Comparative efficacy of multiple myeloma therapies for treatment of first relapse: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8042-8042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M Maiese ◽  
Jean-Gabriel Le Moine ◽  
Claire Ainsworth ◽  
Outi Ahdesmäki ◽  
Emma Howe

8042 Background: Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) in the US has undergone significant advances, with several new therapies recently FDA approved for relapse/refractory MM (RRMM), including carfilzomib+lenalidomide+dex (KRd), carfilzomib+dex (Kd), daratumumab+lenalidomide+dex (DRd), daratumumab+bortezomib+dex (DVd), ixaxomib+lenalidomide+dex (IRd), and elotuzumab+lenalidomide+dex (ERd). These new therapies have shown improvements in clinical outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, with few head-to-head RCTs, there is little comparative evidence to determine the most effective treatment for specific patients. A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to determine the comparative efficacy (progression free survival (PFS)) of MM therapies for treating first relapse. Methods: The SLR searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs investigating the efficacy of treatments for RRMM (to August 2016). NMA was conducted on the PFS hazard ratios (HR), where available in RCTs for patients with one prior line of treatment, using Bayesian fixed effects mixed treatment comparisons. Results: Data formed two evidence networks. Network 1: RCTs with Rd; Network 2: RCTs with Vd. Analyses found DRd and DVd had the highest probability of being the best treatment (0.96 and 0.89, respectively). Compared to other MM therapies, DRd and DVd had the lowest risk of progression or death (PFS HR <1.0) (Table 1). For example, compared to KRd, DRd had a 41% (PFS HR 0.59) reduced risk of progression or death. Conclusions: This analysis provides comparative evidence among treatments where head-to-head RCTs have not been conducted. For treating first relapse, compared to other MM treatments, this analysis found that DRd and DVd had the highest probability of providing the longest progression free survival. [Table: see text]

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 5099-5099
Author(s):  
Annete Njue ◽  
Peter C Trask ◽  
Ann Colosia ◽  
Robert Olivares ◽  
Shahnaz Khan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background MCL accounts for approximately 3%-10% of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) cases. The aggressive course of MCL includes rapid disease progression, with temporary responses to chemotherapy, and a high recurrence rate. However, the clinical course is variable with overall survival ranging from 6 months to more than 10 years. Although the median survival with MCL is 3-4 years, for those with relapsed or refractory disease, survival is much shorter. This systematic literature review (SLR) was designed to exhaustively collect and review information on the clinical efficacy and safety of the different interventions used in the treatment of refractory/relapsed MCL, and if possible to perform a meta-analysis. Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase) were systematically searched for studies assessing the efficacy of safety of treatments for relapsed or refractory MCL published from 1997 to August 2, 2012. In addition, conference abstracts, bibliographic reference lists of included articles and recent reviews, and the Clinicaltrials.gov database were searched for phase 2, 3, or 4 studies displaying results, potentially unpublished in peer-reviewed journals. Main efficacy outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), complete response, partial response, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Safety endpoints focused on grade 3/4 toxicities and treatment withdrawals due to toxicity. Studies had to report on relapsed or refractory MCL after at least one standard treatment and patients who were not eligible to receive high-dose chemotherapy or stem cell transplant (autologous or allogeneic). Mixed type NHL studies were required to report MCL outcomes separately for inclusion. Results A total of 3,308 publications were identified in the first pass of a broad SLR on NHL; of these, 67 provided relevant data for MCL representing 59 unique studies. Of the 59 studies, 6 were comparative (including 5 RCTs) and 53 were noncomparative single-arm studies; 35 evaluated single-agent regimens, and 24 evaluated combination therapies. A total of 40 different treatments were evaluated in the identified studies. Overall survival and PFS were infrequently reported. Criteria for relapsed or refractory were often not defined, with only 7 studies providing varied definitions. The ORR of active treatments in the few comparative studies ranged from 6%-83%, with most estimates between 45% and 60%. Progression-free survival was approximately 5-7 months with the exception of bortezomib + CHOP in which a 16-month PFS was noted; median OS for these studies ranged from 11-16 months, with 36 months for the aforementioned exception. In the single-arm studies, ORR ranged from 12%-100%, with most estimates from 30%-60%. Progression-free survival was approximately 5-12 months, except for bendamustine alone or in combination (∼21 months) and bortezomib in combination (∼18 months, but with large variability). Overall survival ranged from 12-24 months, with two notable exceptions: bortezomib combination (∼38 months) and temsirolimus in combination with rituximab (∼30 months). Some increase in PFS and OS was observed over the study period. The main safety concerns were related to thrombocytopenia (11-66%), neutropenia (15-100%), anemia (4-34%), and neuropathy (9-13%). Although patients’ MIPI category was collected, outcomes were not reported by this variable. Conclusions The results of this SLR confirm that survival is still low among treatments for relapsed or refractory MCL making this a continued area of unmet need. The small number of randomized trials makes it difficult to identify a standard of care. The lack of common treatments among the randomized controlled trials for MCL and the variability in the populations studied did not allow for a valid meta-analysis. Small sample size, infrequent reporting of OS/PFS, limited information on prior treatments/responses, and patient characteristics also make comparison of results difficult. Comparative studies demonstrating relative survival advantages of various therapies in relapsed or refractory MCL are needed, as is more information on the relation between MIPI scores and outcomes. In the absence of such evidence, management of relapsed or refractory disease should be based on individual patient characteristics and concerns regarding tolerability. Disclosures: Njue: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Trask:Sanofi: Employment. Colosia:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Olivares:Sanofi: Employment. Khan:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Abbe:Sanofi: Employment. Police: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Wang:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Sherrill:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Kaye:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Awan:Lymphoma Research Foundation (Career Development Award): Research Funding.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 480-494.e23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M. Maiese ◽  
Claire Ainsworth ◽  
Jean-Gabriel Le Moine ◽  
Outi Ahdesmäki ◽  
Judith Bell ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 2144-2144
Author(s):  
Chrissy H. Y. Van Beurden-Tan ◽  
Margreet Franken ◽  
Hedwig Blommestein ◽  
Carin A. Uyl-De Groot ◽  
Pieter Sonneveld

Abstract INTRODUCTION Since the year 2000 fifteen new treatment options came to market for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after a long period in which dexamethasone has been the only treatment option. Direct comparisons are, however, lacking which makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the relative added value of each drug. Our aim was to synthesize all efficacy evidence enabling a comparison of all treatments. METHODS We performed a systematic literature review to identify all publically available phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using EMBASE®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® in-process, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials and the website www.clinical-trials.gov. Additionally, two abstracts from international hematology congresses (ASCO and EHA 2016) were added to our search to present the most up-to-date overview. A conventional network meta-analysis (NMA) based on progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes allowed a comparison of all available treatment options using a Bayesian fixed effect NMA programmed in WinBUGS. The oldest treatment, dexamethasone, was used as reference treatment. Additionally, results regarding bortezomib-dexamethasone versus lenalidomide-dexamethasone are presented because these were the two most commonly used comparators. RESULTS Seventeen RCTs were identified including sixteen treatment options: dexamethasone (Dex), oblimersen-dexamethasone (OblDex), thalidomide/thalidomide-dexamethasone (Thal/ThalDex), bortezomib/bortezomib-dexamethasone (Bor/BorDex), lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LenDex), pegylated doxorubicin-bortezomib (PeglDoxBor), bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (BorThalDex), vorinostat-bortezomib (VorinoBor), panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone (PanoBorDex), carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (CarLenDex), pomalidomide-dexamethasone (PomDex), elotuzumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (EloLenDex), carfilzomib-dexamethasone (CarDex), ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IxaLenDex), daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (DaraLenDex) and daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (DaraBorDex). To include all trials within one framework, we assumed: i) the relative efficacy of Bor versus Dex and BorDex versus Dex is the same, ii) the relative efficacy of Thal versus Dex and ThalDex versus Dex is the same, iii) time to progression (TTP) can be used as proxy for PFS in case of missing hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals of PFS, and iv) no difference in efficacy due to dosage scheme (100 versus 200 versus 400 mg Thal) and administration method (intravenous versus subcutaneous Bor). Figure 1 presents the NMA results. The treatments are sorted according to their rank. The figure also presents the probability of being the best treatment, HRs and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) versus Dex. Fourteen out of sixteen treatments were significantly better than Dex (HRs ranged from 0.13 to 0.76). Only OblDex ranked lower; the HR was, however, not significantly different (HR: 1.08; 95% CrI: 0.79 - 1.45). Eleven treatments reduced the risk of progression or death with more than 50%. DaraLenDex was identified as the best treatment because it was the most favorable in terms of i) HR (0.13; 95% CrI: 0.09 - 0.19), and ii) probability of being best (99% of the simulations). DaraLenDex reduced the risk of progression or death with 87% versus Dex, 80% versus Bor/BorDex and 63% versus LenDex. LenDex performed better than Bor/BorDex in ranking (7th versus 13th) as well as in HR (0.53, 95% CrI: 0.39 - 0.71). CONCLUSIONS Our NMA included all available RRMM treatments and identified DaraLenDex as being most effective. NMAs become increasingly important because they provide a complete overview of each treatment's relative efficacy in case of missing head-to-head comparisons. Figure 1. Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treatments' network meta-analysis results of progression-free survival outcomes Figure 1. Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treatments' network meta-analysis results of progression-free survival outcomes Disclosures Blommestein: BMS: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document