NM1 A Comparison on Different Network-Meta Analysis (NMA) Models Using Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTS) in Transplant-Ineligible (TIE) NEWLY Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM)

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.

Download Full-text

Safety and Efficacy of Four Drug Versus Three Drug Regimens Among Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-143379 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3-3

Author(s):

Saad Ullah Malik ◽

Nazma Hanif ◽

Priyanka Kumari ◽

Khadija Noor Sami ◽

Chase Warner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Drug Regimen ◽

P Value ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Drug Regimens ◽

Grade 3

Introduction: During recent years there has been a boom in the availability of treatments for multiple myeloma (MM). Based on the status of disease (newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory), several regimens have successfully improved progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in these two types of patients. Triple drug regimen is considered the current standard of care for newly diagnosed MM patients. However, with the advent of four drug regimens, some studies demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS and OS compared to standard of care where as others showed marginal to no difference. Also, it remains unclear whether the benefits of using four drug regimen outweigh the risks. Thus, the aim of our meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of four drug versus three drug regimens among newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Methods: We built a PICO based search strategy using keywords like "multiple myeloma", "randomized clinical trials" and ran literature search on PubMed, Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov ranging from the date of inception till 16th July, 2020. A pre-validated data extraction sheet was used to extract data on PFS, OS and ≥Grade 3 hematologic adverse events at the longest follow-up. We included only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing four versus three drug regimen in newly diagnosed MM patients. We excluded studies other than RCTs, studies conducted on relapsed refractory MM patients or other plasma cell dyscrasias. A generic variance weighted random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird) was used to derive hazard ratio estimates along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS and OS. Risk ratio along with its 95% CIs was estimated for Grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q -statistic and was quantified with I2 test (I2 >50% was consistent with a high degree of heterogeneity). A pre-specified sensitivity analysis was also performed for risk of adverse events. Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the quality of included RCTs and GRADE was used to rate the quality of evidence. Results: Initial search retrieved 7622 titles. After duplicate removal, 4880 articles were left. Following initial screening, 58 articles were considered for full text review. Of these only 3 studies (n=2277) met inclusion criteria. Four drug regimens included daratumumab, bortezomib, melphalan-prednisone (D-VMP), daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide-dexamethasone (D-VTd) and bortezomib and melphalan prednisone and thalidomide (VMPT-VT) respectively. Whereas, three drug regimens were bortezomib, melphalan-prednisone (VMP), bortezomib, thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTd) and bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone (VMP) respectively. There was a significant improvement in PFS when 4 vs 3 drug regimens were compared in patients with newly diagnosed MM (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46-0.62, p-value:<0.001, I2: 0%). Also, OS improved significantly in four drug regimen group (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.51-0.76, p-value:<0.001, I2: 3.5%). There was no statistically significant difference in any grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events when 4 vs 3 drug regimens were compared (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.93-1.73, p-value:0.14, I2: 93%). Sensitivity analysis after removing D-VTd regimen from any grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events revealed similar results (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.97-1.13, p-value:0.23, I2: 23%) confirming the robustness of analysis. When each hematologic adverse event was looked at separately, there was no difference between 4 vs 3 drug regimen in rates of anemia (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.76-1.28, p-value:0.92, I2: 0%), neutropenia (RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.00-1.94, p-value:0.05, I2: 85%) and thrombocytopenia (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.92-1.39, p-value:0.24, I2: 33%). There was low risk of bias and strength of evidence was of moderate. Conclusion: Using four drug regimens, compared to three drug regimens, significantly improves PFS and OS among newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients without any difference in the risk of ≥3 grade hematologic adverse events. Further randomized clinical trials are required to establish four drug regimen as standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

MP versus MPT for previously untreated elderly patients with multiple myeloma: A meta-analysis of 1,682 individual patient data from six randomized clinical trials.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2010.28.15_suppl.8130 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 8130-8130 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

A. Waage ◽

A. P. Palumbo ◽

P. Fayers ◽

M. Beksac ◽

C. Hulin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Elderly Patients ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Individual Patient Data ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Patient Data

Download Full-text

Androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel-based chemotherapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2016.34.2_suppl.188 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽

pp. 188-188 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Allan Ramos-Esquivel ◽

Joao M. Baptista ◽

Luis Corrales-Rodriguez ◽

Ileana GonzÃƒÂ°lez ◽

Melissa Juarez Villegal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽

Metastatic Prostate Cancer ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Androgen Deprivation ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Hormone Sensitive

188 Background: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostatic cancer. Nevertheless, recent trials have suggested a role for chemotherapy in these patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of docetaxel-based chemotherapy in combination with ADT for patients with hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer. Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) were identified after systematic searching of electronic databases (MEDLINE, OVID and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), as well as ASCO conference proceedings from 2010 to 2015. We included only RCT comparing ADT versus the combination of ADT plus docetaxel-based chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. A random-effect model was used to determine the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for the efficacy outcomes: overall survival (OS) and clinical progression-free survival (PFS), according to the inverse-variance method. Heterogeneity was measured using the Q and I2statistics. Results: Three RCT (n = 2 262), were included in our meta-analysis (E3805, GETUG-AFU 15 and the M1 subgroup from STAMPEDE Trial). Docetaxel-based chemotherapy plus ADT was associated with improved OS (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.60-0.90; p = 0.003). The heterogeneity of these trials was moderate (Tau2: 0.02; I2: 51%; p = 0.13). Clinical PFS was also significantly better in patients receiving docetaxel-based chemotherapy (HR: 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.82; p = 0.0001), with moderate between-study heterogeneity detected (Tau2: 0.01; I2: 42%; p = 0.19). Different subset of patients in these trials can explain the aforementioned heterogeneity. Regarding adverse drug reactions grade 3 or higher, neutropenia was reported in a range from 36% in the GETUG-AFU 15 Trial to 12% in the STAMPEDE trial and febrile neutropenia was reported from 6.1% in the E3805 Trial to 12% in the STAMPEDE Trial. Conclusions: The addition of docetaxel-based chemotherapy to ADT improves OS and clinical PFS. New trials are needed to determine which patients benefit the most from this intervention.

Download Full-text

Venous Thromboembolism with Contemporary Lenalidomide-Based Regimens and Adequate Thromboprophylaxis in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-117386 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4835-4835

Author(s):

Rajshekhar Chakraborty ◽

Saad Ullah Malik ◽

Naimisha Marneni ◽

Alex V. Mejia Garcia ◽

Faiz Anwer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Phase I ◽

Low Dose ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Combination Regimen ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Combination Regimens

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Len) and low-dose dexamethasone (dex) in combination with proteasome inhibitor (PI) or cytotoxic agent is an integral part of front-line therapy in multiple myeloma (MM). Use of Lenalidomide (Len) in MM had demonstrated an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in initial studies which led to the incorporation of routine thromboprophylaxis with Len-based regimens. Existing estimate of VTE incidence from a prior analysis on Len-based regimens in newly diagnosed MM is 0.8 per 100 patient-cycles [Carrier et al. 2011]. However, there is a gap in literature on the incidence of VTE in patients receiving contemporary Len-based combination regimens along with adequate thromboprophylaxis. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials to assess the incidence of VTE with Len-based regimens in newly diagnosed MM patients. Method: We queried Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Library databases to obtain relevant studies until March 2018. We included all phase I-III clinical trials testing a Len-based combination regimen for induction +/- consolidation therapy along with protocol-mandated thromboprophylaxis. VTE was defined as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (CTCAE Grade 2 or above). Our primary outcome was pooled incidence of VTE events per patient-cycle, which was subsequently converted to VTE events per 100 patient-cycle for ease of comparison with existing literature in MM. We performed meta-analyses with random-effects model using a comprehensive meta-analysis software. Heterogeneity was calculated using I2 statistic and a value <25% was considered negligible, up to 50% moderate, and ≥70% was considered substantial heterogeneity. The protocol for this systematic review is registered with PROSPERO [CRD42018102971]. Results: Initial search generated 1069 citations. After screening, 15 clinical trials with 3381 patients were included. Among 15 trials, 4 were phase I/II, 6 were phase II and 5 were phase III. All but one trial used low-dose dex. The pooled incidence of VTE events was 0.4 per 100 patient-cycles [95% CI. 0.3-0.5; I2: 70%]. Incidence rate of VTE in individual studies are summarized in Table I. The Forest Plot is shown in Figure I. Subsequently, we performed pre-specified subgroup analyses on trials with Len-dex, Len-dex + PI, Len-dex + doxorubicin and Len with Melphalan-Prednisone (MPR). The pooled incidence of VTE per 100-patient cycle with Len-dex was 0.3 [95% CI. 0.1-0.4; I2:92%], Len-dex with PI was 0.9 [95% CI. 0.3-1.6; I2: 69%], Len-dex with doxorubicin was1.5 [95% CI. 0.7-2.2; I2: 0%] and MPR was 0.3 [95% CI. 0.2-0.4; I2: 0%]. Notably, the incidence of VTE was higher with Carfilzomib-Len-dex when compared to Bortezomib-Len-dex regimens. Two trials with Len-dex + Doxorubicin had a higher rate of VTE irrespective of the dex dose. The most common modes of thromboprophylaxis used were ASA (range, 70-325 mg) and low molecular weight heparin. Conclusion: Patients with newly diagnosed MM receiving contemporary Len-based regimens have a significant incidence of VTE despite adequate thromboprophylaxis. However, the incidence rate compares favorably with prior estimate. The rate of VTE was highest with the use of Len-dex + Doxorubicin triplet regimen. In the Len-dex+PI subgroup, the incidence of VTE was higher in trials using Carfilzomib-Len-dex compared to Bortezomib-Len-dex regimen. These findings can be clinically applied at an individual level to choose a Len-based combination regimen based on the risk of thrombosis. New prophylactic agents like direct oral anticoagulants should be tested to further decrease the rate of VTE with Len-based combination regimens. Disclosures Khorana: Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Majhail:Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria; Atara: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Impact of post-ASCT maintenance therapy on outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in Connect MM

Blood Advances ◽

10.1182/bloodadvances.2018017186 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2 (13) ◽

pp. 1608-1615 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Rafat Abonour ◽

Brian G. M. Durie ◽

Mohit Narang ◽

Howard R. Terebelo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Second Primary ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Using Data

Abstract Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy is the standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Clinical trials show progression-free survival (PFS) benefits, with some studies (Cancer and Leukemia Group [CALGB] trial and meta-analysis) also showing overall survival (OS) benefits, but applicability to real-world clinical settings is unclear. Using data from Connect MM, the largest US-based observational registry of NDMM patients, we analyzed effects of maintenance therapy on long-term outcomes in 1450 treated patients enrolled from 2009 to 2011. Patients who received induction therapy and ASCT (n = 432) were analyzed from 100 days post-ASCT (data cut 7 January 2016): 267 received maintenance (80% lenalidomide-based [of whom 88% received lenalidomide monotherapy]); 165 did not. Lenalidomide maintenance improved median PFS and 3-year PFS rate vs no maintenance (50.3 vs 30.8 months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-0.82; P < .001] and 56% vs 42%, respectively). Improvements in median OS and 3-year OS rate were associated with lenalidomide maintenance vs no maintenance (not reached in either group [HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83; P = .005] and 85% vs 70%, respectively). Five hematologic serious adverse events were reported with lenalidomide maintenance (pancytopenia [n = 2], febrile neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia [n = 1 each]) and 1 with no maintenance (thrombocytopenia). Second primary malignancies occurred at rates of 1.38 and 2.19 events per patient-year in lenalidomide maintenance and no maintenance groups, respectively. Survival benefits associated with lenalidomide maintenance previously demonstrated in clinical trials were observed in this community-based Connect MM Registry.

Download Full-text

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

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-141984 ◽

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.

Download Full-text