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.

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 Comparison of monoclonal antibodies targeting CD38, SLAMF7 and PD-1/PD-L1 in combination with Bortezomib/Immunomodulators plus dexamethasone/prednisone for the treatment of multiple myeloma: an indirect-comparison Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wu Ye ◽  
Xia Wu ◽  
Xiaoyan Liu ◽  
Xue Zheng ◽  
Jili Deng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Many clinical trials have assessed the effect and safety of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) in combination with proteasome inhibitors or immunomodulators plus dexamethasone/prednisone for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). The treatment outcomes of comparing different MAbs in combination with the above-mentioned agents remained unclear. We performed the meta-analysis to indirectly compare the effect and safety of MAbs targeting CD38, SLAMF7, and PD-1/PD-L1 in combination with bortezomib/immunomodulators plus dexamethasone/prednisone for patients with MM. Methods We searched thoroughly in the databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which at least one of the three MAbs were included. We included eleven eligible RCTs with 5367 patients in the meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was carried out using StataMP14 and Indirect Treatment Comparisons software. Results We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and relative risk (RR) for overall response rate, complete response (CR) or better, very good partial response (VGPR) or better, VGPR, partial response, stable disease, and grade 3 or higher adverse events among the three groups. The HRs for PFS of the CD38 group vs SLAMF7 group, CD38 group vs PD-1/PD-L1 group, and SLAMF7 group vs PD-1/PD-L1 group were 0.662 (95%CI 0.543–0.806), 0.317 (95%CI 0.221–0.454), and 0.479 (95%CI 0.328–0.699), respectively. The HR for OS of the CD38 group vs SLAMF7 group was 0.812 (95%CI 0.584–1.127). The RR for CR or better in the CD38 group vs SLAMF7 group was 2.253 (95%CI 1.284–3.955). The RR for neutropenia of the CD38 group vs SLAMF7 group was 1.818 (95%CI 1.41–2.344). Conclusions Treatment with the CD38 group had longer PFS and better treatment response than that with the SLAMF7 or PD-1/PD-L1 group. In addition, the SLAMF7 group prolonged PFS compared with the PD-1/PD-L1 group and was associated with a lower incidence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia than the CD38 and PD-1/PD-L1 group. In conclusion, MAbs targeting CD38 are the best, followed by those targeting SLAMF7; MAbs targeting PD-1/PD-L1 are the worst when in combination with bortezomib/immunomodulators plus dexamethasone/prednisone for the treatment of MM.

scholarly journals Monoclonal Antibodies versus Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors in Combination with Bortezomib or Lenalidomide plus Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: An Indirect-Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanhua Zheng ◽  
Hongyuan Shen ◽  
Li Xu ◽  
Juan Feng ◽  
Hailong Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Histone Deacetylase ◽  
Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Grade 3

During the past decades, agents with novel mechanisms of action, such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) and histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) have been applied to treat relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The treatment outcomes of MAbs versus HDACi in combination with bortezomib or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone remain unknown. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare indirectly the efficacy and safety of MAbs and HDACis in combination with bortezomib or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Six trials (eight articles) were included in the meta-analysis with 3270 RRMM patients enrolled. We synthesized hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), risk ratios (RRs) for complete response (CR),very good partial response (VGPR), overall response (OR), progressive disease plus stable disease (PD + SD) and common at least grade 3 adverse events, and their corresponding 95%confidence intervals (95% CI). Treatment with MAbs in combination with bortezomib or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone resulted in longer PFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.66–0.98), fewer incidences of at least grade 3 thrombocytopenia (RR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.23–0.53), neutropenia (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51–0.96), and sense of fatigue (RR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.17–0.82) than HDACis. The daratumumab plus bortezomib or lenalidomide and dexamethasone might significantly improve PFS in comparison with HDACis plus bortezomib or lenalidomide and dexamethasone (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40–0.74). In conclusion, MAbs may be superior to HDACis in achieving longer PFS and may be better tolerated when in combination therapy with bortezomib or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone.

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

Blood ◽  
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.

The Efficacy and Safety of Immunomodulatory Drugs in Multiple Myeloma Maintenance Therapy: Results of a Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3477-3477
Author(s):  
Yucai Wang ◽  
Fang Yang ◽  
Wenwen Zhang ◽  
Xiaoxiang Guan ◽  
Neil Kothari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Immunomodulatory Drugs ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) in maintenance therapy of multiple myeloma through meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Patients and methods: PubMed, Web of Science, ASCO, ESMO and ASH databases were searched for RCTs that investigated the treatment outcomes (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS] and/or event-free survival [EFS] and/or time to progression [TTP]) of maintenance therapy with IMiDs in patients with multiple myeloma. Study endpoints included OS, PFS/EFS/TTP, and grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Comprehensive MetaAnalysis (v2). The random-effect model was utilized in view of clinical heterogeneity in the study population. Results: Eighteen RCTs comprising a total of 6562 patients were included in this meta-analysis. IMiDs used in the RCTs included thalidomide (14 trials) and lenalidomide (4 trials). Overall, IMiD-based maintenance therapy significantly improved OS (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84 - 0.99, P = 0.027) and PFS (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.60 - 0.68, P < 0.001). Notably, IMiDs maintenance therapy increased OS in the setting of ASCT but showed no OS prolongation without ASCT. On further stratification, thalidomide-based maintenance therapy demonstrated OS benefit only in the setting of ASCT, while lenalidomide-based maintenance therapy did not show OS benefit regardless of transplantation status. For PFS however, both thalidomide- and lenalidomide-based maintenance therapies demonstrated significant survival benefits, regardless of transplantation status (Table 1). IMiD-based maintenance therapy increased the risk of developing grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (RR = 3.04, 95% CI = 2.49 - 3.70, P < 0.001), thrombocytopenia (RR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.90 - 3.79, P < 0.001), anemia (RR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.23 - 3.15, P = 0.005), infection (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.22 - 1.92, P < 0.001), fatigue (HR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.24 - 2.36, P = 0.001), constipation (RR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.15 - 3.62, P = 0.015), and peripheral neuropathy (RR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.20 - 3.39, P = 0.008). Conclusions: IMiD-based maintenance therapy results in significant improvement in OS and PFS in multiple myeloma patients but increased the risk of developing some grade 3 or 4 adverse events. While thalidomide-containing maintenance therapy regimens showed OS benefits in the setting of ASCT, lenalidomide-containing maintenance therapy did not prolong OS regardless of transplantation status. Both thalidomide- and lenalidomide-based maintenance therapies increased PFS in multiple myeloma patients independent of transplantation status. When more data on lenalidomide and the newer agent pomalidomide become available, further analysis will be warranted to analyze the efficacy and safety of IMiDs in multiple myeloma maintenance therapy. Table 1. Effects of IMiD-based maintenance therapy on OS and PFS in multiple myeloma patients IMiD ASCT status Survival Number of trials HR 95% CI P value Thalidomide/Lenalidomide combined OS 18 0.91 0.84 - 0.99 0.027 with ASCT OS 10 0.88 0.78 - 0.99 0.036 without ASCT OS 9 0.94 0.83 - 1.06 0.299 Thalidomide combined OS 14 0.92 0.84 - 1.01 0.090 with ASCT OS 8 0.87 0.77 - 1.00 0.049 without ASCT OS 7 0.97 0.85 - 1.10 0.640 Lenalidomide combined OS 4 0.84 0.67 - 1.04 0.102 with ASCT OS 2 0.89 0.66 - 1.20 0.457 without ASCT OS 2 0.78 0.57 - 1.06 0.114 Thalidomide/Lenalidomide combined PFS 17 0.63 0.60 -0.68 < 0.001 with ASCT PFS 9 0.62 0.57 - 0.67 < 0.001 without ASCT PFS 9 0.66 0.60 - 0.73 < 0.001 Thalidomide combined PFS 13 0.67 0.63 - 0.72 < 0.001 with ASCT PFS 7 0.66 0.60 - 0.72 < 0.001 without ASCT PFS 7 0.69 0.62 -0.77 < 0.001 Lenalidomide combined PFS 4 0.50 0.43 - 0.58 < 0.001 with ASCT PFS 2 0.49 0.41 - 0.58 < 0.001 without ASCT PFS 2 0.52 0.40 - 0.67 < 0.001 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 18-18
Author(s):  
Farwah N. Fatima ◽  
Faiz Anwer ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Muhammad Yasir Anwar ◽  
Sana Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Acute Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Myeloid Leukemia ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Salvage Chemotherapy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Introduction: Five year overall survival for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is estimated to be less than 30%. Encouraging results seen with the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), midostaurin and gilteritinib resulted in the approval of these molecular targeted therapies for patients with FLT3 Mutated AML. Other TKIs like sorafenib and quizartinib, have ongoing clinical trials. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of TKIs for the treatment of newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed refractory (R/R) AML. Methods: A search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov. We used the keywords "tyrosine kinase inhibitors" AND "acute myeloid leukemia" from the inception of literature till 07/10/2020. We screened 3245 articles and included 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N=1919) in this meta-analysis. We extracted data for efficacy (i-e, OS, CR, ORR, EFS) and safety (≥grade 3 treatment related adverse events (TRAE). We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical studies, review articles, meta-analysis, observational studies, and controlled clinical studies not providing any information about the efficacy or safety of TKI. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results: In the 5 RCTs (n=1919), the age range was 18-85 years. 1675 participants had FLT-3 mutation (Table 1). In 2 RCTs (N=738), two TKIs (gilteritinib and quizartinib) (N=492) were compared with salvage chemotherapy (N=246). Risk ratio (RR) of overall response rate (ORR) and complete remission (CR) was 2.43 (95% CI=1.97-3.00, I2=0) and 2.09 (95% CI=1.5-2.90, I2=48%), respectively in favor of TKIs. The hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) was 0.70 (95% CI=0.58-0.84, I2=0) in favor of TKIs. (Fig 1-3). The median OS was 6.2 months in the quizartinib group vs. 4.7 months in the chemotherapy group. Similarly, median OS was 9.3 months in the gilteritinib group vs. 5.6 months in the chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher TRAEs (anemia, infections, sepsis, febrile neutropenia, and liver toxicity) were reported more often in the TKI group vs. salvage chemotherapy group. (Fig 4-6). In 3 RCTs (N=1181), two TKIs (midostaurin and sorafenib) (N=597) were compared with placebo (N=582). In the RCT evaluating role of sorafenib in older patients (&gt;60 years) (N=197), RR of CR was 0.75 (95% CI=0.58-0.96) in favor of placebo. Although more patients died in the sorafenib group than the placebo group (23 vs 10 within 60-day period), TRAEs were similar in the two groups. In the remaining 2 RCTs, sorafenib and midostaurin were compared with placebo in younger patients (&lt;60 years old) (N=982). RR of CR was 1.07 (95% CI=0.96-1.19, I2=0) in favor of TKIs and the hazard ratio for OS was 0.80 (95% CI=0.66-0.96, I2=0) in favor of TKIs (Fig 7,8). Median event-free survival (EFS) was 21 months in the sorafenib group vs. 9 months in the placebo group. Similarly, median EFS was 8.2 months in the midostaurin group vs. 3 months in the placebo group. Grade 3 or higher TRAEs (anemia, liver toxicity, infections, and diarrhea) were more common in the TKI group as compared to the placebo group. (Fig 9,10) Conclusion: Gilteritinib and quizartinib were not only better tolerated but also more effective than salvage chemotherapy in patients with FLT-3 mutated AML. In older patients, sorafenib appeared to have lower efficacy and higher toxicity when compared with placebo. In contrast, for younger patients, sorafenib and midostaurin had better efficacy and lower toxicity than placebo. 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 Pomalidomide Based Regimens for Treatment of Relapsed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2022-2022
Author(s):  
Adeela Mushtaq ◽  
Ahmad Iftikhar ◽  
Midhat Lakhani ◽  
Fnu Sagar ◽  
Ahmad Kamal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Stratified Analysis

Abstract Introduction Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor and lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulatory drug are the backbone of established treatment regimens for newly diagnosed MM. Patients with dual-refractory (refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide) disease have a poor prognosis with overall survival estimated to be less than one year. Pomalidomide (Pom) has distinct anticancer, antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory properties and has demonstrated synergistic antiproliferative activity in combination regimens. The aim of our study is to compare different Pom based regimens to identify the most effective regimen for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase and AdisInsight databases on 03/29/2018 which identified a total of 1374 studies. We included phase II/III clinical trials on pomalidomide based regimens that have clearly documented efficacy outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA) Version 3. We used the Cochrane Q statistics (p<0.05 considered significant) and I2 index to calculate the degree of heterogeneity of the studies. A random effect model was used if there was significant heterogeneity (p>0.05 or I2 >50%). Studies were classified into subgroups according to the therapeutic regimen: dual and triplet combinations. A separate stratified analysis of triplet regimens based on type of regimen was also performed. Results A total of 35 studies (n = 4623 patients) were included. The most commonly studied regimen was Pom + LoDex (Low dose dexamethasone) with a total of 16 studies on this regimen. All patients included in our study had ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy. Mean number of prior lines of therapy was 6. Most patients were lenalidomide refractory, with 10 patient cohorts of 100% refractoriness and 8 cohorts of ≥ 90% refractoriness. Pooled analysis showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 47.1% across all Pom regimens including both doublet and triplet regimens. An I2 value of 87.3 was found, indicating high heterogeneity across all Pom regimens. With Pom-LoDex, pooled ORR was found to be 35.7% and mean OS 14.37 months. With triplet regimens, pooled ORR was found to be 61.9%. In a separate stratified analysis of triplet regimens based on type of regimen, pooled ORRs with few selected regimens were as follows; Bort-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 83.5%, mean PFS 15.7 months [mos]), CFZ-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 77.1%, mean PFS 15.3 mos), Pom-LoDex-bendamustine (pooled ORR 74.2%), Pom-Dex-daratumumab (pooled ORR 64.5%), Pom-LoDex-cyclophosphamide (pooled ORR 59.4%, mean PFS 9.5 mos), Pom-LoDex-doxorubicin (pooled ORR 32%). Most frequently reported adverse event with Pom based regimens was myelosuppression. Mean incidences of grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events were neutropenia (47.6%), anemia (26.5%), and thrombocytopenia (20.8%). Mean incidences of grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were infections (29.1%), pneumonia (13.8%) and fatigue (10%). Most of the studies used pomalidomide 4mg daily dosing. Lacy et al. suggested no advantage of 4mg pomalidomide over 2 mg daily dosing. Conclusion From results of pooled analysis, we can infer that triplet combinations of Pom yield almost double response rates (pooled ORR 61.9%) when compared to dual combination of Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 35.7%). Among three drug combinations, Bort-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 83.5%) and CFZ-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 77.1%) seem to produce better outcomes. Our study provides useful insight into relative efficacy of various Pom regimens for treatment of RRMM patients. Several trials involving various MoAbs like nivolumab, daratumumab, elotuzumab, isatuximab and pembrolizumab in combination with Pom-LoDex are currently ongoing. Pomalidomide has an acceptable safety profile. Most common treatment emergent adverse events were myelotoxicity and infections that can be effectively managed with supportive care and dose modifications. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Antibodies in Development for Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5656-5656
Author(s):  
Muhammad Asad Fraz ◽  
Muhammad Junaid Tariq ◽  
Muhammad Usman ◽  
Nadia Carenina Nunes Cavalcante Parr ◽  
Awais Ijaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Mechanism Of Action ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Drug Conjugates ◽  
Antibody Drug

Abstract Introduction Immunotherapy using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been gaining significance in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). These include naked antibodies, checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), novel bispecific mAbs targeting two epitopes and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) having a mAb conjugated to a cytotoxic drug. This review aims to summarize phase I and I/II clinical trials using mABs for the treatment of MM. Methods A comprehensive literature search using data from PubMed, Embase, AdisInsight and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed for identification of early phase (I and I/II) trials of mAbs in MM treatment (January 2008 to December 2017). Studies involving mAbs including targeting antibodies, ADCs, CPIs and bispecific mAbs were included, without considering the geo-location, age, sex or specific eligibility criteria. Drugs already approved by FDA were excluded. Results Total of 2537 phase I and phase I/II studies were identified. After screening by two reviewers and categorization by their mechanism of action, 74 clinical trials (CTs) that involved mAbs as monotherapy or in combination with other chemotherapeutic drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). 41 CTs are active, completed or discontinued (Table 1) and 33 CTs are recruiting, approved for recruitment or planned. Most explored mechanism of action in these trials was mAb therapy directed against CD38, IL-6, huCD40, PD-L1 and PD-1. Isatuximab (Anti-CD38) has shown objective response rate (ORR) of >50% in combination with lenalidomide (R) or pomalidomide (P) plus dexamethasone (d) in ongoing phase I trials NCT01749969 (n=57) and NCT02283775 (n=89) respectively. According to Vij et al. (2016) and Mikhael et al. (2018), 54% ORR (n=31) and 62% ORR (n=28) was shown by combination of isatuximab with Rd and Pd in 57 and 45 evaluable RRMM patients, respectively. In Vij et al. (2016) study, stringent complete response (sCR) in 2 (3%) patients, very good partial response (VGPR) in 13 (23%) and partial response (PR) in 16 (28%) patients was observed. In Mikhael et al. (2018) study, sCR in 1 (2%) patient, CR in 1 (2%), VGPR in 10 (21%) and PR in 16 (34%) patients was observed. In comparison, Martin et al. (2014) mentioned ORR of only 24% with isatuximab monotherapy in 34 RRMM patients. Grade (G) ≥3 pneumonia (n=4) was the most common high-grade adverse events (AEs) being reported (Table 2). Siltuximab (Anti-IL-6) has shown clinical efficacy in combination with bortezomib (V) + d and RVd in phase I and I/II CTs. Shah et al. (2016) and Suzuki et al. (2015) found ORR to be 90.9% and 67% in 11 (NDMM) and 9 (RRMM) patients when siltuximab was given combined with RVd and Vd, respectively. Clinical benefit response (CBR) i.e. ≥ minimal response (MR) was 100% with siltuximab + RVd in NDMM patients. In comparison, siltuximab monotherapy in 13 RRMM patients yielded an ORR of 15% (2 CR) as reported by Kurzrock et al. (2012). G≥3 neutropenia (n=9), G≥3 thrombocytopenia (n=6) and G≥3 lymphopenia (n=8) were most common reported high-grade AEs. Checkpoint inhibitors including pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and pidilizumab (anti-PD-L1) are being investigated in RRMM treatment. According to Otero et al. (2017) and Ribrag et al. (2017), 50% ORR was obtained with pembrolizumab combined with Rd compared to 0% with monotherapy, respectively. However, combination therapy was associated with G≥3 neutropenia (n=17), thrombocytopenia (n=9) and anemia (n=6) while no high-grade AEs were observed with monotherapy. Antibody-Drug conjugates including lorvotuzumab mertansine and indatuximab ravtansine have been investigated in CTs for MM treatment. Lorvotuzumab mertansine has shown clinical efficacy in combination with Rd in a phase I trial (NCT00991562). Berdeja et al. (2012) reported an ORR of 59% (1 sCR, 1 CR, 8 VGPR, 9 PR) in 32 RRMM patients. In a phase I/II trial (NCT01638936) of indatuximab ravtansine combined with either Rd or Pd, Kelly et al. (2016) showed ORR of 77% with Rd (n=43) including at least 1 CR and 4 VGPR and 79% with Pd (n=14) including 4 VGPR in total 57 RRMM patients. Conclusion Combination regimens including monoclonal antibodies, CPIs and ADCs have shown clinically significant response in RRMM and NDMM patients. The mAbs caused hematological and nonhematological AEs like cytopenias and infections which needs to be monitored closely. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document