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 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.

Efficacy and Safety Profile of Celecoxib for Treating Advanced Cancers: A Meta-analysis of 11 Randomized Clinical Trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 1253-1263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian Chen ◽  
Peng Shen ◽  
Xiao-chen Zhang ◽  
Meng-dan Zhao ◽  
Xing-guo Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide Based Regimens in Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Wajeeha Aiman ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Rimsha Ali ◽  
Farwah N. Fatima ◽  
Nayab Mirza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Large B Cell

Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the US. Lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulator, is used in the treatment of multiple hematological malignancies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Lenalidomide based regimens in Newly Diagnosed (ND) and Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Methods : A search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. We used the following mesh terms and Emtree terms, "Lenalidomide" OR "Revlimid" AND "diffuse large B cell lymphoma" from the inception of literature till 06/20/2020. We screened 1640 articles and included 2 randomized clinical trials (N=72) and 21 single-arm clinical trials (N=860) in this meta-analysis. We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical trials, review articles, meta-analysis, observational studies, and clinical trials not providing any information about the lenalidomide efficacy or safety in DLBCL. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results : In 23 studies (N=932), Len based regimens were used in patients with age 19-92 years (range) Table 1. In 5 trials on R/R patients (N=252), Len was used as a maintenance therapy. Cumulative overall response rate (ORR) and cumulative complete response (CR) were 0.27 (95% CI 0.21; 0.33, I2=0%) (Fig1) and 0.10 (95% CI 0.07; 0.16, 8%) (Fig2), respectively. In one phase III trial, the ORR and CR were significantly improved in the Len arm vs investigator's choice drug. In 4 trials on R/R patients (N=207), Len with monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.40 (95% CI 0.28; 0.54, I2=71%) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.17; 0.42, I2=72%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=33), Len with Gemcitabine, Rituximab, and Oxaliplatin was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.61 (95% CI 0.43; 0.76, I2=0%) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.24; 0.57, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=15), Len with RICE was used with ORR and CR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.47; 0.90, I2=0%) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.35; 0.81, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients(N=55), Len with Everolimus was used. ORR and CR were 0.27 (95% CI 0.17; 0.40, I2=0%) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.03; 0.18, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=19), Len with R-ESHAP was used. ORR and CR were 0.79 (95% CI 0.55; 0.92, I2=0%) and 0.47 (95% CI 0.27; 0.69, I2=0%), respectively. In a phase III trial on R/R patients (N=21), Len with Gemcitabine and Rituximab was used vs. placebo The ORR and CR were significantly improved in the Len arm vs placebo. In 4 trials on ND patients (N=158), Len with R-CHOP was used and the cumulative ORR and CR were 0.94 (95% CI 0.88; 0.97, I2=12%) and 0.81 (0.75; 0.87, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on ND patients (N=15), Len with R-EPOCH was used with ORR and CR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.65; 0.99, I2=0%) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.59; 0.97, I2=0%), respectively. In 2 trials (N=103), Len with Ibrutinib and Rituximab was used. In R/R patients (N=45), cumulative ORR and CR were 0.38 (95% CI 0.25; 0.53, I2=0%) and 0.24 (95% CI 0.14; 0.39, I2=0%), respectively. In ND patients (N=58) has ORR and CR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75; 0.93, I2=0%), respectively. In 2 trials with a combination of ND and R/R patients (N=54), Len with Rituximab and Bendamustine was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.63 (95% CI 0.49; 0.75, I2=0%) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.27; 0.52, I2=0%), respectively. The most common serious treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were infection, thromboembolism, fatigue, sepsis, respiratory, neurological, cardiac (arrhythmias), gastrointestinal, rash, seizures, and hematological side effects (Table 1). Conclusion : Based on early phase trials, Len based regimens are well tolerated and effective in the treatment of both ND and R/R DLBCL patients. Combinations of lenalidomide with Tafasitamab and R-ESHAP have shown the highest response in R/R patients and combination with R-CHOP has shown the best response in ND patients. In randomized trials, lenalidomide has shown significant improvement in the survival of DLBCL patients as compared to placebo or physician's choice drug. Additional double-blind multicenter randomized clinical trials are needed to compare the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide based regimens in DLBCL patients. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Efficacy and Toxicity Profile of Ixazomib for Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5639-5639
Author(s):  
Madeeha Shafqat ◽  
Faiza Jamil ◽  
Zunairah Shah ◽  
Ali Younas Khan ◽  
Seren Durer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Drug Regimen ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Background: Ixazomib (Ixa) is the first FDA approved oral proteasome inhibitor to be used for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all published prospective clinical trials to analyze the efficacy and safety of ixazomib in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Method: After review of literature (last updated June 30, 2018) using database searches (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov), from a total of 1290 studies, only fifteen clinical trials (n=1387) met the inclusion criteria for RRMM and eight clinical trials (n=537) met criteria for NDMM. CMA software v.3 was used for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 test. A random-effect model was applied. Result: Based on pooled analysis, an overall response rate (ORR) of 40.6% (95% CI:19.4-66.0) with a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) of 15.7% (95% CI: 6.8-32.1) in RRMM and ORR (CR+VGPR+PR) of 77.5% (95% CI: 73.1-81.4, I2=48.05) in NDMM was observed. Most common grade (G) ≥ 3 adverse events (AE) based on regimen were calculated using pooled analysis in MM patients. Ixazomib Based Regimen in RRMM: Ixazomib as monotherapy: Four studies (n=192) evaluated the efficacy of ixazomib as a single agent. On subgroup pooled analysis on Ixa as monotherapy, an ORR of 22.7% (95% CI: 13.3-35.9, I2=45%) was observed with ≥VGPR of 7.8% (95% CI: 2.7-20.3). Pooled analysis for safety profile on most common G ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were thrombocytopenia 32.3% (95% CI: 22.4-44.2), neutropenia 21.5% (95% CI: 12.6-34.1), diarrhea 13.1% (95% CI: 6.8-23.9), fatigue 11.6% (95% CI: 7.4-17.7) and peripheral neuropathy 2.2% (95% CI: 0.7-6.6). Ixazomib in two drug regimen: In RRMM, two clinical trials (n=92) evaluated the efficacy of Ixa weekly with dexamethasone (D). In this subgroup pooled analysis, ORR of 40.7% (95% CI: 22.8-61.5, I2=41.76%) with ≥VGPR of 19.5% (95% CI: 4.6-52) was calculated. One study reported event-free survival (EFS) of 8.4 months(4.5-12.8) with a 1-year overall survival rate of 96% (95% CI: 91-100). In our analysis for safety (n=102), common G≥ 3 AEs calculated was thrombocytopenia in 20% (95% CI: 7.5-43.7), neutropenia in 14.3% (95% CI: 3.7-41.6), fatigue in 9.1% (95% CI: 5.0-16.2), diarrhea in 5.7% (1.1-25.5), nausea in 5.7% (95% CI: 1.4-20.2) and peripheral neuropathy in 5.7% (95% CI: 1.4-20.2). Ixazomib in three drug regimen: In RRMM, the efficacy of Ixa was evaluated inten clinical trials (n=646), an ORR of 56.3% (95% CI: 41.8-65.5, I2=82%) with ≥VGPR of 22.8% (95% CI: 13.2-36.4) was noted. Best response was seen when Ixa was used in combination with lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone, with reported ORR of 78.3%. Common AEs were neutropenia 23.5% (95% CI: 16-33.1), thrombocytopenia 18.8% (95% CI: 13.4-25.6) anemia 10.5% (95% CI: 8.2-13.2), diarrhea 6.3% (95% CI: 3.4 -11.3), fatigue 4.2% (95% CI:2.7-6.4), nausea 1.8% (95% CI: 0.9-3.5) and peripheral neuropathy 2.3% (95% CI: 1.3-3.9). Ixazomib Based Regimen In NDMM: Pooled analysis of subgroup study for combination regimen of Ixa as IRD, Ixa-Thalidomide (T)-D, Ixa-Cyclophosphamide (C)-D, and with Ixa -melphalan-prednisone (IMP), their estimated ORR was 83.7% (95% CI: 75.6-89.5), 80.8% (95% CI: 72.8-86.9), 75% (95% CI: 66.6-82) and 66% (95% CI: 52.4-77.4) respectively. We also measured the efficacy of Ixa as a maintenance therapy, estimated ORR was 81.5% (95% CI: 36.6-97.1, I2=90.5%). In one phase II maintenance study (n=64), a combination of IR receiving patients (n=34), an ORR of 90.4% with VGPR of 53% was reported. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached after a median follow up of 37.8 months and estimated 2-year PFS was 81%. Common G≥3 AEs in NDMM patients were neutropenia 21.6% (95% CI: 11.2-37.6), thrombocytopenia 15.9% (95% CI: 4.7- 42), infections 15.2% (95% CI: 10.3-21.9) and peripheral neuropathy 7.9% (95% CI: 4.7-13). Conclusion: In our pooled analysis (95%CI), Ixazomib has shown promising efficacy both in NDMM as well as RRMM. Especially in three drug regimen it showed an estimated ORR of 84.8% in NDMM and 56.3% RRMM.Cytopenia was a common side effect.Peripheral neuropathy was noted to be a rare side-effect (2.6%) in RRMM. Further studies are required to evaluate efficacy and safety of ixazomib in combination therapies in NDMM. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Immunomodulatory drug and dexamethasone-containing triple versus doublet combination treatments for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minjie Gao ◽  
Xiao Yan ◽  
Fei Li ◽  
Kaihong Xu ◽  
Qitian Mu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Immunomodulatory Drug ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background Triplet therapy has become the standard of care for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) over the past few years. Prior to that, doublet therapy including dexamethasone and an immunomodulatory were standard. Several systematic studies have been conducted and many combinations with variable triplet therapies but have not always used the former standard therapy as a benchmark. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triplet combinations that included dexamethasone and an immunomodulatory drug versus a doublet combination of just dexamethasone and an immunomodulatory for the treatment of RRMM. Methods A comprehensive literature search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) for phase III randomized controlled trials for efficacy and safety of triplet versus doublet combinations that specifically included dexamethasone and an immunomodulatory drug for treatment of RRMM. Efficacy (ORR, PFS, OS) and adverse events (≥ grade 3) were assessed using traditional statistical measures for aggregate data. Results Of 235 potential reports, 6 met the inclusion criteria (N = 115–792 participants). The methodological quality was ≥ 4 Jadad score for each. Triplet treatment had higher ORR (HR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.65–0.84, P ≤ 0.001), PFS (HR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.52–0.75, P ≤ 0.001), and OS (HR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.65–0.84, P ≤ 0.001). The incidence of ≥ grade 3 diarrhea and fatigue were significantly higher in the triplet combination group. There was a trend toward increased incidence of ≥ grade 3 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, thromboembolism, and peripheral neuropathy in the triplet therapy group. Notably, triplet therapy had a significantly lower rate of anemia compared to doublet therapy. Conclusions This study reinforces current guidelines and recommendations for triplet combinations containing dexamethasone and an immunomodulatory drug.

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 "Real-Life" Data of the Efficacy and Safety of Belantamab Mafodotin in Relapsed Multiple Myeloma- the Mayo Clinic Experience

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1639-1639
Author(s):  
Iuliana Vaxman ◽  
Jithma P. Abeykoon ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Shaji Kumar ◽  
Francis K. Buadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Car T ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) patients refractory to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies remains an unmet need. Belantamab mafodotin is a first in class antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in MM utilizing a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) conjugated to a microtubule-disrupting monomethyl auristatin F. The efficacy of belantamab in relapsed refractory MM (RRMM) patients has been reported in several randomized clinical trials. However, clinical trials have restricted patients' eligibilty. We report the "real world" efficacy and safety of belanatmab in patients treated at all three Mayo Clinic sites. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive MM patients that received at least one dose of belantamab outside a clinical trial. The primary endpoints were PFS and OS, and the secondary endpoints included overall response rates (ORR) and safety. Results: Thirty-seven RRMM patients were treated with belantamab between September 2020 and June 2021. The median age at diagnosis was 61 (range 37-83) and 64% were male. The median age at belantamab administration was 67 (IQR 59-74) and 14 patients (38%) were 70 years or older. Fifteen of 34 patients (44%) had high-risk FISH and 13 patients of 33 (39%) had ISS 3. Two patients had a creatinine of &gt;2.5 mg/dL, and one patient was on dialysis. All three received full dose belantmab (2.5 mg/kg). The median time from diagnosis to belantamab initiation was 7 years (IQR 4-11), and the median prior lines of therapy was 8 (IQR 7-11). Twenty-seven patients (73%) underwent an autologous stem cell transplantation prior to belantamab therapy, and all patients were penta refractory (IMiD, PI, and anti CD38). Seven patients (19%) received CAR-T therapy prior to belantamab. The median number of belantamab doses administered was 3 (range 1-6). Thirty-one (84%) received belantamab monotherapy and 6 patients (16%) received belantamab in combination [pomalidomide (n=3), cyclophosphamide (n=2), or thalidomide (n=1)]. The overall response (ORR) rate to belantamab was 33% (out of 36 evaluable patients). Two patients (6%) achieved complete response (CR), 3 patients (8%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR), and 7 patients (19%) achieved partial response (PR). At data cutoff 20 patients (54%) are alive. Seventeen patients died of MM complications. The median follow-up was 6 months (IQR 3.5-7). The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort was 2 months (95% CI 1-3) and 7 months (95% CI 3--NR), respectively. Two patients died within the first cycle of belantamab (due to PD), and overall, 12 died within 100 days of belantamab therapy, all due to disease progression. Eleven patients (30%) were hospitalized during belantamab therapy. The reasons for hospitalization were related to MM in 4 patients (one patient with malignant ascites, one with hypercalcemia, 2 patients for pain management). Three patients were hospitalized due to thrombocytopenia (related to disease), and one due to an infusion-related reaction (IRR). Other reasons for hospitalization were infection (soft tissue abscess, n=1), proctitis (n=1) and tumor lysis (n=1). Keratopathy developed in 16 patients (43%). Keratopathy was grade 1 in 6 patients, grade 2 in 7 patients, and grade 3 in 3 patients. Only one patient had corneal erosions and 6 patients reported decreased visual acuity, (1 grade 3 keratopathy, 4 had grade 2 keratopathy, and 1 had grade 1 keratopathy). Two patients had IRR. Two patients reported gaining 3.5 kg each after therapy with belantamab was discontinued. Conclusions: The response rates are similar to those reported in randomized clinical trials. The role of belantamab in the era of other BCMA directed therapy (CAR-T, BiTEs) remains unclear. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kapoor: Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of daratumumab in the treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 030006052110381
Author(s):  
Yin Wang ◽  
Yanqing Li ◽  
Ye Chai
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Combination Regimens

Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination regimens containing daratumumab in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Methods A systematic search of publications listed on electronic databases (PubMed®, The Cochrane Library, Science Direct and Web of Science) between inception and 13 November 2020 was conducted to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included patients with MM that were treated with combination regimens containing daratumumab. Results A total of seven RCTs were included ( n = 4268 patients). Meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, the group containing daratumumab showed a significantly better overall response rate and a complete response or better. Daratumumab improved efficacy in both standard-risk and cytogenetically high-risk patients with MM. The prevalence of neutropenia (≥grade 3) and pneumonia was significantly higher in the daratumumab group compared with the control group. Conclusion The available evidence demonstrated that the clinical application of combination regimens containing daratumumab improved the efficacy in patients with MM and had acceptable safety.

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 &gt;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:&lt;0.001, I2: 0%). Also, OS improved significantly in four drug regimen group (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.51-0.76, p-value:&lt;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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document