Efficacy Of Novel Agents As Maintenance Therapy For Multiple Myeloma: A Direct and Network Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1945-1945
Author(s):  
Tea Reljic ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Helen Mahoney ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Mohamed A Kharfan-Dabaja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Cumulative Probability ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mixed Treatment ◽  
American Society

Abstract Background Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 10% of all hematological malignancies. While MM remains incurable, several life-extending treatments are available including maintenance treatments. The goal of maintenance therapy is to modulate residual MM after an initial response, thereby prolonging progression-free and overall survival by adding additional therapy following induction treatment. The role of maintenance therapies in the management of multiple myeloma is unclear and evidence on efficacy of novel regimens (e.g. bortezomib, lenalidomide, or thalidomide) remains conflicting. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of trials to assess the efficacy of novel agents used as maintenance therapy in management of multiple myeloma. Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meeting abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was conducted to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of novel agents used as maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma published until May 2013. We extracted data on overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS). Data were pooled using direct and network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials using the Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method under the random-effects model. Indirect comparisons were constructed from trials which have one treatment in common. Results Of 2678 identified references, 23 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 12 studies (4832 patients) contributed data to the network. The network of direct comparisons for all included studies for the outcome of PFS is shown in figure 1A. The results for meta-analysis of novel agents for PFS is shown in figure 1B. The combination of lenalidomide with prednisone was superior to no treatment as well as prednisone alone in addition to lenalidomide as single agent compared with no treatment. Furthermore, combination bortezomib plus thalidomide and dexamethasone plus lenalidomide was superior to no treatment. None of the novel agents except thalidomide plus prednisone compared with prednisone alone showed a significant improvement in OS and therefore an indirect comparison for OS was not conducted. The results of mixed treatment comparisons are illustrated in figure 1C which shows non-superiority of any novel agent. The cumulative probability rank for PFS is shown in Figure 1D. The area under the cumulative probability rank curve was highest for bortezomib+prednisone (0.73), followed by lenalidomide and lenalidomide+dexamethasone (both 0.71). Conclusion This analysis is an important addition to prior direct comparisons of novel agents for maintenance in multiple myeloma. Looking at PFS, use of bortezomib+prednisone, lenalidomide and lenalidomide+dexamethasone appears to be superior to other agents. However, provided the small number of trials between each comparison, current data do not allow for strong conclusions on superiority of any one treatment and direct comparison in a RCT is warranted for more conclusive results. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Maintenance Therapies for Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Network Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Helen Mahony ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Rahul Mhaskar ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Keith Wheatley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
American Society ◽  
Novel Agent

Abstract Abstract 236 Background: There is little consensus on which maintenance therapy clinicians should choose for their patients. Since 1999, the three novel agents of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide have been approved for use among patients with MM. These agents have been increasingly used as maintenance therapy. To date, only two randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy have examined the efficacy of these novel agents head-to-head. Here, we conduct a network meta-analysis of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide to determine which of these novel agents could potentially increase overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meetings abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was undertaken to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of maintenance therapy published until July 2012. We applied the Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) method under the random-effects model. The indirect comparisons were constructed from trials that have one treatment in common. For each included RCT, we calculated the hazard ratio (HR) and its corresponding standard error and used this to calculate the indirect estimates of HR and corresponding credible intervals (CrI). We also ranked the treatments according to the probability of best treatment and calculated the surface underneath the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). All analyses were conducted in WinBUGS 1.4.3 and Stata 11.2. Results: The network, number of trials for each comparison, and number of patients enrolled is shown in Figure 1. The network for OS was based on 12 RCTs enrolling 5542 patients and the network for PFS was constructed from 13 RCTs and 5784 patients. The MTC networks were consistent for both OS and PFS. For both OS and PFS, two comparisons were produced (Figure 2). For OS, the analysis showed that none of the treatments were superior. For PFS, lenalidomide was superior to thalidomide (HR = 0.58, 95% CrI [0.37, 0.94]). The estimates of SUCRA and rank probabilities (Figure 3) suggested that for OS bortezomib was best followed by lenalidomide and thalidomide. For PFS, lenalidomide was best followed by bortezomib and thalidomide. Conclusion: Using the MTC method, we found no evidence that any of the novel agents are superior to one another in terms of OS. Lenalidomide was the only novel agent which was superior to another active therapy (thalidomide). While these results provide preliminary evidence to which novel agent may be more beneficial as maintenance therapy, definitive conclusions cannot be reached until large, well designed RCTs evaluating these therapies head-to-head are conducted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Bortezomib-Based Consolidation/Maintenance Therapy for Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3293-3293
Author(s):  
Shijia Zhang ◽  
Yucai Wang ◽  
Yvonne Datta ◽  
Veronika Bachanova ◽  
Sarah Cooley
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor that can lead to cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. Bortezomib-based regimens are widely used as induction therapy of multiple myeloma (MM). Unlike lenalidomide (an immunomodulatory drug), the role of bortezomib in the consolidation and maintenance therapy of multiple myeloma is less clear. This study aims to examine the efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based regimens as consolidation/maintenance therapy in MM patients following induction therapy with or without autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods: PubMed, ASH, and ASCO databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RTC) of bortezomib-based regimens (either single-agent or combination) as consolidation/maintenance therapy for MM patients through July 2018. Study endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AE). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) for survival outcomes and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with a random effect model using MedCalc (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). For studies that did not report HRs for survival outcomes but provided graphical survival curves, the log HRs and variances were estimated based on the method by Parmar et al (Stat Med 1998; 17: 2815-2834). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic of inconsistency, with statistically significant heterogeneity defined as I2 > 50% or p-value < 0.1. Results: Eight randomized controlled trials (7 phase III, 1 phase II; 2 were published in a single article) were identified. Bortezomib-based regimens were administered as consolidation treatment in 5 RTCs and maintenance therapy in 3 RTCs, following induction therapy +/- ASCT. A total of 2439 patients were included: 1154 patients received bortezomib-based regimens, and 1285 patients received non-bortezomib-based regimens or observation. Two RCTs (1 for consolidation, 1 for maintenance) did not provide HRs, which were estimated as described as above. Pooled data from the 8 RCTs showed that bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy improved progression-free survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79, P < 0.001; I2 = 6.61%) and overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.005; I2 = 0%) compared to observation or regimens without bortezomib. When the 2 RCTs that did not report HRs were excluded from the meta-analysis, it did not alter the favorable outcome of bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy: PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.82, P < 0.001; I2 = 40.54%) and OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91, P = 0.002; I2 = 0%). The PFS benefit was maintained in a subgroup analysis by the setting of treatment (consolidation, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%, maintenance, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.0.86, P = 0.001; I2 = 55.63%). Bortezomib-based therapy prolonged OS in the maintenance setting (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) but not in the consolidation setting (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77-1.33, P = 0.935; I2 = 0%). Regarding safety, bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy significantly increased the risk of grade 3 or 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy and neuralgia (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.11-3.95, p = 0.022; I2 = 52.64%) compared to observation or regimens without bortezomib. There was a trend toward increased rates of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.95-2.52, p = 0.08; I2 = 21.67%), GI symptoms (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.63-10.25, p = 0.19; I2 = 76.72%), vascular events (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.80-4.53, p = 0.15; I2 = 0.00%), and fatigue (RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.83-5.30, p = 0.12; I2 = 0.00%) with bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance, but these did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance significantly improves PFS and OS in MM patients following induction therapy +/- ASCT. The OS benefit appears to be limited to the maintenance setting based on a subgroup analysis. Bortezomib-based regimen increases the risk of grade 3 or 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy and neuralgia. Disclosures Bachanova: Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Thromboprophylaxis In Multiple Myeloma Patients Undergoing Immunomodulatory Therapy with Thalidomide and Lenalidomide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1090-1090
Author(s):  
Marc Carrier ◽  
Gregoire Le Gal ◽  
Jason Tay ◽  
Cynthia M. Wu ◽  
Agnes Y. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Literature Search Strategy ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Data Source

Abstract Abstract 1090 Background: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is high in patients treated with thalidomide (T)- and lenalidomide (L)-based regimens containing dexamethasone (D) and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy (C). Consensus guidelines recommend routine thromboprophylaxis but reliable data from randomized controlled trials are lacking. Recent observational studies have suggested that thromboprophylaxis might be efficacious in decreasing the risk of VTE in this population. Purpose: To determine the absolute rates of VTE with and without different thromboprophylactic agents (ASA, warfarin, low-molecular-weight-heparin [LMWH]) in patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated MM receiving T- or L-based regimens. Data Source: A systematic literature search strategy was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and all EBM Reviews of published studies up to Jan 2010. Results: A total of 66 studies were included in the analyses. Of these, 61 (4264 patients) and 5 (1119 patients) assessed T- and L-based regimens, respectively. Thalidomide-based regimens The rates of VTE (per 100 patient-cycles) in patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with T-based regimens: The rates of VTE (per 100 patient-months) in patients with previously treated MM managed with T-based regimens: Lenalidomide-based regimens The rates of VTE (per 100 patient-cycles) in patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with L-based regimens: The rate VTE (per 100 patient-months) in patients with previously treated MM managed with L-based regimens: None of the studies reported major bleeding events. Limitations: The definition for VTE varied across studies. Most studies did not outline the diagnostic criteria for VTE. Data are not available (NA) for all prophylaxis regimens. Conclusion: Patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated MM receiving T- or L-based regimens are at high risk of VTE. It is uncertain whether thromboprophylaxis provides a clear benefit, especially in those receiving L-based therapy or have previously treated disease. Randomized controlled trials are needed to address this important clinical need. Disclosures: Lee: Eisai: Research Funding; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leo Pharma: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Melphalan and Prednisone (MP) Versus Melphalan, Prednisone and Thalidomide (MPT) as Initial Therapy for Previously Untreated Elderly and/or Transplant Ineligible Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 615-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant Kapoor ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
David Dingli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 615 Background: Trials comparing efficacy of standard melphalan prednisone (MP) therapy with MP plus thalidomide (T) in the transplant ineligible, elderly patients with multiple myeloma have provided conflicting evidence. While there is greater agreement with regard to superior response rates (RR) with the addition of T to MP in elderly patients, the impact on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is less clear with some trials showing an improvement in PFS and/or OS with MPT and others demonstrating no difference in outcomes. We performed a systematic review to integrate the existing outcome data related to the efficacy of MP vs. MPT using a meta-analytic approach. Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic database through July 31st, 2009 was performed for publications, abstracts and presentations to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MP with MPT. A meta-analysis was performed by pooling results on clinical endpoints of RR, PFS and OS reported in all the identified RCTs under a random effects model. We did not have access to individual patient data from these trials. Results: Overall, five prospective RCTs (3 published articles and 2 abstracts) comparing MP with MPT regimen and comprising a total of 1571 patients were identified. For the endpoints of OS and PFS, data were extractable only from 4 RCTs (abstract by Gulbrandsen et al. was excluded). The Bregg and Egger funnel plot for OS demonstrated a symmetric distribution (P = 0.6) indicating no significant publication bias. The test of heterogeneity among all RCTs was statistically significant in the estimate of RR (tau2=0.21; chi2=16.33; p=0.003 (df=4); I2 = 75.5%), but not significant for the estimates of PFS (tau2=0.01; chi2=4.61; p=0.2 (df=3); I2 = 34.9%), and OS (tau2=0.02; chi2=5.53; p=0.14 (df=3); I2 = 45.8%). As expected, the pooled odds ratio of responding to treatment with MP versus MPT was 0.307 (P&lt;0.001) indicating that MP was worse than MPT in achieving at least a partial response. The pooled hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were 1.59 (p&lt;0.001) and 1.34 (p=0.006), respectively (see table for forest plots) in favor of MPT. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis implies that in previously untreated, transplant ineligible elderly patients with multiple myeloma, the addition of thalidomide to melphalan-prednisone demonstrates improved RR, PFS and OS compared with the use of melphalan-prednisone alone. Although the results from a comprehensive individual patient data pooled analysis would give a more precise estimate, our analysis suggests that MPT is superior to MP in terms of response and survival. Disclosures: Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Celgene: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene, genzyme, millennium, novartis, bayer: Research Funding; genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document