Thalidomide (thal), Lenalidomide (len), and Dexamethasone (dex)-Associated Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) and Reported VTE Rates Pre- and Post-FDA Approval: Optimal Prophylaxis Strategies Are Still Unclear

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 2403-2403
Author(s):  
Monica Boen ◽  
June McKoy ◽  
Dennis West ◽  
Beatrice Edwards ◽  
Jayesh Mehta ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: We previously reported that thal and len administration was associated with high VTE rates, particularly for multiple myeloma (JAMA 2006). The Connecticut Attorney General filed a Citizen’s Petition in 2005 with the FDA highlighting this safety concern. In 2006, when the FDA granted approval to thal and len to treat multiple myeloma patients, the FDA upheld much of the Petition and the sponsor included a Black Box warning to package inserts for both drugs when administered to MM patients, and encouraged consideration of VTE prophylaxis (although optimal strategies were not known). Herein, to compare the len/thal/dex-associated VTE rates pre- and post-FDA approval, the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project performed a literary search through Pubmed and Ovid, with the search terms: “VTE,” “thrombosis,” “thromboembolism,” “DVT,” “multiple myeloma,” “thalidomide,” and “lenalidomide.” Methods: Reports of VTE with thal or len treatment of MM were reviewed and ordered by thal and dex dosages (table below). High dose thal was defined as higher than 200mg/d, low dose thal as 200mg/d or lower, and high dose dex as higher than 20mg/d and low dose dex as 20mg/d and lower. Data sources included: Pubmed and Ovid with randomized trials from 2006 to 2008. Results: A total of 56 randomized trials were included, with 35 previously reported trials (JAMA 2006) from 1998 to July 2006 (2423 patients) and 21 new trials from August 2006 to 2008 (2261 patients). In the recent trials, lower doses of both thal and dex were used, which are leading to lower VTE rates. The dosage/use of dex has a direct impact on VTE rates, with recent randomized trials of low dose thal and low dose dex reporting VTE rates as low as 0% (0–5) regardless of the use of anticoagulant prophylaxis. When high thal and no dex were used without prophylaxis, VTE rates were 2%. The benefit of prophylaxis is still unclear because when low dose thal and low dose dex are administered, the effects of prophylaxis are negligible. Len and high dose dex associated VTE rates in MM patients have reached a high of 15% (3–15), which is lower than the 29% maximum VTE rates found in our previous report (JAMA 2006). The lower len and dex-associated VTE rates in recent trials with MM patients is confounded by exclusion of VTE risk MM patients prior to treatment. Both the pre- and post-FDA approval trials do not demonstrate significantly reduced len and high dose dex-associated VTE rates with prophylaxis. As with thal, cogent VTE prophylaxis strategies for MM patients who receive len are unclear. Conclusion: After FDA approval of thal and len in 2006, low thal and low dex dosages were used treat MM patients and have shown to be an effective way to decrease VTE risk. Optimal VTE prophylaxis strategies for MM patients who receive len or thal with dex continue to be uncertain. A formal randomized trial of alternative VTE strategies is needed. Randomized Trial VTE Results Bold: new results 8/06–08/08, Regular: previous results in JAMA 2006 Thal (n=1713) Len (n=548) None ASA LWMH Coumadin None ASA LWMH Coumadin DVT prophylaxis (n=905) (n=961) (n=154) (n=402) (n=252) (n=83) (n=211) (n=846) (n=160) (n=133) (n=177) Dosage Low Thal/Low Dex 2% (0–5) [3/122] n/a n/a n/a 5% [2/38] n/a n/a n/a Len + Dex + DVT screening n/a n/a 9% (3–10) [10/106] n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Low Thal/No Dex 0% [0/30] 18% [9/49] 8% [4/37] n/a 0% [0/30] n/a 1% [2/202] n/a Len + dex + no DVT screening 10% (6–11) [22/211] 14% (4–28) [86/624] n/a 11% (3–19) [10/88] n/a n/a n/a n/a 15% [26/177] n/a Low Thal/High Dex 16% (6–18) [52/328] 17% (15–20) [35/202] 8% [9/117] 7% [3/45] n/a n/a 14% [7/50] n/a Len + no Dex + no DVT screening n/a 2% [4/222] 6% [3/54] 7% [3/45] n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a High Thal/High Dex 12% [15/124] 7% (0–13%) [7/106] n/a n/a 29% [98/334] n/a n/a 6% [2/33] High Thal/Low Dex n/a 11% (7–26) [21/193] n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 16% (8–25) [8/50] High Thal/No Dex 2% [6/301] 9% (0–16) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3990-3990
Author(s):  
June M. McKoy ◽  
Monica Boen ◽  
Dianne Deleon ◽  
Josephine Feliciano ◽  
D. Mark Courtney ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3990 Poster Board III-926 Background In 2005, the first ever Citizen Petition filed by a State Attorneys General, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, requested that the FDA adopt 6 measures to improve VTE prophylaxis and patient safety of thalidomide (thal). While 4 recommendations were accepted, the FDA refused to mandate a Phase IV randomized, controlled trial designed to identify the best VTE prophylaxis stating that substantial data already existed, but no specific prophylaxis was identified. We review the progress of this safety concern pre- and post-FDA approval of thal in 2006, specifically for the use of multiple myeloma patients. Similar safety concerns apply to lenalidomide. Methods A literature search was performed from 2006 to 2009 through Pubmed and Ovid using the key words “thalidomide,” “lenalidomide,” “thrombosis,” and “multiple myeloma.” High dose thal was defined as higher than 200mg/d, low dose thal as 200mg/d or lower, and high dose dexamethasone (dex) as higher than 20mg/d and low dose dex as 20mg/d and lower. Results See table Conclusion Since 2006, we have found information on 2657 patients with no prophylaxis, 539 patients with thal/dex with prophylaxis, and 2210 patients with len/dex with prophylaxis. VTE rates remain high, except for the low dose thal and/or low dose dex group. Overall, optimal VTE prophylaxis remains an enigma. Current recommendations for VTE prophylaxis are not supported by empirical data. Against this backdrop, Blumenthal's team should consider resubmitting their safety request. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 3310-3310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles L. Bennett ◽  
Zehra Hussain ◽  
Mark Courtney ◽  
Paul Yarnold ◽  
Dennis Raisch ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND: At ASH 2004, we reported > 20% VTE rates with thal/dexamethasone (thal/dex) use as an off-label treatment for MM. The abstract prompted Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General, to file a Citizen’s Petition with the FDA in 2005 outlining six recommendations to address this safety concern. In 2006, the FDA indicated that four recommendations were approved. The AG’s request for a randomized clinical trial of aspirin, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and warfarin as VTE prophylaxis was denied- with the FDA indicating that preliminary data suggested that these agents are effective for prophylaxis. At ASH 2005, we reported > 20% VTE rates with len/dex treatment for MM. In response, the manufacturer pre-emptively included a “Black Box” warning describing high VTE rates when len was used off-label for MM. In 2006, len and thal received FDA approval for MM. The Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project conducted a systematic review of VTE rates when len or thal is prescribed for MM. METHODS: Reports of VTE with thal or len treatment of MM were reviewed. Data sources included: the FDA’s MedWatch program and phase II/III clinical trial reports from 1998 to 7/2006. RESULTS: FDA’s MedWatch program included reports of VTE occurring among 8 len- (3 on aspirin, 2 on warfarin, and 1 on MLWH) and 1076 thal-treated cancer patients. Clinical trials identified VTE rates of 15% among thal/dex treated patients and 14% among len/dex- treated MM patients (Table). Uncontrolled trials found that thal/dex-associated VTE rates were sometimes, but not always, lower with aspirin, LMWH, or warfarin (INR of 2 to 3), while little information on VTE prophylaxis is available for len-dex treated MM patients. CONCLUSIONS: The extant data continue to support our assertion that randomized controlled trials are needed to identify appropriate VTE prophylaxis agents when MM patients receive len or thal with dex. Data on aspirin prophylaxis remain premature. Clinical Trial VTE Results VTE rate among Thal treated MM patients (n = 2690) VTE rates among Len treated MM patients (n = 702) MM-extent of disease Untreated Relapsed/Refractory Untreated Relapsed/Refractory n/a = data not available     Thal/Dex None 96/667 (14.4%) 11/256 (4.3%) 38/278 (13.7%) 48/346 (13.9%) Warfarin (1–1.25 mg/d) 16/105 (15.2%) 8/85 (9.4%) n/a n/a Aspirin (81 mg/d) n/a n/a 9/54 (16.7%) n/a LMWH/Warfarin (INR 2–3) 0/63 (0.0%) 2/26 (7.7%) n/a n/a     Thal/Dex/Doxorubicin None 148/610 (24.3%) 47/271 (17.3%) n/a n/a Aspirin (81 mg/d) 3/45 (6.7%) n/a n/a n/a LMWH 19/211 (9.0%) n/a n/a n/a     Thal/Melphalan/Prednisone None 43/287 (15.0%) n/a n/a n/a Aspirin (81 mg/d) n/a n/a 1/24 (4.2%) n/a LMWH 2/64 (3.1%) n/a n/a n/a


2012 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha ◽  
Jean-Yves Mary ◽  
Cyrille Hulin ◽  
Chantal Doyen ◽  
Gérald Marit ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 46-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Bruno ◽  
M. Rotta ◽  
F. Patriarca ◽  
N. Mordini ◽  
B. Allione ◽  
...  

Abstract Allogeneic approaches employing low dose TBI nonmyeloablative conditionings reported a dramatic reduction of transplant-related mortality (TRM) compared to conventional high dose regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) (Maloney et al, Blood, 2003). The role of allografting, however, compared to autologous HCT remains to be determined. From September 1999 to July 2004, 241 consecutive MM patients, up to the age of 65, were diagnosed at five academic Italian Institutions. Overall, 194/241 had natural siblings (Table 1): 158/194 (81%) were HLA typed, while 36/194 (19%) were not typed for the following reasons: patients not eligible for high dose chemotherapy (n. 14); siblings not eligible for peripheral hematopoietic cell (PHC) donation (n.11); patient refusal to high dose chemotherapy (n. 9), unknown (n.2). Seventy-six/158 (48%) with a matched donor were offered a tandem autologous- nonmyeloablative allogeneic HCT approach. Eventually, 56/76 (73%), the “auto-allo group”, were enrolled while 20 did not enter the tandem program as 5 siblings (5/76, 7%) were not eligible for PHC donation, 5 patients refused an allogeneic HCT, and 10 patients preferred allografting as a possible salvage treatment. Of 102 patients without matched donors or after refusal to allografting, 73, “double-auto group”, underwent a standard double autologous transplant while 29 received less intense treatments because of clinical conditions or patient preference. Table 1 Newly diagnosed pts 241 With sibs/without sibs 194 /47 (total 241) HLA typed /not HLA typed 158 /36 (total 194) Matched sibs /No matched sibs 76 /82 (total 158) Auto-Allo”/“Double Auto”/Other”“ 56 /73 /29 (total 158) After induction chemotherapy, patients of both groups underwent G-CSF mobilised autografting with high dose melphalan (200 mg/m2). In the “auto-allo” group, the autologous HCT was followed, 2-4 months later, by low dose (2.0 Gy) TBI, allogeneic PHC infusion, and post transplant mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporin. In the “double-auto group”, patients received a second autologous HCT. Patients characteristics were as follows: age: 54 (range 34–65) vs 53 (range 33–64) (p=ns); stage III myeloma: 77% vs 64% (p=0.03); beta 2 microglobulin > 2,5 mg/dl: 75% vs 59% (p=0.005), for the “auto-allo group” and for “the double-auto group”, respectively. At the time of this analysis, 56/56 of the “auto-allo group” and 55/73 of “the double-auto group” had completed the transplant programs. After median follow up of 3 years (range 11–80 months), TRM was 11% vs 4% (p=0.09); complete remission rates, defined as the disappearance of the monoclonal paraprotein by immunofixation, were 46% vs 16% (p=0.0001); overall survivals were 84% versus 62% (p=0.003); progression free survivals were 75% vs 41% (p=0.00008); event free survivals were 61% (34/56)% vs 38% (30/73) (p=0.006) in the “auto-allo group” and in the “double-auto” group, respectively. Longer follow up is needed, however data suggest that the “auto- non myeloablative allo” approach is not inferior to “double autologous” HCT in newly diagnosed MM.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 929-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart Barlogie ◽  
Robert A. Kyle ◽  
Kenneth C. Anderson ◽  
Philip R. Greipp ◽  
Hillard M. Lazarus ◽  
...  

Purpose Results of a prospective randomized trial conducted by the Intergroupe Francais du Myélome (IFM 90) indicated that autologous hematopoietic cell–supported high-dose therapy (HDT) effected higher complete response rates and extended progression-free survial (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with standard-dose therapies (SDT) for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients and Methods In 1993, three North American cooperative groups launched a prospective randomized trial (S9321) comparing HDT (melphalan [MEL] 140 mg/m2 plus total-body irradiation 12 Gy) with SDT using the vincristine, carmustine, MEL, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone regimen. Responders on both arms (≥ 75%) were randomly assigned to interferon (IFN) or no maintenance treatment. Results With a median follow-up time of 76 months, no differences were observed in response rates between the two study arms (HDT, n = 261 patients; SDT, n = 255 patients). Similarly, PFS and OS durations did not differ between the HDT and SDT arms, with 7-year estimates of PFS of 17% and 16%, respectively, and OS of 37% and 42%, respectively. Of 242 patients achieving at least 75% tumor reduction, no difference was observed in PFS or OS among the 121 patients randomly assigned to IFN and the 121 patients randomly assigned to no maintenance therapy. Among 157 patients relapsing on SDT, 87 received a salvage autotransplantation; their median survival time of 30 months was only slightly better than the survival time of the remaining patients who were managed with further SDT (23 months; P = .13). Conclusion The HDT and SDT regimens used in S9321 yielded comparable response rates and PFS and OS durations. IFN maintenance therapy did not benefit patients who achieved ≥ 75% tumor reduction on either arm.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document