-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells accounting for approximately 1% of cancers and 12% of haematological malignancies. The first-in-class proteasome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells accounting for approximately 1% of cancers and 12% of haematological malignancies. The first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, is commonly used to treat newly diagnosed as well as relapsed/refractory myeloma, either as single agent or combined with other therapies.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of bortezomib on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related death (TRD).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE (till 27 January 2016) as well as conference proceedings and clinical trial registries for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared i) bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy in each arm; ii) bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s) and iii) bortezomib dose comparisons and comparisons of different treatment administrations and schedules.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted outcomes data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted hazard ratios (HR) and their confidence intervals for OS and PFS and odds ratios (OR) for response rates, AEs and TRD. We contacted trial authors to provide summary statistics if missing. We estimated Logrank statistics which were not available. We extracted HRQoL data, where available.
MAIN RESULTS
We screened a total of 3667 records, identifying 16 relevant RCTs involving 5626 patients and included 12 trials in the meta-analyses. All trials were randomised and open-label studies. Two trials were published in abstract form and therefore we were unable to assess potential risk of bias in full.There is moderate-quality evidence that bortezomib prolongs OS (four studies, 1586 patients; Peto OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92) and PFS (five studies, 1855 patients; Peto OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.74) from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy in each arm.There is high-quality evidence that bortezomib prolongs OS (five studies, 2532 patients; Peto OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88) but low-quality evidence for PFS (four studies, 2489 patients; Peto OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s).Four trials (N = 716) examined different doses, methods of administrations and treatment schedules and were reviewed qualitatively only.We identified four trials in the meta-analysis that measured time to progression (TTP) and were able to extract and analyse PFS data for three of the studies, while in the case of one study, we included TTP data as PFS data were not available. We therefore did not analyse TTP separately in this review.Patients treated with bortezomib have increased risk of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastro-intestinal toxicities, peripheral neuropathy, infection and fatigue with the quality of evidence highly variable. There is high-quality evidence for increased risk of cardiac disorders from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or versus other agents. The risk of TRD in either comparison group analysed is uncertain due to the low quality of the evidence.Only four trials analysed HRQoL and the data could not be meta-analysed.Subgroup analyses by disease setting revealed improvements in all outcomes, whereas for therapy setting, an improved benefit for bortezomib was observed in all outcomes and subgroups except for OS following consolidation therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis found that myeloma patients receiving bortezomib benefited in terms of OS, PFS and response rate compared to those who did not receive bortezomib. This benefit was observed in trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy and in trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s). Further evaluation of newer proteasome inhibitors is required to ascertain whether these agents offer an improved risk-benefit profile, while more studies of HRQoL are also required.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bortezomib; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27096326
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010816.pub2 -
Advances in Therapy May 2022Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of relevant therapies for the treatment of TIE patients with NDMM.
METHODS
Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different treatment options for TIE patients with NDMM were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA includes recent primary and long-term OS readouts from SWOG S0777, ENDURANCE, MAIA, and ALCYONE. Relevant trials were identified through a systematic literature review. Relative efficacy measures (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs] for PFS and OS) were extracted and synthesised in random-effects NMAs.
RESULTS
A total of 122 publications describing 45 unique RCTs was identified. Continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) was selected as the referent comparator. Daratumumab-containing treatments (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd], daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) had the highest probabilities of being more effective than Rd continuous for PFS (HR: D-Rd, 0.53; D-VMP, 0.57, VRd, 0.77) and OS (HR: D-Rd, 0.68; VRd, 0.77, D-VMP, 0.78). D-Rd had the highest chance of being ranked as the most effective treatment with respect to PFS and OS. Results using a smaller network focusing on only those regimens that are relevant in Europe were consistent with the primary analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
These comparative effectiveness data may help inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bortezomib; Dexamethasone; Humans; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35246820
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02083-8 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Aug 2014We conducted a systematic review to determine the appropriate use of bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents in patients with multiple myeloma (mm). We... (Review)
Review
We conducted a systematic review to determine the appropriate use of bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents in patients with multiple myeloma (mm). We searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of included studies. We analyzed randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews if they involved adult mm patients treated with bortezomib and if they reported on survival, disease control, response, quality of life, or adverse effects. Twenty-six unique studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients with previously untreated mm and for candidates for transplantation, we found a statistically significant benefit in time to progression [hazard ratio (hr): 0.48, p < 0.001; and hr: 0.63, p = 0.006, respectively] and a better response with a bortezomib than with a non-bortezomib regimen (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer with bortezomib and thalidomide than with thalidomide alone (p = 0.01). In non-candidates for transplantation, a significant benefit in overall survival was observed with a bortezomib regimen (hr compared with a non-bortezomib regimen: 0.61; p = 0.008), and in transplantation candidates receiving bortezomib, the response rate was improved after induction (p = 0.004) and after a first transplant (p = 0.016). In relapsed or refractory mm, overall survival (p = 0.03), time to progression (hr: 1.82; p = 0.000004), and progression-free survival (hr: 1.69; p = 0.000026) were significantly improved with bortezomib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (compared with bortezomib alone), and bortezomib monotherapy was better than dexamethasone alone (hr: 0.77; p = 0.027). Bortezomib combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone was better than either bortezomib monotherapy or thalidomide with dexamethasone (p < 0.001). In previously untreated or in relapsed or refractory mm patients, bortezomib-based therapy has improved disease control and, in some patients, overall survival.
PubMed: 25089109
DOI: 10.3747/co.21.1798 -
Journal of Hematology Aug 2022Light chain deposition disease (LCDD) is a rare hematologic disorder that can affect any organ but predominantly involves the kidneys. Existing literature is limited to... (Review)
Review
Light chain deposition disease (LCDD) is a rare hematologic disorder that can affect any organ but predominantly involves the kidneys. Existing literature is limited to case reports and small single-center retrospective series, explaining the lack of any treatment algorithms and management guidelines for patients with this disorder. In this systematic review of literature, we explored the role of standard and high-dose chemotherapy-autologous stem cell transplant for LCDD. A total of 11 studies were identified to evaluate the hematologic and renal responses to various treatment regimens. Autologous stem cell transplant and bortezomib-based regimens appear to have reasonable safety and efficacy for this rare hematologic disorder, albeit some statistical and analytical limitations. Large multicenter retrospective and prospective studies are needed to better elucidate the role of various chemotherapy regimens as well as autologous stem cell transplant for patients with LCDD.
PubMed: 36118549
DOI: 10.14740/jh1038 -
Blood Cancer Journal Sep 2023Rituximab-based chemo-immunotherapy is currently the standard first-line treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), while ibrutinib has emerged as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Rituximab-based chemo-immunotherapy is currently the standard first-line treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), while ibrutinib has emerged as an alternative. In the absence of randomised trials (RCTs) comparing these regimens, the optimal first-line treatment for WM remains uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line treatment regimens for WM. We searched key databases from January 2007 to March 2023, including phase II and III trials, including treatment-naïve WM patients treated with rituximab-based regimens or ibrutinib. Response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were evaluated. Four phase III and seven phase II trials were included among 736 unique records. Pooled response rates from all comparative and non-comparative trials were 46%, 33% and 26% for bendamustine rituximab (BR), bortezomib-dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (BDRC) and ibrutinib rituximab (IR), respectively. Two-year pooled PFS was 89%, 81% and 82% with BR, BDRC and IR, respectively. Neuropathy was more frequent with bortezomib, while haematologic and cardiac toxicities were more common with chemo-immunotherapy and ibrutinib-based regimens respectively. Our findings suggest that BR yields higher response rates than bortezomib or ibrutinib-based combinations. RCTs comparing BR against emerging therapies, including novel Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia; Rituximab; Bortezomib; Clinical Protocols; Cyclophosphamide
PubMed: 37679351
DOI: 10.1038/s41408-023-00916-5 -
Synergistically Anti-Multiple Myeloma Effects: Flavonoid, Non-Flavonoid Polyphenols, and Bortezomib.Biomolecules Nov 2022Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell tumor originating from a post-mitotic lymphoid B-cell lineage. Bortezomib(BTZ), a first-generation protease inhibitor, has... (Review)
Review
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell tumor originating from a post-mitotic lymphoid B-cell lineage. Bortezomib(BTZ), a first-generation protease inhibitor, has increased overall survival, progression-free survival, and remission rates in patients with MM since its clinical approval in 2003. However, the use of BTZ is challenged by the malignant features of MM and drug resistance. Polyphenols, classified into flavonoid and non-flavonoid polyphenols, have potential health-promoting activities, including anti-cancer. Previous preclinical studies have demonstrated the anti-MM potential of some dietary polyphenols. Therefore, these dietary polyphenols have the potential to be alternative therapies in anti-MM treatment regimens. This systematic review examines the synergistic effects of flavonoids and non-flavonoid polyphenols on the anti-MM impacts of BTZ. Preclinical studies on flavonoids and non-flavonoid polyphenols-BTZ synergism in MM were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase published between 2008 and 2020. 19 valid preclinical studies (Published from 2008 to 2020) were included in this systematic review. These studies demonstrated that eight flavonoids (icariin, icariside II, (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate, scutellarein, wogonin, morin, formononetin, daidzin), one plant extract rich in flavonoids (Punica granatum juice) and four non-flavonoid polyphenols (silibinin, resveratrol, curcumin, caffeic acid) synergistically enhanced the anti-MM effect of BTZ. These synergistic effects are mediated through the regulation of cellular signaling pathways associated with proliferation, apoptosis, and drug resistance. Given the above, flavonoids and non-flavonoid polyphenols can benefit MM patients by overcoming the challenges faced in BTZ treatment. Despite the positive nature of this preclinical evidence, some additional investigations are still needed before proceeding with clinical studies. For this purpose, we conclude by providing some suggestions for future research directions.
Topics: Humans; Bortezomib; Multiple Myeloma; Polyphenols; Apoptosis; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Cell Line, Tumor; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm
PubMed: 36358997
DOI: 10.3390/biom12111647 -
Experimental and Clinical... Aug 2016Kidney transplant remains the best type of renal replacement therapy in most patients with end-stage kidney disease, even in those with high immunologic risk.... (Review)
Review
Kidney transplant remains the best type of renal replacement therapy in most patients with end-stage kidney disease, even in those with high immunologic risk. Immunosuppression in these patients is regarded as more complex, owing to the higher risk of both acute and chronic rejection. The advent of induction immunosuppression has resulted in a lower incidence of acute rejection and consequently improved short-term patient and allograft outcomes. Indeed, the use of these agents, especially in high-risk recipients, has become standard of care at most transplant centers. Transplant physicians are constantly faced with the challenge of estimating the recipients' immunologic risk and tailoring their immunosuppression accordingly. This review article aims to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the various studies available, which investigated the use of induction agents in kidney transplant, specifically in high-risk recipients. It evaluates the use of the most frequently used polyclonal antibody (rabbit antithymocyte globulin) versus the less commonly used monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab, superseded agents such as muromonab-CD3, and potentially emerging agents such as rituximab, bortezomib, and eculizumab. With this systematic review, we hope to inform the scientific community and facilitate this controversial decision through the implementation of robust scientific evidence.
Topics: Drug Therapy, Combination; Evidence-Based Medicine; Graft Rejection; Graft Survival; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Transplantation; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27041548
DOI: 10.6002/ect.2015.0328 -
European Review For Medical and... Nov 2022Triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone have been applied to treat relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but the safety and efficacy are not yet very... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone have been applied to treat relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but the safety and efficacy are not yet very clear. This meta-analysis aimed at comparing the safety and efficacy of different triplet therapies and analyzing the best therapy regimen.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive literature search identified a total of 615 studies, and 22 studies assessing 1,889 subjects met the inclusion criteria of this meta: phase II/III trial, over 2 median lines of prior therapy, and detailed efficacy outcomes like overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and progression-free survival (PFS). All statistical analyses were performed by Revman version 5.3, and the heterogeneity was tested by I2 (25% indicating low heterogeneity, 50% moderate, and 75% high). For those with less heterogeneity, fixed-effect model was used. With a significant high heterogeneity, a random-effect model was used.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis showed ORR 66.2% across all triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Among all triplet regimens, therapy containing bortezomib showed the highest ORR (90.3%), and the one containing elotuzumab showed the lowest ORR (41.2%). The pooled ORRs for the remaining treatment regimens are as follows: cyclophosphamide (70.1%), isatuximab (66.3%), daratumumab (61.2%), clarithromycin (60.0%), pembrolizumab (47.3%). A total of 21 adverse events appeared in the included studies, with neutropenia being the highest incidence of hematologic adverse events (32.1%) and cough being the highest incidence of non-hematologic adverse events (43.3.%).
CONCLUSIONS
Three-drug regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone could yield excellent overall response rate to relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are still various adverse events; therefore, consequent studies should address these adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Thalidomide
PubMed: 36394758
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202211_30162 -
Future Oncology (London, England) 2015Novel drugs such as immunomodulators and proteasome inhibitors have improved the survival of patients with multiple myeloma. Like all therapeutic agents, appropriate... (Review)
Review
Novel drugs such as immunomodulators and proteasome inhibitors have improved the survival of patients with multiple myeloma. Like all therapeutic agents, appropriate dosing based on metabolism and clearance is important to maintain efficacy while avoiding toxicity. Hepatic impairment (HI) in multiple myeloma patients is rare but well described either due to disease or therapy-related factors. However, limited data are available on the appropriate use and dosing of the novel agent therapeutics in myeloma patients with HI. Furthermore, data on HI secondary to the novel agent toxicity are also sparse. This systematic review highlights the evidence on the use of novel agents like thalidomide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, bortezomib and carfilzomib in patients with HI as well as their associated hepatic toxicities.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Liver Diseases; Multiple Myeloma; Proteasome Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25675129
DOI: 10.2217/fon.14.270 -
JAMA Oncology Oct 2018Several trials demonstrated the impact of novel agent-based maintenance in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but there is no current evidence demonstrating the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Several trials demonstrated the impact of novel agent-based maintenance in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), but there is no current evidence demonstrating the superiority of one regimen over the other, owing to the lack of direct/indirect comparisons.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze and compare the effectiveness of different maintenance regimens in NDMM via a network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
We performed 2 independent searches in PubMed and Cochrane databases, and then we identified all the records registered after 1999 and on or before November 20, 2017.
STUDY SELECTION
By blinded review, we identified prospective phase 3 randomized trials evaluating novel agent-based maintenance in patients with NDMM; the included studies compared at least 2 maintenance approaches; comparators included placebo and no maintenance. From 364 screened records, 11 studies were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We followed (independent extraction) the guidelines provided by the PRISMA Report and the EQUATOR Network. The evidence was synthesized using a network meta-analysis (NMA). To allow comparison of all treatments, no maintenance was selected as common comparator and the effect of placebo was assumed to be the same as no treatment. The best option was identified by a Bayesian consistency model based on hazard ratio (HR), 95% credible interval (CrI), probability of being the best treatment (PbBT), and median ranking distribution (MedR).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Eleven trials and 8 treatments including a total of 5073 participants were included. By PFS analysis, lenalidomide-based regimens (lenalidomide-prednisone, lenalidomide alone) were identified as the most effective options (HR, 0.39 [95% CrI, 0.28-0.53] and 0.47 [95% CrI, 0.39-0.55], respectively; MedR, 1 and 2; overall PbBT, 74%). Four treatments (thalidomide-interferon, thalidomide-bortezomib, bortezomib-prednisone, thalidomide alone) showed an HR in favor of maintenance. By OS analysis, lenalidomide alone was identified as the best option (HR, 0.76; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.16; MedR, 2; PbBT, 38%), followed by bortezomib-thalidomide and bortezomib-prednisone. Similar features were noticed in the restricted network including transplant trials, in the sensitivity analysis, and in most of the prognostic subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Based on PFS and OS results of this NMA, lenalidomide maintenance appears to be the best treatment option, by synthesizing the available evidence of novel agent-based maintenance in the past 20 years.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Disease-Free Survival; Lenalidomide; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Multiple Myeloma; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30098165
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2961