Safety and efficacy of four drug regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Systematic review.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19537-e19537
Author(s):  
Udhayvir Singh Grewal ◽  
Rajshekhar Chakraborty ◽  
Fazal I Raziq ◽  
Afia Ashraf ◽  
Ammara Majeed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Mechanisms Of Action ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Drug Regimens ◽  
Ongoing Phase

e19537 Background: To improve outcomes, multiple agents with varied mechanisms of action targeting different multiple myeloma (MM) clones are needed. Methods: Systematic review of ongoing phase I-III clinical trials in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) was performed, (PRISMA guidelines) using 5 databases. Results: 8 trials n = 1,990 patients included (Table 1). We evaluated the efficacy of following four drug combinations Isatuximab (Isa), bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R)dexamethasone (d) (Isa-VRd) Daratumumab (Dara) plus V, Melphalan (M) and Prednisone (P) (Dara-VMP) vs VMP Dara-VRd vs VRd Carfilzomib (K), Cyclophosphamide (C), R, Dexamethasone (KCRD) vs an immunomodulatory agent containing triplet (CTD/CRD) Dara with Ixazomib (I), R,d (Dara- IRd) Dara, Cyclophosphamide (Cy), V,d (Dara-CyBord) Elotuzumab (Elo) VRd Dara with K,R,d (Dara- KRd) For transplant-eligible patients, Dara-VRd demonstrated the best treatment response (VGPR = 100%, CR rate = 63% and 15 months PFS = 94%). Dara-VMP (ORR = 90.9%,VGPR+ = 72.9%, mPFS at 27. 8 m = NR) and Isa+VRd (ORR = 93%, VGPR = 71.43%, 7.5 m PFS = 100%) were associated with improvement in OR in transplant ineligible patients. Dara-KRd showed excellent efficacy (ORR = 100%, ≥VGPR = 86%) with 100% 6 m PFS. Conclusions: Four-drug regimens have improved efficacy (higher ORR, deeper response, higher proportion of MRD negativity and higher ≥VGPR responses) compared to three-drug regimens in NDMM, with a comparable incidence of toxicities. Longer follow-up is needed. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Venous Thromboembolism with Contemporary Lenalidomide-Based Regimens and Adequate Thromboprophylaxis in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4835-4835
Author(s):  
Rajshekhar Chakraborty ◽  
Saad Ullah Malik ◽  
Naimisha Marneni ◽  
Alex V. Mejia Garcia ◽  
Faiz Anwer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Combination Regimens

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Len) and low-dose dexamethasone (dex) in combination with proteasome inhibitor (PI) or cytotoxic agent is an integral part of front-line therapy in multiple myeloma (MM). Use of Lenalidomide (Len) in MM had demonstrated an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in initial studies which led to the incorporation of routine thromboprophylaxis with Len-based regimens. Existing estimate of VTE incidence from a prior analysis on Len-based regimens in newly diagnosed MM is 0.8 per 100 patient-cycles [Carrier et al. 2011]. However, there is a gap in literature on the incidence of VTE in patients receiving contemporary Len-based combination regimens along with adequate thromboprophylaxis. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials to assess the incidence of VTE with Len-based regimens in newly diagnosed MM patients. Method: We queried Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Library databases to obtain relevant studies until March 2018. We included all phase I-III clinical trials testing a Len-based combination regimen for induction +/- consolidation therapy along with protocol-mandated thromboprophylaxis. VTE was defined as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (CTCAE Grade 2 or above). Our primary outcome was pooled incidence of VTE events per patient-cycle, which was subsequently converted to VTE events per 100 patient-cycle for ease of comparison with existing literature in MM. We performed meta-analyses with random-effects model using a comprehensive meta-analysis software. Heterogeneity was calculated using I2 statistic and a value <25% was considered negligible, up to 50% moderate, and ≥70% was considered substantial heterogeneity. The protocol for this systematic review is registered with PROSPERO [CRD42018102971]. Results: Initial search generated 1069 citations. After screening, 15 clinical trials with 3381 patients were included. Among 15 trials, 4 were phase I/II, 6 were phase II and 5 were phase III. All but one trial used low-dose dex. The pooled incidence of VTE events was 0.4 per 100 patient-cycles [95% CI. 0.3-0.5; I2: 70%]. Incidence rate of VTE in individual studies are summarized in Table I. The Forest Plot is shown in Figure I. Subsequently, we performed pre-specified subgroup analyses on trials with Len-dex, Len-dex + PI, Len-dex + doxorubicin and Len with Melphalan-Prednisone (MPR). The pooled incidence of VTE per 100-patient cycle with Len-dex was 0.3 [95% CI. 0.1-0.4; I2:92%], Len-dex with PI was 0.9 [95% CI. 0.3-1.6; I2: 69%], Len-dex with doxorubicin was1.5 [95% CI. 0.7-2.2; I2: 0%] and MPR was 0.3 [95% CI. 0.2-0.4; I2: 0%]. Notably, the incidence of VTE was higher with Carfilzomib-Len-dex when compared to Bortezomib-Len-dex regimens. Two trials with Len-dex + Doxorubicin had a higher rate of VTE irrespective of the dex dose. The most common modes of thromboprophylaxis used were ASA (range, 70-325 mg) and low molecular weight heparin. Conclusion: Patients with newly diagnosed MM receiving contemporary Len-based regimens have a significant incidence of VTE despite adequate thromboprophylaxis. However, the incidence rate compares favorably with prior estimate. The rate of VTE was highest with the use of Len-dex + Doxorubicin triplet regimen. In the Len-dex+PI subgroup, the incidence of VTE was higher in trials using Carfilzomib-Len-dex compared to Bortezomib-Len-dex regimen. These findings can be clinically applied at an individual level to choose a Len-based combination regimen based on the risk of thrombosis. New prophylactic agents like direct oral anticoagulants should be tested to further decrease the rate of VTE with Len-based combination regimens. Disclosures Khorana: Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Majhail:Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria; Atara: Honoraria.

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.

Safety and efficacy of lenalidomide (Len), bortezomib (Bz), and dexamethasone (Dex) in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM): A phase I/II study

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8520-8520 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. G. Richardson ◽  
S. Lonial ◽  
A. Jakubowiak ◽  
S. Jagannath ◽  
N. Raje ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors in Multiple Myeloma - a Systematic Review of Early Phase Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5629-5629
Author(s):  
Sharoon Samuel ◽  
Muhammad Junaid Tariq ◽  
Muhammad Usman ◽  
Amna Khalid ◽  
Muhammad Asad Fraz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Hdac Inhibitors ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Early Phase Clinical Trials

Abstract Introduction Recent studies in novel therapies have created opportunities for new treatment regimens to be used in the management of multiple myeloma. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors lead to epigenetic manipulation of multiple myeloma (MM) cells by reducing resistance to pro-apoptotic signals. Panobinostat is an FDA approved HDAC inhibitor for multiple myeloma. The aim of this article is to study the safety, efficacy and dose limiting toxicities of HDAC inhibitors in the early phase clinical trials in multiple myeloma. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search for phase I & I/II trials of HDAC inhibitors during last ten years using following databases: PubMed, Embase, AdisInsight, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Studies involving HDAC inhibitors in multiple myeloma other than panobinostat irrespective of the age, sex or specific eligibility criteria were included. Results Out of 2537 studies, we included 25 trials (23 phase I, 2 phase I/II) of HDAC inhibitors in this systematic review having a total of 518 patients. Of these, 471(90.9%) patients were evaluable for response. Vorinostat (Vor) is the most studied drug used in 13 trials (n=281). Two trials had Vor-only regimen and the remaining 11 had combination regimens mostly with lenalidomide and bortezomib. Vor, in combination with lenalidomide (R), bortezomib (V) and dexamethasone (d) has showed 100% overall response rate (ORR) in 30 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients, (Kaufmann et al., 2016), fifty two percent patients achieved very good partial response (VGPR) and 28% patients showed complete response (CR). Another study using Vor + R regimen after autologous stem cell transplant in 16 NDMM patients showed VGPR in 7, stringent complete response (sCR) in 4, partial response (PR) in 2 and CR in 3 patients (Sborov et al.). Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 1 patient in this study. Richter et al, 2011 showed an ORR of 24% in 29 relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients with Vor only regimen. Another study (Kaufmann et al., 2012) with Vor only regimen used in 10 RRMM patients showed stable disease (SD) in 9 and minimal response (MR) in 1 patient. ORR of 65% was achieved in 31 RRMM patients receiving Vor in combination with doxorubicin & bortezomib (Vorhees et al, 2017). Thrombocytopenia & neutropenia were reported in 94% and 59% patients respectively. Ricolinostat in combination with Rd and Vd achieved an ORR of 55% and 29% respectively in two studies with 38 and 57 evaluable patients (NCT01583283, NCT01323751). Another ricolinostat regimen with pomalidomide & dexamethasone achieved ≥PR in 6/11 RRMM patients (Madan et al., 2016). Table 1 illustrates the efficacy, number of patients and regimens used in all the studies in this systematic review. Quisinostat in a 2017 study by Moreau P et al. (NCT01464112) showed an ORR of 88% in a combination regimen with Vd in RRMM patients (N=18). Drug related adverse events were seen in 13 patients, thrombocytopenia being most common in 11 patients, 2 patients had grade 3 cardiac disorders and 1 patient had a cardiac arrest. Romidepsin in a phase I/II study (Harrison et al., 2011) combined with Vd was used in 25 RRMM patients. ORR was 60% with VGPR n=7, CR n=2, PR n=6, SD n=5 and PD n=1. Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia in 16, neutropenia in 9 and peripheral neuropathy in 2 patients was seen. Popat et al used combination of two HDAC inhibitors CHR 3996 and tosedostat in 20 RRMM patients. ORR was 10% and SD was seen in 30% patients. Grade 3/4 toxicities seen were thrombocytopenia (n=12), leukopenia (n=6) and diarrhea (n=5). A phase I study on AR-42 drug in 17 RRMM patients (Sborov et al., 2017) showed SD in 10, PD in 4, MR in 3 patients with progression free survival (PFS) of 8.2 months. Thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and lymphopenia were seen in 11, 10 and 6 patients respectively. A detail of all grade 3 and higher adverse events along with dose limiting toxicity is given in table 2. Three trials (NCT02576496, NCT01947140, NCT03051841) of Edo-S101, romidepsin and CKD-581 are currently recruiting with 84, 93 and 18 planned number of patients. Conclusion Regimens containing vorinostat have shown an ORR up to 100% in NDMM patients. HDAC inhibitors have also shown promising efficacy up to 88% ORR in RRMM population. Majority of the patients developed cytopenias as hematological adverse events. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Carfilzomib PLUS Melphalan and Prednisone (CMP) Is A Promising Combination Therapy For The Treatment Of Elderly Patients With NEWLY Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Results Of A PHASE I/II Trial In 68 CASES

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1933-1933 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Brigitte Kolb ◽  
Cyrille Hulin ◽  
Denis Caillot ◽  
Lotfi Benboubker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Frontline Treatment ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Melphalan-Prednisone + bortezomib (MPV) is one of the standard of care for the frontline treatment of patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma non eligible for high-dose therapy. In the pivotal VISTA trial for approval of MPV, the main toxicity was grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy (PN) described in 14% of the cases. Carfilzomib (CFZ), the second-in-class proteasome inhibitor has shown promising activity and a favorable toxicity profile with low PN rates. Therefore, the option of combining CFZ with MP (CMP) is an attractive one. Therefore we designed a phase I/II study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CMP and to assess safety and efficacy. In the phase I portion of the trial, CFZ was started at 20mg/m2, then escalated to 27, 36, and 45mg/m2, administered IV over 30 minutes in 42-day cycles on D1/2/8/9/22/23/29/30 for 9 cycles. Melphalan 9mg/m2 and prednisone 60mg/m2 were given PO D1–4 of every 42-day cycle. MTD was based on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in cycle 1 defined as any grade 4 (G4) hematologic adverse event (AE), any hematologic AE preventing aministration of ≥ 2 CFZ doses except G4 thrombocytopenia without bleeding or G4 neutropenia ≤ 7days, ≥ G3 febrile neutropenia, or any ≥G3 nonhematologic AE. As of July 6, 2013, 24 pts have been enrolled in phase I: 6 for each dose level. There were 2 DLTs at 45mg/m2 (fever plus hypotension) resulting in a MTD of 36mg/m2. In Phase II, 44 additional patients received CMP at 36mg/m2 CFZ for N=68 total PhI/II patients (50 patients overall treated at the dose pf 36mg/m2). The median age of the series was 72 years, with 36% of the patients presenting with ISS3. Overall response rate was 89.5% including 56% ≥ very good partial response. With a median follow-up of 12 months, the projected 2y OS was 87%, and the median event-free survival was 22 months. CMP was well tolerated and only 1 patient developed grade 3 PN. These promising results compare favorably to those of MPV, MP+Thalidomide, MP+lenalidomide (R), and R+dex in similar pts. CFZ 36mg/m2 + MP is tolerable and effective in elderly patients with symptomatic newly diagnosed MM. Treatment is ongoing, 20% of the patients are receiving their last cycles of CMP. Final safety and efficacy data will be presented during the meeting. Disclosures: Moreau: CELGENE: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; JANSSEN: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: FRONTLINE TREATMENT WITH CARFIZOMIB. Hulin:CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Leleu:CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Roussel:CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Attal:CELGENE: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; JANSSEN: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Facon:CELGENE: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; JANSSEN: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Carfilzomib Based Regimens for Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5588-5588
Author(s):  
Maimoona Khan ◽  
Asma Waheed ◽  
Rida Ul Jannat ◽  
Arafat Ali Ali Farooqui ◽  
Muhammad Saad Farooqi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effect ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Drug Combination ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Adverse Effect Profile ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Carfilzomib (Car), a second-generation proteasome inhibitor (PI), has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as therapy for relapsed and /or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), either as a single agent or in combination with other agents. It has proven to be superior in many ways compared to the the first generation PI, bortezomib, both in terms of superior efficacy and neuropathy related adverse effect profile. Carfilzomib has lower rate of peripheral neuropathy. In this review, we gathered data from trials which studied Carfilzomib for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). Carfilzomib based two and three drug combination as induction regimens for the management of NDMM is an emerging approach. Through this systematic review, we explore efficacy, adverse effect profile of Car based regimens for NDMM. Methods: Per PRISMA guidelines, a thorough database search was conducted on 06/24/2019 using the following search engines; PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov. We included all published trials that used carfilzomib as an induction agent in NDMM patients and had at least response rates after induction. Results: The total number of articles identified with initial search were 1131, out of which 19 articles met our selection / eligibility criteria (n=2286). The overall response rates (ORR) after induction therapy with carfilzomib based regimens was very impressive (range: 84.3% - 100%). Two drug combination using carfilzomib and dexamethasone (n=72) had an ORR of 90% and a greater than very good partial response rate (>VGPR) of 84%. Three drug combinations used for induction therapy included carfilzomib/dexamethasone with immunomodulators (n=391) and alkylating agents (n=308). The combination of carfilzomib/dexamethasone with lenalidomide (n=189, ORR: 97% - 98%, >VGPR: 69% - 98%) and thalidomide (n=202, ORR: 90% - 94%, >VGPR: 66% - 68%) showed the best response. Alkylating agents used in combination with carfilzomib were melphalan (n=98, ORR: 90% - 93%, >VGPR: 58% - 70%), cyclophosphamide (n=192, ORR: 87% - 95%, >VGPR: 39% - 71%) and bendamustine (n=18, ORR; 100%, >VGPR: 89%). Four drug combinations with carfilzomib used were daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (n=22, ORR: 100%, >VGPR: 90%, 12m PFS: 95%) and cyclophosphamide / thalidomide / dexamethasone (n=64, ORR; 91%, >VGPR: 69%, 24m PFS: 76%). One trial directly compared carfilzomib/melphalan/dexamethasone (n=478, ORR: 84%, >VGPR: 61%, PFS: 22.3m) with bortezomib/melphalan/dexamethasone (n=477, ORR: 79%, >VGPR: 49%, PFS: 22.1m). Another trial compared the combination of carfilzomib / dexamethasone with lenalidomide (n=315) or cyclophosphamide (n=159) that showed similar ORR (97% vs 91%) though >VGPR rate was better with lenalidomide (75% vs 60%). Efficacy data including progression free survival (PFS) for carfilzomib based regimens is reported in table 1. Most common >grade 3 hematological adverse effects reported were anemia (2% - 35%), lymphopenia (5% - 76%), thrombocytopenia (4% - 28%) and neutropenia (1% - 38%). Most Common >grade 3 non-hematological adverse events included cardiac events (5% - 10%), respiratory disorders (8% - 16%), infections (2% - 9%), hypertension (6% - 17%), renal events (9% - 10%) and hyperglycemia (6% - 23%). (Table 1) Conclusion: The overall efficacy and favorable adverse effect profile of Carfilzomib-based induction regimens seem very promising for the treatment of NDMM. Car is now approved for weekly dosing which is convenient. Due to cardiovascular toxicity seen in upto 10% cases, Car should be used very judiciously in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and heart failure. Several ongoing phase 3 clinical trials are studying Carfilzomib in various combinations will help to establish foundation for future standard therapy as well as next phase of drug development through clinical trials. Disclosures Anwer: In-Cyte: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Ixazomib Based Regimens in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 35-35
Author(s):  
Anum Javaid ◽  
Faryal Razzaq ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Muhammad Abu Zar ◽  
Atif Sohail ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Newly Diagnosed

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable malignancy, and clinical trials with newer agents have shown improved patient outcomes. Ixazomib (Ixa) is a proteasome inhibitor and induces apoptosis in cancer cells. It is commonly used with immunomodulators for the treatment of MM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of Ixazomib alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov. We used the following MeSH and Emtree terms; "ixazomib" AND "Multiple Myeloma" from inception till 06/05/2020. We screened 1,558 articles and included 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N=901) and 12 non-randomized clinical trials (NRCT) (N=632). We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical trials, review articles, observational studies, meta-analysis, and ongoing clinical trials that did not report interim efficacy outcomes. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results: In 15 clinical trials (N=1533), Ixa based regimens were used in patients with age range of 39-92 years. (Table 1) In 3 clinical trials (N=170), Ixa with Lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (Dex) yielded a pooled overall response rate (ORR) of 90% (95% CI=0.82-0.94, I2=32%), a pooled complete response (CR) of 23% (95% CI=0.16-0.32, I2=24%) and a pooled ≥very good partial response and better (≥VGPR) of 39% (95% CI=0.24-0.57, I2 =76%) when used as induction therapy for NDMM patients. As consolidation therapy (N=88), pooled ORR was 91% (95% CI=0.79-0.97, I2=0), pooled CR was 36% (95% CI=0.27-0.47, I2=0) and pooled ≥VGPR was 70% (95% CI=0.53-0.84, I2=60%). (Fig 1-3) In 5 clinical trials (N=233), Ixa + cyclophosphamide (Cyc) + Dex yielded a pooled ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 76% (95% CI=0.70-0.81, I2 =0), 12% (95% CI=0.07-0.20, I2=44%), and 25% (95% CI=0.14-0.39, I2=78%), respectively. (Fig 1-3) The lower dose of Cyc 300mg/m2 had similar efficacy as 400mg/m2 with better safety profile in elderly patients. In a RCT (N=175) of Ixa with multiple combinations, Ixa + Dex yielded ORR 55% (95% CI=0.40-0.69), CR 14% (95% CI=0.07-0.28) and ≥VGPR 24% (95% CI=0.13-0.39). Ixa+ thalidomide (Thal) + Dex fostered ORR 82% (95% CI=0.70-0.90), CR 15% (95% CI=0.08-0.26), and VGPR 43% (95% CI=0.31-0.55). Ixa + bendamustine + Dex yielded ORR of 73% (95% CI=0.41-0.91), CR 9% (95% CI=0.01-0.44), and ≥VGPR 27% (95% CI=0.09-0.59). In one clinical trial (N=53), Ixa + melphalan (Mel) + prednisone (Pred) combination yielded pooled ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 66% (95% CI=0.52-0.77), 13% (95% CI=0.06-0.25), and 30% (95% CI=0.19-0.44), respectively. In a phase II trial (N=40), Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Len + Dex yielded an ORR, CR and ≥VGPR of 97% (95% CI=0.84-1), 15% (95% CI=0.07-0.28), and 35% (95% CI=0.22-0.51) respectively. (Fig 1-3) In a phase III RCT by Dimopholous et al. (N=656), Ixa maintenance therapy after stem cell transplant (SCT) yielded an ORR, CR, and ≥VGPR of 76%, 15%, and 54%, respectively. They observed 28% reduction in the risk of progression or death with Ixa vs. placebo, median progression free survival (mPFS) was 26.5 months (95% CI 23·7-33·8) vs 21·3 months [18·0-24·7]; hazard ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·58-0·89; p=0·0023). Second malignancies were 3% in both ixazomib and placebo group. 27% of the patients in ixazomib group and 20% patients in placebo group experienced serious adverse events. In a clinical trial on unfit and frail patients (N=46) treated with Ixa + daratumumab (Dara) + Dex, pooled ORR and ≥VGPR were 83% (95% CI=0.69-0.91, I2=0), and 33% (95% CI=0.21-0.47, I2=0), respectively. (Fig 1-3) In the phase II trial, ORR, CR, and VGPR with ixazomib and lenalidomide were 64%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Conclusion: Ixa in combination with Len, Dex, Cyc, Dara, Mel, Pred is effective in the treatment of NDMM patients. In early phase trials, Ixa with Dara, Len, and Dexa showed the highest overall response as induction therapy. Ixazomib maintainance therapy prolongs PFS after SCT as compared to placebo and represents an additional option for post SCT maintainace therapy in NDMM patiens. The safety profile of Ixa was acceptable with most commonly encountered adverse events were hematological including neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document