scholarly journals Real-World Outcomes with Bortezomib-Containing Regimens and Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Transplant Ineligible MM Patients: A Multi-Institutional Report from the National Myeloma Canada Research Network (MCRN) Database

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2008-2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Jimenez-Zepeda ◽  
Donna E Reece ◽  
McCurdy R Arleigh ◽  
Esther Masih-Khan ◽  
Eshetu G Atenafu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Research Network ◽  
National Database ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Entire Cohort

Abstract Introduction: Bortezomib-containing regimens (BCRs) have been the standard frontline approach for the treatment of transplant ineligible multiple myeloma (TIMM) patients in Canada for many years. Based on recent randomized clinical trial results lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Ld) has become another provincially funded option in Canada in the same therapeutic space. We aimed to compare the effect of BCRs and Ld for the treatment of TIMM using the newly-formed Myeloma Canada Research Network Multiple Myeloma Database (MCRN-MM-DB) project. This web-based centralized platform can track and characterize real-world outcomes of patients treated at major Canadian institutions and includes both legacy data dating back to 2007 (from 4 centres) as well as ongoing prospective data collection (from 11 centres) analyzed up to 01/07/18. Patients and Methods: The primary objective was to assess the ORR, PFS and OS for TIMM patients treated with CyBorD/CyBorP, Ld, VMP or VD/VP, each given as reported previously but with dose-adjustments at the discretion of the treating physician to maintain patients on therapy. The two-sided Fisher exact test was used to test for differences between categorical variables. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test; a p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: 842 TIMM patients were evaluated. Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Median OS and PFS for the entire cohort were 54.1 and 20.4 months, respectively. ORR and ≥VGPR better rates were 83% and 52% for the entire cohort. A ≥VGPR rate of 53%, 46%, 56% and 51% were observed for patients treated with CyBorD/P, VMP, Ld and VD/VP, respectively (p=0.3). The median PFS was longer for Ld patients (25 months) compared to CyBorD/CyBorP, VMP and Vd/VP (19.3, 20.5 and 13.7 months, respectively), (p=0.03, Fig 1a); there was no significant difference in PFS between the 2 different alkylating-agent containing regimens when combined with bortezomib + steroids (CyBorD/P vs VMP, p =0.9). Median OS was 51, 59.5, 29.4 and 66.5 months for those patients treated with CyBorD/CyBorP, VMP, VD/VP and Ld, respectively (p=0.07, Fig 1b). When the OS and PFS for CyBorD/P (typically given for a fixed duration of 9 cycles) were compared with Ld in a subset analysis, the p-values were 0.08 and 0.008, respectively. Conclusions: 1) OS was not significantly different in patients treated with either a bortezomib-containing triplet that includes an alkylator + steroid or continuous Ld. 2) The BCR triplets and Ld were more efficacious than the bortezomib + steroid doublet (VD/VP) for both OS and PFS although, the small sample size and adverse factors, such as frailty and comorbidities, may have influenced the findings. 3) The results in the real-world setting, i.e., a median PFS in the range of 1.5-2 years and median OS of 4.5-5.5 years, confirm triplet-based BCRs and Ld as current valid standards of care for frontline therapy in TIMM. 5) This study confirms the utility of a large comprehensive national database to benchmark current results for comparison with newer regimens as they are introduced into the Canadian therapeutic landscape. Disclosures Arleigh: Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Sebag:Janssen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leblanc:Celgene Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Louzada:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Real-World Outcomes for Standard-of-Care Treatments in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4075-4075
Author(s):  
Michel Delforge ◽  
Marie-Christiane Vekemans ◽  
Sébastien Anguille ◽  
Julien Depaus ◽  
Nathalie Meuleman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment Regimens

Abstract Background: With the advent of immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and, more recently, anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved considerably. Unfortunately, even with these 3 major MM drug classes, most patients ultimately relapse and require further therapy. There remains an incomplete understanding of how patients who have received extensive therapy and with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) are treated in routine clinical practice, as no standard-of-care exists for these patients, and what the outcomes are in this real-world setting. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients with triple-class (IMiD, PI and anti-CD38 mAb) and triple-line exposed RRMM using real-world data from patients in Belgium. Methods: A multicenter, observational study, involving 7 non-academic and academic Belgian centers, was conducted based on a retrospective chart review of adult RRMM patients who started subsequent treatment from March 2017 through May 2021 after having received ≥3 lines of therapy including at least an IMiD, a PI, and anti-CD38-directed therapy (tri-exposed). Data were captured in an electronic case report form (Castor EDC). Patients with an ECOG performance status of ≥2, who received prior CAR-T treatment or prior BCMA-targeted therapy, or with a known active or prior history of CNS involvement (or with clinical signs thereof), were excluded. All treatment lines initiated after becoming eligible were used in the analysis. Specifically, all treatment lines for patients meeting the eligibility criteria more than once in their entire follow-up were included as separate observations, with date of treatment initiation as specific baseline for each treatment line. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to explore the prognostic value with Overall Survival (OS), Progression Free Survival (PFS), and Time to Next Therapy (TTNT). Results: A total of 112 patients with 237 eligible treatment lines were included in the analysis; median follow-up was 16.6 months. In 45% of the initiated treatment lines, patients were refractory to 4 or 5 therapies, 62% had received ≥5 prior lines, 22% had extramedullary disease and in 48% of observations the time to progression in prior line was shorter than 4 months. After patients became tri-exposed, more than 50 unique treatment regimens were initiated, with the following being the most common: carfilzomib + dexamethasone (14%), pomalidomide + dexamethasone + chemotherapy (8%), and ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (6%). Additionally, 4% of included observations were exposed to anti-BCMA agents. Overall, the following treatment classes were the most frequently started: PI only (19%), PI + IMiD combinations (17%), and regimens including anti-CD38 antibodies (15%). Median OS was 9.79 months [95% CI: 7.79; 12.22], median PFS was 3.42 months [95% CI: 2.79; 4.27], median TTNT was 3.61 months [95% CI: 3.09; 4.57]. Higher refractory status (p&lt;0.001), being male (p=0.001), older age (p&lt;0.001), shorter duration of prior lines (p&lt;0.001), shorter time to progression in prior line (p=0.025), and higher LDH levels (p&lt;0.002) were prognostic for worse outcomes for both OS (Figure 1) and PFS. Conclusions: This retrospective chart review of patients with tri-exposed RRMM in Belgium shows that real-world outcomes in terms of OS, PFS and TTNT are poor for these patients, with a median OS of &lt;10 months. A wide variety of treatment regimens used in clinical practice confirm the absence of a clear standard-of-care in this patient population. The literature also confirms that these poor outcomes observed in Belgium, for this subset of MM patients, are similar in other countries. These real-world data highlight the high unmet medical need in this patient population and critical need for new and effective treatment options. MD and MCV contributed equally to this work. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Delforge: Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Vekemans: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS-Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceutica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Depaus: Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Meuleman: iTeos Therapeutics: Consultancy. Strens: Realidad bvba: Consultancy. Van Hoorenbeeck: Janssen: Current Employment. Moorkens: Janssen-Cilag: Current Employment. Diels: Janssen: Current Employment. Ghilotti: Janssen-Cilag SpA, Cologno Monzese, Italy: Current Employment. Dalhuisen: Janssen: Current Employment. Vandervennet: Janssen: Current Employment.

scholarly journals Comparison of Different Upfront Transplant Strategies in Multiple Myeloma - a Large Registry Study from Chronic Malignancies Working Party of EBMT

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 324-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan O. Schönland ◽  
Simona Iacobelli ◽  
Linda Koster ◽  
Didier Blaise ◽  
Michael Potter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Time Varying ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Dynamic Prediction ◽  
Landmark Analysis ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Younger Age

Introduction Although many new drugs became available to treat multiple myeloma (MM), high-dose chemotherapy with auto-HCT remains the gold standard. Further intensification to improve disease control has been assessed in several trials. However, no clear consensus has emerged. Further evidence is therefore required to guide clinicians in choosing between single auto, tandem auto and auto-allo approaches. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of MM patients (20-65 years) undergoing their first auto-HCT in EBMT centres (2002-2015). Our primary end-points were Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS). We used 3 different statistical methods to avoid time bias and to account for time-dependent effects. We defined tandem transplants (auto-auto2 or auto-allo) given within 9 months in absence of progression. Single- and tandem-transplant groups were compared by a landmark analysis (1). In addition, two different dynamic prediction models (2, 3) were applied to predict long-term outcomes in all patients according to the treatment actually received while avoiding the loss of information that occurs in landmark analysis. The models incorporated a horizon time of 5 years for OS and PFS during the first 3 years following auto1. Since the effects of tandem transplants vary over time, these were split into "Recent", the first 100 days following the 2nd transplant, and "Past" for the longer term (2, 3), respectively. Age, disease status and calendar year of transplant at auto1 were also analysed. Furthermore, the third model incorporated the long-term time-varying effect of auto-allo or auto-auto2 and possible associated interactions with patients' characteristics. Results A total of 24,936 patients who received an auto as first transplant were included; 3,683 of these patients proceeded to an elective tandem auto and 878 to an auto-allo transplant. The median age of the entire cohort was 57.0 years (range 18.1.-65.0). 18% were in complete remission (CR) at first auto. The Tandem auto-allo group was younger (51.7 years). Both tandem groups (auto-auto and auto-allo) had fewer patients in CR at first auto (9% and 8%, respectively). There was no difference in CR rates at second transplant in the tandem groups (18% and 19%, respectively). In the tandem auto-allo group, 72% had HLA identical sibling donors and 25% matched unrelated donors. Reduced intensity conditioning was performed in 85% of the allogeneic transplants. The median follow-up of the entire cohort was 66.3 months. At 60 months following first auto, the PFS was 24.8% and OS 63.1%. All three statistical methods found that younger age and being in CR at first transplant were associated with superior PFS and OS. The long term results of the different transplant strategies were as follows: Landmark analysis at 4 months resulted in a reduction in the number of transplants analysed. Auto-allo only had an advantage in terms of very long term PFS (figure 1) and not for OS (not shown).Dynamic prediction (table 1, curves not shown) revealed that the tandem groups were superior regarding PFS in comparison to single auto (auto-allo and auto-auto: HR 0.56 and 0.85, both p&lt;0.001; corresponding to a 21% and 6% gain of PFS probability, respectively). For OS, the tandem groups were just slightly superior (auto-allo and auto-auto: HR 0.78 and 0.87, both p&lt;0.001; corresponding to a 7 % and 4% gain in OS probability, respectively).Finally, dynamic prediction with time-varying effect and interactions revealed that auto-auto was superior, especially for patients in CR at first auto. In essence, auto-auto was the best treatment strategy for this group in terms of OS; for PFS, auto-allo remained the best long-term strategy (figure 2). Summary We here present a very large cohort of patients who have undergone auto and allo transplantation as first-line treatment for MM. Younger age and being in CR at first transplant were consistently found to be positive prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Tandem auto-allo was superior to single and tandem auto for long-term PFS. However, this PFS advantage only translated into a minor OS benefit for tandem auto-allo even when analysis was restricted to patients who were not in CR at the time of the first auto-HCT. Disclosures Schönland: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Other: Travel Grant. Blaise:Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Chevallier:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mayer:AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG: Research Funding. Gribben:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Stelljes:MDS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Bloor:Abvie, Gilead, Novartis, Autolus, Celgene, etc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational grant. Beksac:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hayden:Amgen: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria. Kröger:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; DKMS: Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Medac: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Riemser: Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Real-World Outcomes for Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone, or Bortezomib and Dexamethasone: An Enhanced Electronic Health Records Database Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2243-2243
Author(s):  
Ajai Chari ◽  
Brian Ung ◽  
Marc Tian ◽  
Amit Agarwal ◽  
Kejal Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: For transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), the only category 1 regimens recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based, including triplet therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) (NCCN Myeloma v4.2018). Other doublet regimens, such as bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), are still a first-line option for patients with NDMM, especially for those who are elderly and/or frail. However, the latter population is either excluded or markedly underrepresented in clinical trials. Using an electronic health records (EHRs) database, we compared outcomes when either RVd or Vd were used in the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in a real-world practice setting, after adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical differences between the two cohorts. Methods: A retrospective observational study of patients with NDMM was conducted using EHRs from a nationally representative database (Flatiron Health). The Flatiron Network database is an enhanced oncology EHR database of patients treated at 265 clinics throughout the USA. Patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma, ICD-9 (203.0x) or ICD-10 (C90.xx), between January 2011 and May 2018 who were treated with RVd or Vd and did not undergo stem cell transplantation were included in the analysis. The primary comparison was time to next therapy (TTNT) in the overall population and in a subset of frail patients, as determined by a composite score based on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Data regarding overall and progression-free survival (PFS) were limited as patient data prior to adoption of the Flatiron Network database were incomplete. Treatment-free interval (TFI) for patients who initiated a second-line therapy was defined as time from start of first-line to start of second-line therapy minus the duration of therapy (DOT). The Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate TTNT after adjusting for differences in patient baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of the 8,470 transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in the database, 2,369 were treated with either RVd (n = 1,309) or Vd (n = 1,060) and met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Patients treated with Vd were more likely to be older (median age 75 vs 70 years; P < 0.0001), frail (76.3% vs 65.4%; P = 0.0002), have creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min (23.9% vs 10.7%, P < 0.0001), have a higher ECOG PS score (P = 0.0031), and have International Staging System stage III disease (45.1% vs 28.8%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in baseline neutropenia, anemia, or thrombocytopenia, or in median CCI. The proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetics was lower in the Vd group (19.7% vs 26.0%; P < 0.0001). The mean DOT was longer for RVd (11.4 ± standard deviation [SD] 13.3 months) than for Vd (7.7 ± SD 9.7 months). However, the median adjusted TTNT was significantly longer with RVd than Vd (40.9 vs 14.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.55; P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients initiating a new treatment was lower in the RVd group (24.8% vs 40.6%; P < 0.0001). Among those who initiated a second-line therapy, the mean TFI for RVd compared with Vd was 42.6 versus 39.3 days, respectively (P = 0.2214). Among the 735 frail patients (416 RVd and 319 Vd), the median TTNT was significantly longer with RVd (32.6 vs 17.1 months; HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29-0.54; P < 0.0001; Figure). Similar to the overall population, there were no significant differences in TFI (54.9 vs 29.6 days, P = 0.2598) and a significantly higher proportion of Vd patients initiated a new treatment (22.1% vs 36.4%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world practice setting where PFS cannot be measured directly, triplet therapy with RVd significantly prolonged TTNT compared with Vd by 26.1 months in the overall patient population, and by 15.5 months in frail transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Ung:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tian:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Parikh:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.

scholarly journals FDA Analysis: Impact of Body Mass Index (BMI) on Outcomes in Relapsed-Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5505-5505
Author(s):  
Rachel Ershler ◽  
Bindu Kanapuru ◽  
Yutao Gong ◽  
Urvi A Shah ◽  
Sham Mailankody ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Normal Weight ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Background: Obesity has been implicated as a risk factor for the development of certain types of cancers, including multiple myeloma (Wallin 2011). In a report published in NEJM in 2016, the relative risk of multiple myeloma for overweight to class 1 obese individuals was 1.2, versus a relative risk of 1.5 for class 2 to 3 obese individuals (Lauby-Secretan 2016). Recent reports indicate that BMI may impact prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Beason 2013). Minimal information is available on impact of BMI and prognosis in patients with relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma. We analyzed the association between BMI and clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma to determine if there is a difference in outcomes based on body weight. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of four clinical trials evaluating novel therapeutics. These trials enrolled patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received one or more prior therapies. Patients were categorized into four groups, underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2) and obese (BMI >30.0 kg/m2). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression free survival and overall survival. Results: A total of 2392 subjects were included in this analysis. The median age was 65 years (range 30-91 years). A total of 28 (1.2%) subjects were underweight, 733 (30.6%) were normal weight, 1032 (43.1%) were overweight, and 599 (25.0%) were obese. More of the underweight subjects were female (82.1%), whereas more of the overweight and obese subjects were male (62.9% and 56.6%, respectively). The median PFS and OS K-M curves are displayed below. In this univariate analysis, there were no differences in PFS (p=0.61) or OS (p=0.7) among the four groups. There were some differences in the underweight population; however, the small sample size of this group precludes any meaningful conclusions. Univariate analyses by gender did not reveal any differences in outcomes based on body weight. Conclusion: In patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, body weight had no impact on outcomes, as measured by PFS and OS. These results are consistent with previous findings on the effect of BMI on survival in subjects with multiple myeloma after autologous stem cell transplant (Kocoglu 2018). Limitations of this analysis include the use of a univariate analysis, the small sample size for patients who were underweight, heterogeneity in the treatment regimens, and immaturity of the OS data. Future studies are needed to evaluate other variables such as the relationship between cytogenetics and body weight, as well as analyses of safety based on body weight in this relapsed/refractory patient population. Figure Disclosures Shah: Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria. Mailankody:Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; CME activity by Physician Education Resource: Honoraria. Landgren:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Other: IDMC; Theradex: Other: IDMC; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Indirect Comparison Using Individual Patient Level Data Comparing Efficacy and Safety of a Daratumumab Monotherapy Vs. EU Approved Comparator Therapies in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3541-3541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Demmer ◽  
Susanne Huschens ◽  
Dietrich Potthoff ◽  
Jörg Tomeczkowski ◽  
Christian Englisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Introduction. Efficacy and safety of daratumumab monotherapy (DARA mono) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) has been shown in the single-arm phase I/II trial GEN501 and the single-arm phase II trial SIRIUS (1, 2). Since then, several indirect treatment comparisons of DARA mono versus comparator therapies have been published showing consistent results with an overall survival benefit for DARA mono (3, 4, 5, 6). This analysis compares efficacy and for the first time also safety of DARA mono data versus an international historic control group, adjusting for differences in patient populations based on individual patient level data (IPD). Methods. IPD from the SIRIUS trial and from the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-cohort (7), a retrospective, multicenter cohort, were compared using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, on the endpoints of efficacy (overall survival (OS)) and safety (discontinuation due to adverse events (DISCONAE)). The IMF-cohort included patients with rrMM who received at least three prior lines of therapy, were refractory to both an immunomodulator (IMiD) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), and were exposed to an alkylating agent. An inclusion criterion for the historic control group in this analysis was treatment with EU approved regimens. Baseline covariates adjusted for in the regression model included age, gender, prior lines of therapy, albumin, beta-2 microglobulin, prior exposure to pomalidomide and carfilzomib, and PI/IMiD refractory status. Several sensitivity analyses were run, including multiple imputation of missing values. Results. Data from 106 patients treated with DARA mono (16 mg/kg) were available from SIRIUS; 258 patients from the IMF chart review fulfilled the inclusion criteria; most frequent treatment regimens contained pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (PomDex) (n=172), bortezomib (n=31), carfilzomib (n=21), cyclophosphamide (n=14) and lenalidomide (n=9). The adjusted HR for OS was 0.41 [0.25, 0.69], p<0.001, and 0.23 [0.05, 1.00], p=0.050 for DISCONAE, in favor of daratumumab. Results were consistent across a range of sensitivity analyses and were similar when restricting the comparison to DARA vs. PomDex, with HR=0.35 [0.19, 0.64], p<0.001 for OS and 0.20 [0.03, 1.54], p=0.123 for DISCONAE. Conclusions. This comparison using real-world data of rrMM patients suggests improved efficacy and safety for DARA mono compared to approved therapy regimens used in clinical practice, including PomDex. References. Lokhorst, H. M., Plesner, T., Laubach, J. P., Nahi, H., Gimsing, P., Hansson, M., et al. Targeting CD38 With Daratumumab Monotherapy in Multiple Myeloma. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2015. Lonial S, Weiss BM, Usmani SZ, Singhal S, Chari A, Bahlis NJ, et al. Daratumumab Monotherapy in Patients with Treatment-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (SIRIUS): An Open-Label, Randomised, Phase 2 Trial. The Lancet. 2016. Usmani S, Ahmadi T, Ng Y, Lam A, Desai A, Potluri R, Mehra M. Analysis of Real-World Data on Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients With ≥3 Prior Lines of Therapy Including a Proteasome Inhibitor (PI) and an Immunomodulatory Drug (IMiD), or Double Refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The Oncologist. 2016. Van Sanden S, Ito T, Diels J, Vogel M, Belch A, Oriol A. Comparative Efficacy of Daratumumab Monotherapy and Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison. The Oncologist. 2017. Usmani SZ, Diels J, Ito T, Mehra M, Khan I, Lam A. Daratumumab monotherapy compared with real-world historical control data in heavily pretreated patients with highly refractory multiple myeloma: An adjusted treatment comparison. American Journal of Heamtology. 2017. Jelínek T, Maisnar V, Pour L, Špička I, Minařík J, Gregora E, et al. Adjusted comparison of daratumumab monotherapy versus real-world historical control data from the Czech Republic in heavily pretreated and highly refractory multiple myeloma patients. Current Medical Research an Opinion. 2017. Kumar SK, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Terpos E, Nahi H, Goldschmidt H, et al. Natural history of relapsed myeloma, refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors: a multicenter IMWG study. Leukemia. 2017. Disclosures Demmer: Janssen: Employment. Huschens:Janssen: Employment. Potthoff:Janssen: Employment. Tomeczkowski:Janssen: Employment. Englisch:Janssen: Employment. Thilakarathne:Janssen: Employment. Diels:Janssen: Employment. Kumar:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Durie:Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Eisele:Janssen: Employment.

scholarly journals Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma with Fully Oral Triplet IRD (ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone) Is Safe and with Significant Therapeutic Outcomes

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1959-1959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiri Minarik ◽  
Petra Krhovska ◽  
Tomas Jelinek ◽  
Alexandra Jungova ◽  
Martin Mistrik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Extramedullary Plasmocytoma

Abstract Aims: Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) in relapsed and refractory setting (RRMM) has been a challenge. The best outcomes have been observed in triplet combination of novel drugs. However, most combinations require weekly parenteral administration thus degrading patients´adherence to therapy, especially when treatment is scheduled "until progression". The introduction of fully oral triplet combination ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD) showed an outstanding efficacy in the Tourmaline-MM1 trial. Our aim is to determine the efficacy and safety of IRD regimen outside clinical trials. Patients and methods: A cohort of 127 RRMM patients from the Czech and Slovak Republic were treated with IRD regimen within a Named Patient Program between 2016 and 2018. The M/F ratio was 1.2:1 with median age 66 years (41-84). The representation of M-protein and light chain types as well as ISS stage was standard. The data for cytogenetics were recorded only at the time of diagnosis in 71% of patients with 15 patients having high-risk features - t(4;14), t(14;16) and del17, and 41 patients having standard risk features. In 34 patients we were not able to determine the risk status as at least one abnormality was missing and none was positive. The presence of extramedullary plasmocytoma was recorded in 15% of patients. Most patients received IRD for their 1st relapse (58.5%), followed by 2nd (23.7%) and 3rd relapse (7.6%) with significant portion of patients being treated in ≥4th relapse (10.1%). The pretreatment with individual drugs was as follows: bortezomib (BTZ) 94.5%, thalidomide (THAL) 40.9%, lenalidomide (LEN) 18.9% and carfilzomib 5.5%. 62.2% of patients underwent previous autologous stem cell transplant. Altogether 25.2% of patients were refractory to at least 1 drug with 18.9% being BTZ refractory and 7.9% LEN refractory. Data were analyzed from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies. Data were described by absolute and relative frequencies of categorical variables and mean (standard deviation), median (minimum-maximum) of quantitative variables. Survival measures were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methodology at 95% confidence interval, log-rank test was used to estimate the statistical significance at P<0.05. Results: The overall response rate to IRD regimen (≥ partial response, PR) was 67.1% with clinical benefit rate (≥ minimal response, MR) of 77.2%. The rate of individual responses was as follows: complete response (CR) in 11.4%, very good partial response (VGPR) in 16.5%, PR in 39.2%, MR in 10.1%, stable disease (SD) in 13.9% and progressive disease (PG) in 8.9%. The median overall survival was not reached after median follow up of 9.4 months. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 23.1 months. PFS was significantly decreasing with number of previous lines (not reached after 1 previous lines, 23.1 after 2 lines, 8.7 after 3 lines and 4.6 after ≥4 lines, p = 0,006). As expected, the best PFS increased with deeper therapeutic response (SD+PD = 4.1 months, MR = 9.0 months, PR = 15.1 months, VGPR = 13.2 months, and CR = median PFS not reached). There were limited information regarding the high risk features. Still, we confirmed adverse impact of the presence of extramedullary disease (PFS 5.5 vs 23.1 months, p = 0.001). Similarly, patients did worse when being pretreated by both proteasome inibitor and an IMiD versus solely proteasome inhibitor (PFS 10.0 vs 23.1 months, p = 0.001). The outcomes of high-risk cytogenetics were beyond statistical significance. Most toxicities were grade ≤2. Only hematological toxicity and infection reached grade 3 or higher, as follows: neutropenia in 35.1%, thrombocytopenia in 22.8%, anemia in 12.3% and infection in 19.3%. Conclusions: IRD regimen is very effective in RRMM. We confirmed its efficacy even in highly pretreated population (≥4 prior regimens) and in patients refractory to BTZ or LEN, which were exclusion criteria for the Tourmaline trial. The fully oral combination is well tolerated, with manageable side effects and easy management of dose modifications. Unlike the original trial our data show better results in patients with less pretreatment. The presence of extramedullary plasmocytoma deteriorates the prognosis of patients on IRD regimen. We thank to Takeda for enabling the Named Patient Program. With support of AZV 17-29343A, MH CZ - DRO (FNOl, 00098892) Disclosures Maisnar: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Sequential Use of Carfilzomib and Pomalidomide in Relapsed Multiple Myeloma: A Multi-Institutional Report from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group (CMRG) Database

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Arleigh McCurdy ◽  
Christopher P. Venner ◽  
Martha L Louzada ◽  
Richard LeBlanc ◽  
Michael Sebag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Median Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Two Agents ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has dramatically improved due to the availability of immunotherapies such as daratumumab (Dara). However, in Canada, myeloma treatments now account for up to 20% of some provincial drug budgets. As Dara may be effective for a prolonged period and is quickly moving into first-line therapy, the Canadian body which provides guidelines to the provincial ministries of health recommended in 2019 against open sequencing of drugs in relapsed MM. Specifically, patients who receive Dara are now only eligible for public funding for either carfilzomib (CAR) or pomalidomide (POM)--but not both-- for relapsed MM. Given the known heterogeneity of myeloma, data gaps regarding the optimal sequencing of the available agents and uncertainly regarding the impact of this new restriction on patient outcomes, we utilized our Canadian national myeloma database to assess the sequencing of these two agents. The goal of our study was to understand the efficacy of these two commonly used treatments in the relapsed setting: 1) POM- after CAR-based therapy and 2) CAR- after POM-based therapy. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database (CMRG-DB), analyzed up to 30/06/2020. The CMRG-DB (formerly Myeloma Canada Research Network Database/MCRN-DB) is a prospectively maintained disease-specific database with over 7000 patients enrolled from 14 academic sites across Canada and includes legacy data collected from 2007. All patients with MM who were treated for relapsed disease with approved regimens using POM after CAR, or CAR after POM were included. Our primary outcomes were overall response rates (ORR) in each respective cohort. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and a landmark OS analysis from treatment initiation with the first of the two agents. Survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared between groups using log rank test. Results: A total of 121 patients were included: 49 treated with POM after CAR, and 72 with CAR after POM. In the POM after CAR group, the median line of treatment was 4th for POM and 3rd for CAR. In the CAR after POM group, the median line of treatment was 4th for POM and 5th for CAR. In 79/121 patients (65%), the two therapies were directly sequential, 40/49 (82%) for the POM after CAR group, and 38/72 (54%) in the CAR after POM group. Baseline characteristics and treatment details are shown in Table 1. The ORR was 51% for patients treated with POM after CAR, and 49% for patients treated with CAR after POM. The median PFS for POM after CAR was 4.93 months (95% CI, 2.76-7.07), and for CAR after POM was 5.36 months (95% CI, 3.75-6.94). The median OS for patients treated POM after CAR was 11.01 months (95% CI, 4.50-19.13), and for patients treated with CAR after POM the median OS was 10.98 months (95% CI, 8.98-19.17) (Figure 1). In a landmark analysis using the time of the treatment initiation with the first of the two agents, the median OS of patients treated with CAR after POM was 37.61 months (95% CI 26.66-46.52) and 25.32 months (95% CI 14.56-41.19) for patients treated with POM after CAR (p=0.1270) (Figure 2). Conclusion: In this real-world observational study we demonstrated that both CAR- and POM-based therapies were effective treatment options for patients with advanced relapsed MM as each produced responses in approximately 50% of patients with a median PFS of about 5 months and median OS of 11 months. These results are comparable to those noted in prospective clinical trials leading to the approval of these agents in this setting. Further, a landmark analysis showed that using both agents sequentially late in the disease course provided reasonable OS outcomes, regardless of the order in which they are sequenced. Finally, as the cost of MM therapy increases, the use of real-world data can help determine the impact of funding decisions on the outcome of patients treated in a publicly funded universal health care system such the one in Canada. Disclosures McCurdy: GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Venner:Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding. Louzada:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. LeBlanc:Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene Canada; Janssen Inc.; Amgen Canada; Takeda Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sebag:Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Song:Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Jimenez-Zepeda:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Kotb:Takeda: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Amgen: Honoraria. Mian:Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. White:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Stakiw:Roche: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Reece:Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding.

scholarly journals An Ongoing, Observational Cohort Study in Multiple Myeloma (PREAMBLE): Preliminary Efficacy Analyses in Patients with 1 Line of Prior Therapy

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 2403-2403
Author(s):  
Brian Durie ◽  
David J Kuter ◽  
Catherine Davis ◽  
Teresa Zyczynski ◽  
Hartmut Goldschmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Prior Therapy

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable hematologic malignancy associated with high disease burden and relapse rates. In recent years, several treatment options for MM have become available that have improved patient outcomes. However, robust data on real-world treatment outcomes associated with these MM treatments are sparse. PREAMBLE (Prospective REsearch Assessment in Multiple myeloma: an oBservationaL Evaluation; NCT01838512) is an ongoing multinational observational study that aims to increase understanding of real-world clinical effectiveness of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and combination therapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Here, we present preliminary efficacy analyses on data from patients with 1 line of prior MM therapy both with and without prior transplantation experience. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of RRMM with 1 prior treatment and started treatment with an IMiD, PI, or IMiD+PI 90 days prior/30 days following study enrollment. Patient data were collected at each healthcare provider visit for a follow-up period of 3 years. Vital status was recorded every 6 months for all patients. Response rates (defined as minimal response or better) were assessed using cumulative incidence function, with progression as competing risk. Time in response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 855 treated patients, 367 (43%) had 1 prior line of therapy (median age 70 years, 56% male). In this group, 71 (19%) had refractory disease, with even distribution among International Staging System stages I, II, and III. Index therapy was IMiD (n=193, 53%), PI (n=148, 40%), or IMiD+PI (n=26, 7%). At data cut-off (April 2016), median (Q1-Q3) follow-up was 16.7 (9-27) months, and 225 (61%) patients were still on study; the most common reasons for discontinuation were death or entering into a randomized clinical trial. Discontinuation was attributed to death for 92 (25%) patients; 69 (75%) of these deaths were due to disease progression. Approximately one-third of patients (128/367; 35%) had prior transplantation experience: 5% of patients had 2 prior transplantations, 99% of transplantations were autologous, and 83% were received after frontline (first) therapy. In patients without transplantation experience (n=238), the response rate (95% CI) was 46% (39-53) at 6 months, 58% (50-65) at 12 months, and 60% (53-67) at 18 months, versus 43% (34-53), 60% (50-70), and 60% (50-70), respectively, in those with prior transplantation. Median time in response was 14.6 months in patients without prior transplantation versus 20.3 months in those with prior transplantation. In patients with and without prior transplantation, time in response was longer in patients who had received an IMiD as index therapy (Table). Median PFS was 11.5 months in patients without transplantation and 14.1 months in those with transplantation; PFS rates (with/without prior transplantation) was: 6 months, 71%/67%; 12 months, 56%/49%; 18 months, 41%/32%. OS rate at 12 months was 81% in patients without prior transplantation and 82% in those with prior transplantation. In patients (≥6 months on study) who responded within 6 months, OS rate (IMiD/PI cohorts) was: 6 months, 100%/100%; 12 months, 93%/91%; 18 months, 85%/78%. In patients (≥6 months on study) who progressed within 6 months, OS rate (IMiD/PI cohorts) was: 6 months, 100%/100%; 12 months, 84%/69%; 18 months, 56%/64%. Conclusions: In patients with MM and 1 line of prior therapy either with or without prior transplantation experience, approximately 45% achieved a response, with approximately 40% of these patients maintaining their response at 18 months. Regardless of index therapy type or prior transplantation experience, loss of response was observed over time, highlighting the continuing unmet medical need in RRMM. Collectively, these data exemplify the importance of novel therapies that have potential to provide durable responses and improve treatment outcomes for patients with RRMM. Further analyses exploring any impact of prior transplantation and type of frontline therapy on treatment outcomes with subsequent lines of therapy are ongoing, and will be included in the final presentation. Study support: Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). Medical writing assistance was provided by K Rees, of Caudex, funded by BMS. Disclosures Durie: Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Kuter:Amgen: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Shionogi: Consultancy; Shire: Consultancy; 3SBios: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Protalix: Research Funding; Rigel: Research Funding. Davis:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Zyczynski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Goldschmidt:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria. Popov:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Cella:Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Alexion, Inc., Astellas, Biogen Idec, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Evidera, Inc., Exelixis, Fiborgen, Genetech, Helsinn Therapeutics, Inc., Immunogen, Ipsen Pharma, Janssen, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck, Novartis, Onc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Facit.org: Other: President; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cook:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

One Line Does Not Make a Picture: Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Of Multiple Myeloma Treatments Using a Full Disease Model

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2930-2930
Author(s):  
Hedwig M Blommestein ◽  
Silvia GR Verelst ◽  
Saskia de Groot ◽  
Peter C. Huijgens ◽  
Pieter Sonneveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Disease Model ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment Pathways

Abstract Background As with many types of cancer, treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is characterised by sequential treatment lines consisting of innovative expensive drugs such as thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide. While the cost-effectiveness of single treatments has been studied, a full disease model evaluating treatments sequentially is currently lacking. Therefore, we aimed to take a look at the big picture and calculate real-world costs and effects for commonly used treatment pathways for MM. Methods We developed a patient-level simulation (PLS) model for elderly (>65) MM patients diagnosed since 2004. Real-world data (N=621) including patient and disease characteristics, treatment information and outcomes as well as resource use was obtained from the Population based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies, PHAROS. Based on this information, a patient population was simulated. Parametric survival models including patient characteristics such as age, performance status, comorbidities, laboratory values and treatment were used to predict overall survival of commonly used treatment pathways. Five treatment categories were distinguished; Melphalan/Prednison, Thalidomide based regimens, Bortezomib based regimens, Lenalidomide based regimens and Other regimens not including a novel agent. Monthly costs, per treatment per line, were calculated based on real-world data. The sensitivity of parameters was explored through sensitivity analyses. Results Mean age of our simulated population was 76 [SD: 6.25, Range 66-93] and 19 commonly used treatment pathways were observed. Average total costs from diagnosis till death ranged from $54,200 [SD: $10,990] (Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other) to $172,346 [SD: $27,887] (Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other) while overall survival ranged from 29 [SD: 1.02] to 50 [SD 1.75] months for Melphalan/Prednison-Bortezomib-Lenalidomide and Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other, respectively. Total costs were especially induced by drug costs and inpatient hospital days. Substantial variation among the treatment pathways was observed with drug costs ranging from 7% ($3,980) of the total costs for Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other compared to 53% ($88,058) of the total costs for Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Thalidomide. In addition, inpatient day costs ranged from 68% ($37,113) of total costs for Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Bortezomib to 25% ($41,347) of the total costs for Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Thalidomide. Costs per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) were between $29,060 [SD: $5,623] (Melphalan/Prednison-Thalidomide-Other) and $56,179 [SD: $9,190] (Lenalidomide-Bortezomib-Other). In addition to the 19 treatment pathways, we calculated the total costs and overall survival of treatment as observed in daily clinical practice, $79,203 [SD: $12,001] and 32 [SD: 1.33] months, respectively. Compared to real-world prescription, survival could be improved at a cost of $48,543 per QALY and $31,902 per life-year gained (Lenalidomide-Thalidomide-Bortezomib). Conclusion Real-world costs and effects of 19 treatment pathways for MM patients were calculated and revealed that real-world treatment could be improved at a cost of $48,543 per QALY and $31,902 per life-year gained. Our PLS model proved to be a reliable and robust approach to study entire treatment pathways for MM. Disclosures: Sonneveld: Jansssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Front-Line Treatment with Obinutuzumab ± Chlorambucil for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Real-World Clinical Practice: Results of a Multinational, Multicenter Study By Eric and Icllsg

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1766-1766
Author(s):  
Yair Herishanu ◽  
Adir Shaulov ◽  
Riva Fineman ◽  
Sandra Bašić-Kinda ◽  
Ariel Aviv ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
High Risk Disease ◽  
Frontline Treatment

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) occurs in older individuals with a median age at diagnosis of 72 years. In recent years, there has been considerable progress in the frontline therapy of elderly/physically unfit patients with CLL. The German CLL11 trial showed that addition of obinutuzumab to chlorambucil (G-Clb) prolongs progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to chlorambucil alone or in combination with rituximab. More recently, obinutuzumab together with ibrutinib or venetoclax were shown to be superior to G-Clb with regard to PFS, but there was no advantage in terms of OS. In this retrospective, multinational and multicenter co-operative study the European Research Initiative on CLL (ERIC) and the Israeli CLL Study Group (ICLLSG) evaluated the efficacy of frontline treatment with G-Clb in patients with CLL, in a "real-world" setting. Our analysis excluded CLL patients with documented del(17p) or TP53 mutations since they are no longer treated with chemotherapy. Results: A total of 437 treatment-naïve patients with CLL from 51 medical centers located in 13 countries were included. The median age of this patient population was 75.9 years; 59.7% were men, median CIRS total score was 8 and estimated creatinine clearance 61.1 mL/min. Seventy four patients had Binet stage A (17.2%), 167 (38.8%) stage B and 190 (44.1%) stage C. Results of FISH and IGHV mutational status were available for 332 and 115 patients, respectively. High-risk cytogenetics, del(11q) was documented in 18.7% patients and IGHV-unmutated gene in 64.4%. The vast majority of patients were treated with G-Clb (N=408) and the rest with obinutuzumab monotherapy (G-monotherapy, N=29). The clinical overall response was 86.5%, including clinical complete and partial responses in 41.6% and 45.8% of cases, respectively. The median observation time was 14.1 months (m) and the median PFS of the entire cohort was 27.6m (95% CI, 24.2-31.0). The PFS for G-Clb was significantly better than G-monotherapy (P=0.001; HR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.22-0.67), being the 2-year PFS estimates 61.8% and 52.8%, respectively. The median PFS was significantly shorter for patients with del(11q) (19.2m) compared to those with normal FISH (not reached, P<0.001), del(13q) (29.9m, P<0.001) and trisomy12 (not reached, P=0.027). Patients with IGHV-unmutated had a trend for shorter PFS compared to those with IGHV-mutated gene (median PFS 25.3m vs. not reached, respectively. p=0.06). In a multivariate analysis, older age, high risk-disease, lymph nodes >5cm, G-monotherapy, reduced cumulative dose of obinutuzumab and status less than CR, were independently associated with shorter PFS. Seventy patients (16%) received a second-line treatment. The median OS for the entire cohort has not been reached yet and 2-year OS estimate is 88%. In conclusion, in a "real-world" setting, frontline treatment with G-Clb achieves PFS comparable to that reported in clinical trials. Inferior outcomes were observed in patients with high-risk disease [del(11q) and/or IGHV-unmutated] and those treated with G-monotherapy. Thus, even today in the era of novel drugs, G-Clb can be considered a legitimate frontline treatment in unfit CLL patients with low-risk disease [non-del(11q) and IGHV-mutated]. Disclosures Herishanu: Roche: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Simkovic:Roche: Honoraria; University Hospital Hradec Kralove: Employment; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mauro:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coscia:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Scarfo:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Tedeschi:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen spa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SUNESIS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria. Gimeno Vázquez:JANSSEN: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Assouline:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Levato:Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Rigolin:Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau. Loscertales:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Ghia:Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document