Cardiotoxicity As An Adverse Effect Of Immunomodulatory Drugs And Proteasome Inhibitors In Multiple Myeloma: A Network Meta‐analysis Of Randomized Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avash Das ◽  
Subhajit Dasgupta ◽  
Yan Gong ◽  
Urvi A Shah ◽  
Michael G Fradley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Immunomodulatory Drugs

scholarly journals The real-world outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258487
Author(s):  
Agoston Gyula Szabo ◽  
Tobias Wirenfeldt Klausen ◽  
Mette Bøegh Levring ◽  
Birgitte Preiss ◽  
Carsten Helleberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Median Number ◽  
The Real ◽  
Treatment Timing ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Standard Risk

Most patients cannot be included in randomized clinical trials. We report real-world outcomes of all Danish patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with daratumumab-based regimens until 1 January 2019. Methods Information of 635 patients treated with daratumumab was collected retrospectively and included lines of therapy (LOT), hematologic responses according to the International Myeloma Working Group recommendations, time to next treatment (TNT) and the cause of discontinuation of treatment. Baseline characteristics were acquired from the validated Danish Multiple Myeloma Registry (DMMR). Results Daratumumab was administrated as monotherapy (Da-mono) in 27.7%, in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (Da-IMiD) in 57.3%, in combination with proteasome inhibitors (Da-PI) in 11.2% and in other combinations (Da-other) in 3.8% of patients. The median number of lines of therapy given before daratumumab was 5 for Da-mono, 3 for Da-IMiD, 4 for Da-PI, and 2 for Da-other. In Da-mono, overall response rate (ORR) was 44.9% and median time to next treatment (mTNT) was 4.9 months. In Da-IMiD, ORR was 80.5%, and mTNT was 16.1 months. In Da-PI, OOR was 60.6% and mTNT was 5.3 months. In patients treated with Da-other, OOR was 54,2% and mTNT was 5.6 months. The use of daratumumab in early LOT was associated with longer TNT (p<0.0001). Patients with amplification 1q had outcome comparable to standard risk patients, while patients with t(4;14), t(14;16) or del17p had worse outcome (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis indicated that timing of treatment (timing of daratumumab in the sequence of all LOT that the patients received throughout the course of their disease) was the most important factor for outcome (p<0.0001). Conclusion The real-world outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab are worse than the results of clinical trials. Outcomes achieved with daratumumab were best when daratumumab was used in combination with IMIDs and in early LOT. Patients with high-risk CA had worse outcomes, but patients with amp1q had similar outcomes to standard-risk patients.

scholarly journals Daratumumab in untreated newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204062071989487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Abdallah ◽  
Shaji K. Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Human Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Proteasome Inhibitors ◽  
Immunomodulatory Drugs ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Infusion Reactions

The treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved markedly in the last decade, but mortality remains high, emphasizing the need for more effective therapies. Daratumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting CD38, has shown clinical efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma both as monotherapy and in combination with other drugs, including novel agents. More recently, promising results have been reported in patients with untreated newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Clinical trials thus far have shown enhanced efficacy and tolerability of several daratumumab-based combinations in both transplant ineligible and eligible patients, without compromising transplant ability. However, benefit in high-risk subpopulations is still unclear. A subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab has been introduced to decrease the risk of infusion reactions, with preliminary results showing non-inferior efficacy. The antimyeloma activity of daratumumab is achieved through multiple mechanisms including direct, Fc-dependent, and immunomodulatory mechanisms. Enhanced efficacy of daratumumab in combination with immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors is supported by preclinical data showing synergism. This review will focus on the role of daratumumab in untreated NDMM patients, highlighting the results of major clinical trials, and listing ongoing trials that are evaluating various daratumumab-based combinations in this setting.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety Profile of Ixazomib Based Regimens in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 20-21
Author(s):  
Ahmad Iftikhar ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Anum Javaid ◽  
Muhammad Abu Zar ◽  
Atif Sohail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease, and clinical trials with newer agents have shown improved patient outcomes. There is a need for effective and tolerable treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib, ixazomib) remain an integral part of regimens used in RRMM or newly diagnosed (ND) MM. This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of ixazomib (Ixa) based regimens in RRMM. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov. We used MeSH and Emtree terms, "ixazomib" AND "multiple myeloma" from the inception of literature till 06/01/2020. We screened 1529 articles and included 3 randomized clinical trials (RCT, N=907) and 8 non-randomized clinical trials (NRCT, N=321). We excluded case reports, case series, review articles, meta-analysis, observational studies, and clinical trials that didn't provide data about the efficacy and safety of Ixa in RRMM. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results: In 11 clinical trials (N=1228), the age range of patients was 30-91 years. In Phase III RCTs (N=837) comparing Ixa + Lenalidomide (Len) + dexamethasone (Dex) vs. placebo + Len + Dex, risk ratio of overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), and very good partial response (VGPR) were 1.14 (95% CI=1.05-1.24, I2=80%), 1.87 (95% CI=1.17-2.99, I2=0), and 1.15 (95% CI=0.95-1.40, I2=0), respectively in favor of Ixa + Len + Dex. (Fig 1-3) Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and rash were reported in 20%, 5.7% and 6.4% of the patients in the Ixa group vs. 10%, 2.1%, and 2.8% in the placebo group, respectively. In a Phase II RCT by Kumar et al (N=70) comparing the Ixa dosage, 4 mg Ixa + Dex yielded an ORR of 31%, CR 2.8%, and VGPR 17.1%, while 5.5 mg Ixa yielded improved ORR of 54%, CR 2.8%, and VGPR 25.7%. In a NRCT by Costello et al. (N=6), Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Pom + Dex yielded 100% ORR, CR 5% (95% CI=0.17-0.83), and VGPR 50% (95% CI=0.17-0.83). ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were hypertension (16%), and hematological (33%). Among 417 patients from two RCT in single arm who received Ixa + Len + Dex, pooled ORR was 70% (95% CI=0.53-0.82, I2=84%), pooled CR 11% (95% CI=0.8-0.14, I2=0), and pooled VGPR was 29% (95% CI=0.18-0.43, I2=66%). In a NRCT by Dhakal et al. (N=19), Ixa + bendamustine + Dex yielded an ORR 58% (95% CI=0.36-0.77), CR 0, and VGPR 11% (95% CI =0.03-0.34). ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were neutropenia 31%, thrombocytopenia 52%, and diarrhea 10%. In 2 NRCT (N=106), Ixa + cyclophosphamide (Cyc) + Dex yielded a pooled ORR 52% (95% CI=0.42-0.61, I2=0), CR 4% (95% CI=0.01-0.10, I2=0), and VGPR 17% (95% CI=0.11-0.25, I2=0). ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were thrombocytopenia (15%), and upper abdominal pain (4%). In a NRCT by Ludwig et al. (N=90), Ixa + thalidomide (Thal) + Dex yielded an ORR 51% (95% CI=0.41-0.61), CR 9% (95% CI=0.5-0.17), and VGPR 14% (95% CI=0.09-0.23). ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were anemia (17.8%), and infections (16.1%). In a NRCT by Krishnan et al. (N=31), Ixa + Pomalidomide (Pom) + Dex yielded an ORR 48% (95% CI=0.32-0.65) and VGPR 16% (95% CI=0.07-0.33). (Fig 4-6) ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were neutropenia (10%), and lymphopenia (35%). In 2 NRCT by Kumar et al. (N=70) of two drugs combination, Ixa + Dex yielded a pooled ORR 43% (95% CI=0.28-0.59, I2=47%), pooled CR 1% (95% CI=0-0.09, I2=0), and pooled VGPR 24% (95% CI=0.16-0.36, I2=0). ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were hematological (28%), and non-hematological (22.8%). In 2 NRCT of Ixa monotherapy (N=69), pooled ORR was 17% (95% CI=0.10-0.28, I2=0), and pooled CR 6% (95% CI=0.2-0.22, I2=0). (Fig 4-6) ≥Grade 3 TRAEs were anemia (11%), thrombocytopenia (5.4%), and neutropenia (2.7%). Conclusion: Our study provides useful insight into relative efficacy of various Ixa regimens for the treatment of RRMM. The pooled analysis of RCT showed that the combination of Ixa + Len + Dex yielded better response as compared to placebo. In the pooled analysis of outcomes in single arm NRCT, Ixa + Dara + Pom + Dex and Ixa + Len + Dex showed better efficacy outcomes as compared to Ixa + Dex in combination with Thal, Cyc, or Bendamustin. Three drugs Ixa combination regimens had better efficacy as compared to two drugs combination of Ixa + Dex and Ixa monotherapy. Ixa was well tolerated with acceptable safety profile. Additional multicenter, double-blind clinical trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Ixazomib Based Regimens in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 35-35
Author(s):  
Anum Javaid ◽  
Faryal Razzaq ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Muhammad Abu Zar ◽  
Atif Sohail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Newly Diagnosed

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable malignancy, and clinical trials with newer agents have shown improved patient outcomes. Ixazomib (Ixa) is a proteasome inhibitor and induces apoptosis in cancer cells. It is commonly used with immunomodulators for the treatment of MM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Ixazomib alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov. We used the following MeSH and Emtree terms; "ixazomib" AND "Multiple Myeloma" from inception till 06/05/2020. We screened 1,558 articles and included 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N=901) and 12 non-randomized clinical trials (NRCT) (N=632). We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical trials, review articles, observational studies, meta-analysis, and ongoing clinical trials that did not report interim efficacy outcomes. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results: In 15 clinical trials (N=1533), Ixa based regimens were used in patients with age range of 39-92 years. (Table 1) In 3 clinical trials (N=170), Ixa with Lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (Dex) yielded a pooled overall response rate (ORR) of 90% (95% CI=0.82-0.94, I2=32%), a pooled complete response (CR) of 23% (95% CI=0.16-0.32, I2=24%) and a pooled ≥very good partial response and better (≥VGPR) of 39% (95% CI=0.24-0.57, I2 =76%) when used as induction therapy for NDMM patients. As consolidation therapy (N=88), pooled ORR was 91% (95% CI=0.79-0.97, I2=0), pooled CR was 36% (95% CI=0.27-0.47, I2=0) and pooled ≥VGPR was 70% (95% CI=0.53-0.84, I2=60%). (Fig 1-3) In 5 clinical trials (N=233), Ixa + cyclophosphamide (Cyc) + Dex yielded a pooled ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 76% (95% CI=0.70-0.81, I2 =0), 12% (95% CI=0.07-0.20, I2=44%), and 25% (95% CI=0.14-0.39, I2=78%), respectively. (Fig 1-3) The lower dose of Cyc 300mg/m2 had similar efficacy as 400mg/m2 with better safety profile in elderly patients. In a RCT (N=175) of Ixa with multiple combinations, Ixa + Dex yielded ORR 55% (95% CI=0.40-0.69), CR 14% (95% CI=0.07-0.28) and ≥VGPR 24% (95% CI=0.13-0.39). Ixa+ thalidomide (Thal) + Dex fostered ORR 82% (95% CI=0.70-0.90), CR 15% (95% CI=0.08-0.26), and VGPR 43% (95% CI=0.31-0.55). Ixa + bendamustine + Dex yielded ORR of 73% (95% CI=0.41-0.91), CR 9% (95% CI=0.01-0.44), and ≥VGPR 27% (95% CI=0.09-0.59). In one clinical trial (N=53), Ixa + melphalan (Mel) + prednisone (Pred) combination yielded pooled ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 66% (95% CI=0.52-0.77), 13% (95% CI=0.06-0.25), and 30% (95% CI=0.19-0.44), respectively. In a phase II trial (N=40), Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Len + Dex yielded an ORR, CR and ≥VGPR of 97% (95% CI=0.84-1), 15% (95% CI=0.07-0.28), and 35% (95% CI=0.22-0.51) respectively. (Fig 1-3) In a phase III RCT by Dimopholous et al. (N=656), Ixa maintenance therapy after stem cell transplant (SCT) yielded an ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 76%, 15%, and 54%, respectively. They observed 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with Ixa vs. placebo, median progression free survival (mPFS) was 26.5 months (95% CI 23·7-33·8) vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). Second malignancies were 3% in both ixazomib and placebo group. 27% of the patients in ixazomib group and 20% patients in placebo group experienced serious adverse events. In a clinical trial on unfit and frail patients (N=46) treated with Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Dex, pooled ORR and ≥VGPR were 83% (95% CI=0.69-0.91, I2=0), and 33% (95% CI=0.21-0.47, I2=0), respectively. (Fig 1-3) In the phase II trial, ORR, CR, and VGPR with ixazomib and lenalidomide were 64%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Conclusion: Ixa in combination with Len, Dex, Cyc, Dara, Mel, Pred is effective in the treatment of NDMM patients. In early phase trials, Ixa with Dara, Len, and Dexa showed the highest overall response as induction therapy. Ixazomib maintainance therapy prolongs PFS after SCT as compared to placebo and represents an additional option for post SCT maintainace therapy in NDMM patiens. The safety profile of Ixa was acceptable with most commonly encountered adverse events were hematological including neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Additional multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Risk of Serious Infections with Lenalidomide Based Regimens in Multiple Myeloma: A Network Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 12-12
Author(s):  
Nayab Mirza ◽  
Anum Javaid ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Wajeeha Aiman ◽  
Muhammad Yasir Anwar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Serious Infections ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Lenalidomide is an immune modulator, approved for use since 2005 for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Its use is associated with an increased risk of infections. Combination of lenalidomide with other drugs, monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors, dexamethasone, and alkylators, can enhance the risk of serious infections. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the incidence of ≥Grade 3 infections among lenalidomide based regimens used in MM that can help clinicians to monitor patients for the risk of infections. Methods: A search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. We used the following keywords, "lenalidomide" AND "multiple myeloma" from the inception of literature till 06/10/2020. We screened 14,684 articles and included 23 randomized clinical trials (RCT) (N=11,174) in network meta-analysis. We extracted the data for serious (≥Grade 3) infections in lenalidomide based regimens. We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials, observational studies, review articles, meta-analysis, and RCTs not providing any information about ≥Grade 3 infections. We used the "netmeta" package by Rucker et al. in the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct frequentist network meta-analysis. Results: In 23 RCTs, the median age was ≥65years in 11 RCTs (N=5585) and ≤65 in 12 RCTs (5589). 9 RCTs were performed on relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients (N=4254), while 13 RCTs were performed on newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (N=6920). Lenalidomide regimen was used as maintenance therapy in 8 RCT (N=4255). Table 1 reviews the baseline characteristics. The pooled incidence of high-grade infections in trials with a median age of ≥65 and ≤65 years is 1010/5585 and 634/5589, respectively. The incidence of high-grade infections is 693/4254 in RRMM patients, 951/6920 in NDMM patients, and 466/4255 in NDMM patients with maintenance therapy. P-score in table 2 represents the mean extent of certainty with which a regimen is better in terms of the incidence of high-grade infections, i.e., higher P-score means a lower risk of serious infections. According to P-score, lenalidomide with carfilzomib and dexamethasone is worst in terms of the incidence of infections. Indirect comparison of placebo with lenalidomide shows a risk ratio of high-grade infections of 2.87 (95% CI: 1.96; 4.23) in favor of placebo. Fig 1 outlines the indirect comparison of the incidence of high-grade infections with different lenalidomide based regimens vs. placebo. Table 3. shows the calculated indirect comparison of high-grade infections in each lenalidomide based regimen. Heterogeneity was not statistically significant. For serious infections, lenalidomide dexamethasone showed a risk ratio of 0.86, 0.70*, 0.76*, 0.78*, 0.77, and 0.77 in comparison with the combination of lenalidomide dexamethasone with bortezomib, carfilzomib, daratumumab, elotuzumab, ixazomib, and pembrolizumab respectively (*statistically significant). Conclusion: This network meta-analysis suggests an increase in the risk of high-grade infections with the addition of bortezomib, monoclonal antibodies, ixazomib, and carfilzomib to lenalidomide in multiple myeloma patients with the highest increase in risk with the addition of carfilzomib. Additional randomized clinical trials are needed on the toxicity of lenalidomide based regimens to confirm these results. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document