scholarly journals Neoadjuvant EGFR-TKI Therapy for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Five Prospective Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Sun ◽  
Yi-Jia Guo ◽  
Jun Song ◽  
Yan-Ru Wang ◽  
Shu-Ling Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Egfr Mutant ◽  
Egfr Tki

PurposeThe role of neoadjuvant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeted therapy for patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been clarified. A pooled analysis of prospective clinical trials was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant EGFR-TKI therapy.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as meeting abstracts were searched for prospective clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant EGFR-TKI for treatment of EGFR-mutant NSCLC. The main outcomes included the objective response rate (ORR), downstaging rate, surgical resection rate (SRR), pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events.ResultsA total of five, phase II, prospective, clinical trials involving 124 patients with resectable or potentially resectable EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with neoadjuvant erlotinib or gefitinib treatment were included in this pooled analysis. The median neoadjuvant medication time was 42 (range, 21–56) days and the median time of response evaluation was 45 (range, 42–56) days. The pooled ORR was 58.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 45.5%–71.8%] and the surgical resection and complete resection (R0) rates were 79.9% (95% CI, 65.3%–94.5%) and 64.3% (95% CI, 43.8%–84.8%), respectively. In the stage IIIA subgroup (n = 68), the pooled ORR, SRR, and R0 rate were 51.4%, 72.9%, and 57.0%, respectively, while the downstaging and pCR rates were 14.0% and 0.0%, respectively. The pooled median PFS and overall survival were 13.2 and 41.9 months, respectively. Of the most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the overall group, the incidences of hepatotoxicity and skin rash were 5.3% and 14.7%, respectively. The most commonly reported postoperative complications were lung infection, arrhythmia, and pneumothorax.ConclusionNeoadjuvant EGFR-TKI therapy provides a feasible treatment modality for patients with resectable or potentially resectable EGFR-mutant NSCLC, with satisfactory surgical outcomes and low toxicity. Although further phase III clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings, it is necessary to explore the feasibility of a more effective EGFR-TKI combination neoadjuvant therapy given the modest downgrade and pCR rates for EGFR-TKI alone.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Phase III Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 582
Author(s):  
Haoyue Cheng ◽  
Zhicheng Peng ◽  
Wenliang Luo ◽  
Shuting Si ◽  
Minjia Mo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Common People ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Nowadays, the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is being promoted worldwide, professionals and common people are very concerned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. No published systematic review and meta-analysis has assessed the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on data from phase III clinical trials. Therefore, this study has estimated the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the differences between vaccine types. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, medRxiv databases and two websites were used to retrieve the studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety with risk ratio (RR). A total of eight studies, seven COVID-19 vaccines and 158,204 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. All the vaccines had a good preventive effect on COVID-19 (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09–0.32), and the mRNA vaccine (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03–0.09) was the most effective against COVID-19, while the inactivated vaccine (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19–0.54) was the least. In terms of safety, the risk of overall adverse events showed an increase in the vaccine group after the first (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03–2.05) or second (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04–2.20) injection. However, compared with the first injection, the risk of local (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.02–6.83 vs. RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.52–9.75) and systemic (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21–1.46 vs. RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.84–3.01) adverse events decreased after the second injection. As for the mRNA vaccine, the risk of overall adverse events increased significantly, compared with the placebo, no matter whether it was the first (RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.80–1.86) or the second (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 2.11–2.20) injection. All the COVID-19 vaccines that have published the data of phase III clinical trials have excellent efficacy, and the risk of adverse events is acceptable. The mRNA vaccines were the most effective against COVID-19, meanwhile the risk and grade of adverse events was minimal, compared to that of severe symptoms induced by COVID-19.

Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy on ALK-positive NSCLC: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingxia Wang ◽  
Guanqi Wang ◽  
Haiyan Ma ◽  
Baoen Shan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Alk Positive

Introduction: Crizotinib was approved to treat anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)- positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011.We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and retrospective studies to compare the efficacy and safety of crizotinib with chemotherapy. </P><P> Methods: We searched electronic databases from inception to Dec. 2016. Clinical trials and retrospective studies regarding crizotinib and crizotinib versus chemotherapy in treatment of NSCLC were eligible. The primary outcomes were the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: Nine studies (five clinical trials and four retrospective studies) including 729 patients met the inclusion criteria. Crizotinib treatment revealed 1-year OS of 77.1% and PFS of 9.17 months. And crizotinib had a better performance than chemotherapy in ORR (OR: 4.97, 95%CI: 3.16 to 7.83, P<0.00001, I2=35%). DCR revealed superiority with crizotinib than chemotherapy (OR: 3.42, 95% CI: 2.33 to 5.01, P<0.00001, I2=0%). PR (partial response) were significant superior to that of chemotherapy through direct systematic review. No statistically significant difference in CR (complete response) was found between crizotinib-treated group and chemotherapy-treated group. Regarding SD (stable disease), chemotherapy-treated group had a better performance than crizotinib-treated group. Common adverse events associated with crizotinib were visual disorder, gastrointestinal side effects, and elevated liver aminotransferase levels, whereas common adverse events with chemotherapy were fatigue, nausea, and hematologic toxicity. This systematic review revealed improved objective response rate and increased disease control rate in crizotinib group comparing with chemotherapy group. Crizotinib treatment would be a favorable treatment option for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. ALK inhibitors may have future potential applications in other cancers driven by ALK or c-MET gene mutations.

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.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab and Evolocumab on Familial Hypercholesterolemia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Xiaoyue Ge ◽  
Tiantian Zhu ◽  
Hao Zeng ◽  
Xin Yu ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Familial Hypercholesterolemia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Apolipoprotein A1 ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Apo B ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. The aim of this study was to provide the first study to systematically analyze the efficacy and safety of PCSK9-mAbs in the treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Methods. A computer was used to search the electronic Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase databases for clinical trials using the following search terms: “AMG 145”, “evolocumab”, “SAR236553/REGN727”, “alirocumab”, “RG7652”, “LY3015014”, “RN316/bococizumab”, “PCSK9”, and “familial hypercholesterolemia” up to November 2020. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, and publication bias was evaluated by a contour-enhanced funnel plot and the Harbord modification of the Egger test. After obtaining the data, a meta-analysis was performed using R software, version 4.0.3. Results. A meta-analysis was performed on 7 clinical trials (926 total patients). The results showed that PCSK9-mAbs reduced the LDL-C level by the greatest margin, WMD −49.14%, 95% CI: −55.81 to −42.47%, on FH versus control groups. PCSK9-mAbs also significantly reduced lipoprotein (a) (Lp (a)), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein-B (Apo-B), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels and increased HDL-C and apolipoprotein-A1 (Apo-A1) levels of beneficial lipoproteins. Moreover, no significant difference was found between PCSK9-mAbs treatment and placebo in common adverse events, serious events, and laboratory adverse events. Conclusion. PCSK9-mAbs significantly decreased LDL-C and other lipid levels with satisfactory safety and tolerability in FH treatment.

Predictive value of skin toxicity severity for response to panitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A pooled analysis of five clinical trials

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4134-4134 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Berlin ◽  
E. Van Cutsem ◽  
M. Peeters ◽  
J. R. Hecht ◽  
R. Ruiz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Human Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Skin Toxicity ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Ii Studies ◽  
Common Skin

4134 Background: Panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFr), is approved for EGFr-expressing mCRC patients (pts) with disease progression (PD) on or following fluoropyrimidine (5FU)-, oxaliplatin (Ox)-, and irinotecan (Ir)-containing chemotherapy. Skin toxicities are common with panitumumab; we examined the association between severity of skin toxicity and panitumumab efficacy. Methods: Data from 5 clinical trials were pooled (4 phase II studies and 1 phase III study). Pts with mCRC had documented PD on or after 5FU, Ox, and/or Ir. Pts received panitumumab 6 mg/kg every two weeks (Q2W) or 2.5 mg/kg weekly (QW) until PD or intolerability. Tumors were assessed using modified WHO or RECIST criteria (blinded central review in 4/5 studies). Endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). PFS and OS were measured from enrollment. Only pts with =2 infusions (exposure over 2 wks for QW dosing or over 4 weeks for Q2W dosing) were analyzed to help correct for lead-time bias. Results: 612 of 640 pts were included in the analysis set (62% were male, 92% were white, and median age [range] was 61 [21, 88] years). The median (95% CI) duration of PFS was 8.4 weeks (8.0 to 11.3), the median (95% CI) survival was 6.9 months (6.2 to 7.9), and the ORR (95% CI) was 9.0% (6.8 to 11.5). The most common skin toxicities (any grade, grade 3/4) were erythema (54%, 4%) pruritus (53%, 2%), dermatitis acneiform (52%, 5%), and rash (39%, 2%). ORR, PFS, and OS appeared to favor pts with grade 2–4 skin toxicity vs pts with grade 0- 1 skin toxicity ( table ). Conclusion: In this large combined analysis, severity of skin rash was correlated with increased efficacy of panitumumab in terms of ORR, PFS, and OS. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract 14248: Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic Acid in Patients Who Cannot Tolerate Statins: Pooled Analysis of 4 Phase 3 Clinical Trials

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Laufs ◽  
Maciej Banach ◽  
Harold E Bays ◽  
Alberico L Catapano ◽  
P Barton Duell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Statin Intolerance ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Additional Information

Introduction: Some patients cannot tolerate statins mainly because of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Bempedoic acid (BA) is a prodrug activated in the liver and not in skeletal muscle. BA has been shown to significantly lower LDL-C by a mean of ~18% in patients receiving background maximally tolerated statins and a mean of ~25% in patients with statin intolerance. Objective: Determine efficacy and safety of BA in statin-intolerant patients receiving no background statin therapy across 4 phase 3 clinical trials. Methods: Data were pooled from 4 randomized (2:1), placebo-controlled studies evaluating oral BA 180 mg once daily vs placebo for 12 to 52 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint was LDL-C % change from baseline to week 12. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), adverse events of special interest (AESI), and laboratory values. For patients who reported SAMs, additional information around etiology and location were collected. Results: Of 3621 patients, 586 (394 BA; 192 placebo) reported intolerance to multiple statins because of SAMS or other AEs and received no statins during the studies. Mean baseline LDL-C was 148.7 mg/dL. After 12 weeks, BA significantly lowered LDL-C vs placebo (placebo-corrected, -26.5%; P < 0.001). Myalgia was the top reason for drug discontinuation, but was less common in the BA arm (17.7%) vs placebo (43.5%). CK > 5 х ULN was uncommon in both groups. Among AESIs (Table) , muscle disorders were reported by 12.7% (BA) vs 14.1% (placebo). Myalgia was less common with BA (4.6%) vs placebo (7.3%). Muscle spasms (4.1% vs 3.6%) and pain in extremity (3.3% vs 2.1%) were comparable between treatment groups. Muscular weakness was rare (0.5% BA, 1% placebo). Conclusion: Among the population of patients unable to use statins, BA significantly lowered LDL-C vs placebo without increasing muscle-related TEAEs. BA may be an appropriate lipid-lowering therapy for patients with hyperlipidemia who are statin intolerant.

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 Efficacy and Toxicity Profile of Elotuzumab for Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5640-5640
Author(s):  
Faiza Jamil ◽  
Madeeha Shafqat ◽  
Sharoon Samuel ◽  
Zunairah Shah ◽  
Ceren Durer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Drug Regimen ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group

Abstract Background: Elotuzumab (elo) is a humanized monoclonal antibody, which has been approved by the FDA for use in combination with lenalidomide (lena) and dexamethasone (dexa) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Elotuzumab is effective as a single agent, as well as in combination for multiple myeloma treatments, supporting the use of elo in pts with RRMM and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) pts. Method: After review of literature using database searches was done on 6/27/18 (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov), 9 prospective and 1 retrospective study with 1128 enrolled pts met the inclusion criteria to date in RRMM and 2 clinical trials including 123 pts in NDMM (Table 1). CMA software v.3 was used for meta-analysis. A random-effect model was applied. Result: Regimens used in RRMM: Based on pooled analysis (95% CI), an overall response rate (ORR) of 66% (54-76.2) was calculated in 685 evaluable pts treated with elo based regimens in RRMM (Figure 1). Most common grade (G) ≥ 3 hematological adverse events (HAE) and non-hematological adverse events (NHAE) based on regimen were calculated using pooled analysis in RRMM pts (Table 2). Anemia was noted in 12.1% ( 7.7-18.6) in 559 pts, while neutropenia in 14.5% (7.5-26.4) out of 591 pts and thrombocytopenia (tcp) in 11.9% (7.9-17.4) in 198 evaluable pts. Diarrhea 5.5% (3.6-8.3), pyrexia 2.4% (1.5-4), peripheral neuropathy (PN) 8.4% (3.8-17.8) were measured in 626, 668 and 143 pts respectively. Elotuzumab as monotherapy: 1 study (n=34) evaluated the efficacy of elo as single agent in RRMM. The median age, time from diagnosis and number of prior therapies were 64.5 years (y) (46-87), 4.4 y (0.9-12.8) and 4.5 y (2-10) respectively. It produced an ORR of 1.4% (0.1-19.1 95% CI) in 34 evaluable pts. Adverse events recorded were pyrexia and fatigue in 17.6% and 8.8% pts respectively. Elotuzumab in two drug regimen: In RRMM, 2 clinical trials (n=49) evaluated the efficacy (95% CI) of elo, ORR of 25% (4.1-72.3) was calculated. The best PFS (progression free survival) produced was in combination of elo 20 mg with bortezumib (bort) 1.3mg/m2 of 9.46 months as compared to 1.8 months when elo10mg/kg + dexamethasone (dexa) 28mg was used. In our analysis for safety, common G≥ 3 HAE calculated were, thrombocytopenia 8.7% (3.3-21.1) n=49, neutropenia 10.7 % (3.5-28.4) n=28 pts and anemia 7.1% (1.8-24.5) n=28 pts. NHAE included diarrhea 1.7% (0.1-22.3), PN 10.7% (3.5-28.4), pyrexia 1.7% (0.1-22.3) in 28 evaluable pts each. Elotuzumab in three drug regimen: In RRMM, 10 clinical trials including 602 pts evaluated the efficacy of elo as a part of triple drug regimen, producing an ORR of 72.2% (54-76.2). The best results were produced with the combination of elo 10-20mg/kg + lenalidomide (lena) 25mg + dexa 40mg producing a PFS of 32.2 mo and 28.62 mo in its phase I and II cohorts respectively. Based on pooled analysis (95% CI) common HAE calculated were neutropenia 17.5% (7.6-35.4) in n=563, thrombocytopenia 12.7% (8.2-19.4) in n=149 and anemia 13% (8-20.5) in n=531 pts. Common G ≥ 3 NHAE estimated were diarrhea 5.7% (3.7-8.6), PN 6.6% (2-19.2), pyrexia 2.5% (1.5-4.1) in 598, 115 and 640 pts respectively. Elotuzumab based regimen in NDMM: A currently ongoing clinical trial NCT02272803 has produced promising results in NDMM pts. As a part of three drug regimen with dose of elo 10mg/kg-20mg/kg, lena 25mg, dexa 20mg in 40 pts produced an ORR of 87.5% (73.2-95.8) versus control group of lena 25mg plus dexa 40mg in 42 pts with an ORR of 73.8% (58-86.1). The PFS rate recorded at 1 year was 93% (79-98%) and 91% (73-97%) respectively. The HAE G ≥ 3 included, neutropenia 18% and leukopenia 15%. In another study with 41 pts, elo was used in combination with lena, bort and dexa producing an ORR of 100% and greater than grade 3 adverse events including Tcp 15%, PN 2%. Conclusion: Results produced in our study suggest that elotuzumab is highly effective when used in pts with RRMM and NDMM. Combination regimens for elo produces an ORR ranging from 79-83% with elo + lena+ dexa, proving that the best results were produced by three drug regimens. Large prospective studies are required to evaluate efficacy and safety of elotuzumab in combination therapies. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document