target first-line or maintenance settings, add-risk reduction strategies (dose scheduling, renal/tolerability), and seek deeper responses in high-risk cytogenetic subgroups.

Which trial themes dominate current carfilzomib programs?

1. Earlier-line settings: trials evaluating combinations against standard-of-care induction regimens and consolidation/maintenance strategies.
2. High-response depth: trials using measurable residual disease (MRD) endpoints alongside progression-free survival (PFS).
3. Treatment de-escalation or tolerability: schedules and supportive care strategies aimed at reducing cardiopulmonary adverse events, a known limitation in clinical use.
4. Delivery optimization: SC formulations and related pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic bridging to support operational adoption.

What endpoints and populations matter most commercially?

• PFS and overall survival (OS) remain primary commercial drivers for formulary and guideline inclusion.
• MRD negativity endpoints drive differentiation when OS maturity lags.
• Cardiovascular-risk subpopulations (older patients, prior cardiac history, renal impairment) inform label expansion and real-world uptake.

How do ongoing trials position carfilzomib vs alternatives?

Carfilzomib is positioned against:

• Other proteasome inhibitors (especially those with different dosing convenience and tolerability profiles).
• Anti-CD38 combinations and anti-BCMA/ADC pipelines in relapsed/refractory (RRMM).
• Regimens that use earlier penetration of novel agents to shorten time-to-next-treatment.

---

What is the current commercial positioning and market size for carfilzomib (Kyprolis)?

Carfilzomib’s commercial footprint is driven by:

• Broad use in RRMM across multiple lines.
• High clinician familiarity with response kinetics and combination playbooks.
• Continued uptake of convenience dosing via SC, where available and reimbursed.

Where does revenue concentrate in the carfilzomib market?

• RRMM dominated historical demand, with incremental share depending on subsequent-line efficacy and tolerability.
• Uptake is influenced by hospital infusion capacity, payer protocols, and adverse event management costs.

How do payers and formularies typically evaluate carfilzomib?

Key gating criteria:

• PFS/response benefit within specific lines and combination partners.
• Evidence for benefit in high-risk cytogenetic subgroups.
• Safety and hospitalization avoidance, especially for cardiopulmonary toxicity.

What is the market outlook by use-case?

• Maintenance and earlier-line strategies: upside if trials translate into label expansion with MRD or PFS benefits that are durable.
• Relapsed settings: growth moderates as competitors gain share through shorter time-to-response, oral options, and novel antigen targets.

---

How does carfilzomib compare with bortezomib and ixazomib on efficacy, safety, and schedule convenience?

Carfilzomib’s competitive differentiation is efficacy depth and response durability versus other proteasome inhibitors, balanced against cardiopulmonary risk.

Key comparison dimensions

• Dosing convenience: SC options change operational friction compared with IV regimens.
• Safety: carfilzomib has a different toxicity profile than bortezomib, with cardiopulmonary events a recurring management issue.
• Combination compatibility: carfilzomib fits with IMiDs and anti-CD38 antibodies, which is central to real-world regimen choice.

Commercial implication

• Carfilzomib tends to win in settings where the incremental response benefit changes the next-line trajectory.
• It loses share where competing regimens offer similar outcomes with fewer monitoring and hospitalization burdens.

---

What patents protect carfilzomib and how strong is the patent estate for Kyprolis?

Carfilzomib’s protection is tied to the original active ingredient and layered protection around formulations, methods, and dosing regimens, with additional points of IP around the SC delivery route and related compositions.

How is exclusivity typically structured for carfilzomib?

Patent estates in this class usually include:

• Active-ingredient composition of matter patents.
• Formulation patents for lyophilized drug products and reconstitution parameters.
• Method-of-treatment patents tied to combinations, dosing schedules, and patient stratification.
• Route/formulation patents enabling SC administration.

What is the practical effect for generic entry?

• Generic entry into carfilzomib depends on both formulation/design-around feasibility and the ability to clear patent and exclusivity barriers.
• If SC is a separate protected product configuration, generics may need distinct Paragraph IV strategies or later launch timing.

---

When does carfilzomib lose exclusivity and what drives the generic entry window?

Generic entry timing is driven by:

• Patent expiration dates for the listed Orange Book drug product(s).
• Regulatory exclusivities (e.g., new chemical entity, new clinical studies, and any product-specific exclusivities) where applicable.
• Litigation-driven stay durations after Paragraph IV challenges.

Commercial timing constraints

• If key formulation or method-of-use patents remain active, generics may still face injunction risk.
• A successful launch often requires both (1) a non-infringement/invalidity position that survives early motions and (2) a regulatory path that matches the challenged listed product configuration.

---

What Orange Book listings and Paragraph IV opportunities exist for carfilzomib?

Carfilzomib’s Orange Book status depends on the specific NDA/ANDA references and the exact listed patents for each marketed presentation (including any SC-related products). Paragraph IV opportunities exist when:

• There are still unexpired Orange Book patents listed for a given drug product.
• An ANDA or 505(b)(2) filer identifies a certification pathway that triggers litigation.

What generic entry risks are most relevant for investors and litigators?

• Multiple layered patents increase invalidity complexity and lengthen litigation timelines.
• Design-around around SC vs IV can create different infringement analyses.
• Method-of-treatment claims can matter even when composition patents are avoided.

---

What patent litigation affects carfilzomib and what are the likely settlement dynamics?

Carfilzomib’s patent litigation dynamics in the US typically follow this pattern for blockbuster oncology products:

• Patent challengers file Paragraph IV certifications to trigger infringement suits.
• Parties often resolve via dismissal without admission, coexistence agreements, or delayed launch commitments.

How litigation timing impacts the market

• Litigation stays can delay approval/launch even if ANDA acceptance occurs.
• Settlement terms often correlate with which listed patents are still unexpired and which territories are included.

---

What is the biosimilar risk for carfilzomib?

Carfilzomib is a small-molecule drug. Biosimilar frameworks do not apply.

---

What formulations are protected for carfilzomib (IV vs subcutaneous) and how does that change generic strategies?

Formulation IP is central to enforceable barriers:

• IV product-specific formulation and reconstitution parameters can be protected.
• SC delivery, if marketed in separate presentations, can have distinct composition and dosing regimen patents.

Generic strategy implications

• A generic that targets one route may still be blocked by patents covering the other route’s protected product configuration.
• Even if composition-of-matter is expired or challenged successfully, formulation patents can sustain exclusivity barriers.

---

How does carfilzomib revenue exposure change under different generic launch scenarios?

Carfilzomib’s revenue is exposed to two distinct shocks:

1. Price erosion from direct generic entrants post-launch.
2. Share loss if competitors with differentiated convenience or toxicity profiles capture line-of-therapy share ahead of generic substitution.

Scenario framework for planning

• Base case: delayed generic entry due to patent stay and complex formulation/method-of-use estates.
• Upside case: faster exclusivity clearance for a specific presentation, enabling partial competition first (often IV or SC separately).
• Downside case: longer litigation or injunction risk that forces delayed entry for all but non-design-covered configurations.

---

Which companies are most active in carfilzomib generics and competitive combinations?

Competitive landscape splits into:

• Market competitors with next-generation combinations and novel MOA agents.
• Generic entrants that target the carfilzomib drug product(s) via ANDA pathways.

Commercial implications

• Oncology formularies increasingly favor regimens that reduce clinic capacity burden and manage toxicity through predictable schedules.
• Competitive combinations can blunt generic uptake even after entry if prescribers shift to newer regimens.

---

What manufacturing and IP barriers affect generic carfilzomib approval and launch?

Key execution risks:

• Sterile manufacturing and lyophilized product reconstitution controls for IV or SC product performance.
• Stability and bioequivalence requirements that can delay ANDA readiness.
• Risk that listed patents cover manufacturing methods, not just end-product composition.

---

How does carfilzomib fit into current multiple myeloma treatment algorithms by line?

Commercial algorithm positioning:

• RRMM: strong fit due to combination compatibility and established efficacy.
• Earlier lines: upside depends on trial evidence translating into OS/PFS benefit and tolerability profile confirmation.

Combination partners most relevant for share

• IMiD backbones (choice affects cadence and toxicity).
• Anti-CD38 regimens (affects response depth, duration, and clinical adoption).

---

Key Takeaways

• Carfilzomib development in 2026 remains focused on earlier-line expansion, regimen optimization, and route/formulation refinement, especially SC where commercially relevant.
• Market growth is constrained by competition from novel myeloma agents and by treatment burden and cardiopulmonary toxicity management considerations.
• Generic entry is governed by Orange Book patent layering and presentation-specific formulation and method-of-use protections; design-around and litigation risk are central to launch timing.
• Biosimilar risk does not apply because carfilzomib is a small molecule.

---

FAQs

1. What clinical endpoints will most likely drive label expansion for carfilzomib in earlier-line multiple myeloma?
2. How do cardiopulmonary adverse events influence payer coverage and real-world utilization of carfilzomib?
3. Which carfilzomib presentations (IV vs SC) typically face the highest patent/IP and reformulation barriers for generics?
4. What Paragraph IV strategy is most sensitive to carfilzomib method-of-use and formulation patents?
5. How does carfilzomib’s position change when anti-CD38 and novel MOA regimens become preferred in second-line?

---

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations. (Accessed 2026).
2. ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies of carfilzomib in multiple myeloma. (Accessed 2026).
3. European Medicines Agency. Kyprolis (carfilzomib) product information and EPAR documents. (Accessed 2026).