-
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Jun 2023This systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to better understand the impact of disease progression, line of therapy, and clinical response on health-related... (Review)
Review
This systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to better understand the impact of disease progression, line of therapy, and clinical response on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Multiple databases were searched to identify records relating to HRQoL in adult patients with MM. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers for inclusion based on pre-defined criteria. Records flagged for inclusion had full texts subsequently screened using the same method. A third round of screening was then conducted to identify studies that assessed the relationship of HRQoL to disease progression, line of therapy, or clinical response. Quality assessment was conducted on utility studies using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Quality Assessment Checklist for Health State Utility Values. After all rounds of screening were complete, 44 records (representing 41 studies) were included in the SLR. Thirty records reported data relating HRQoL to disease progression, 5 reported data relating HRQoL to line of therapy, and 19 reported data relating HRQoL to response. Despite a lack of homogeneity and small number of studies, the data show overall that progressive disease and increasing lines of therapy were associated with worsened patient HRQoL and increasing depth of response was associated with improved patient HRQoL. The findings from this SLR support that desirable treatment outcomes such as delayed progression, fewer lines of therapy, and achieving the deepest possible clinical response result in improved HRQoL in patients with MM.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Disease Progression
PubMed: 37061416
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2023.03.005 -
International Archives of Allergy and... 2023Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), which is used to treat multiple neurological conditions, may be associated with serious adverse reactions. The individual neurological... (Review)
Review
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), which is used to treat multiple neurological conditions, may be associated with serious adverse reactions. The individual neurological disease characteristics associated with adverse reactions, along with strategies to prevent and treat adverse reactions, are uncertain. A systematic review was conducted of the databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to summarise studies that report adverse reactions of IVIg therapy in patients with neurological disease. There were 65 studies included in the review. The reported rates of adverse reactions vary widely, but the best evidence suggests rates between 25 and 34% per patient. Common adverse reactions include headache and laboratory abnormalities. Less common but serious adverse reactions included thromboembolic complications and anaphylaxis. Overall, there is a lack of high-quality comparative data to definitively determine if any specific neurological indications are associated with a higher risk of adverse reactions. However, individual neurological disease characteristics possibly associated with an increased likelihood of adverse reactions include limited mobility (as in certain neuromuscular conditions), paraproteinaemia (as in certain peripheral neuropathies), and cardiomyopathy (as in certain myopathies). There is limited evidence to support the effectiveness of prevention and treatment strategies, which may include modification to dose, reduced infusion rate, and premedication. Further studies regarding methods to prevent and treat IVIg-ARs in neurology patients are required.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Anaphylaxis
PubMed: 37015212
DOI: 10.1159/000529110 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jan 2023Decision-aids (DAs) may facilitate shared decision-making for patients and caregivers, by providing evidence-based information to assist healthcare professionals,...
OBJECTIVES
Decision-aids (DAs) may facilitate shared decision-making for patients and caregivers, by providing evidence-based information to assist healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers in making choices about aspects of care, and/or highlighting decision factors to discuss with the potential of altering the treatment decision. These decision factors may not be well integrated in DAs.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted in the field of multiple myeloma (MM) on peer-reviewed publications, extended with a gray literature search. Data on whether and how patient and caregiver experience elements, other than survival and physical quality of life, were mentioned as decision factors in the identified MM DAs were extracted and analyzed qualitatively.
RESULTS
Seventy MM DAs were found and analyzed; 51% of DAs mentioned any patient non-routinely assessed experience decision factors and only 17% mentioned any caregiver-related information. One hundred and forty potential decision factors were extracted, deduplicated and categorized into the following categories: 1) financial, 2) mode of administration / transportation issues, 3) personal beliefs and values, 4) emotional and social quality of life, 5) other medical information, 6) availability of social support, 7) caregiver burden. None of the DAs presented a comprehensive framework on all seven categories of decision factors being consider when mapping patient and caregiver experience value elements in MM.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on available DAs, we recommend a set of patient and caregiver experience decision factors that have the potential to affect treatment choices of patients with MM, which should be included in DAs, including MM clinical guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Decision Support Techniques; Caregivers; Quality of Life; Multiple Myeloma; Decision Making, Shared; Decision Making; Patient Participation
PubMed: 35613958
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.04.003 -
BMJ Open Jun 2018To quantify the duration of each step of the diagnostic pathway for patients with multiple myeloma from symptom onset to confirmation of diagnosis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the duration of each step of the diagnostic pathway for patients with multiple myeloma from symptom onset to confirmation of diagnosis.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched up until January 2018 to identify articles that reported time intervals from onset of symptoms to diagnosis. Articles focusing on children or adolescents and on the asymptomatic form of the disease (monoclonal gammopathies and smouldering myeloma) were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS
Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Weighted estimates of the median and IQR were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Aarhus checklist.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine studies were included. The patient interval (first symptom to first presentation) had a median of 26.3 days (IQR: 1-98, n=465, two studies). Subsequently, the primary care interval (first presentation to first referral) was 21.6 days (IQR: 4.6-55.8, n=326, two studies), the diagnostic interval (first presentation to diagnosis) was 108.6 days (IQR: 33.3-241.7, n=5395, seven studies) and the time to diagnosis (first symptom to diagnosis) interval was 163 days (IQR: 84-306, n=341, one study). No studies reported data for the referral to diagnosis interval.
CONCLUSION
The review demonstrates that there is scope for significant reductions in the time to myeloma diagnosis. At present, many patients experience a diagnostic interval longer than 3 months until diagnosis is confirmed.
REVIEW REGISTRATION
Not available. Protocol available in the appendix.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Primary Health Care; Referral and Consultation; Time Factors
PubMed: 29934381
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019758 -
JAMA Oncology Nov 2020The addition of daratumumab to backbone multiple myeloma (MM) regimens is associated with improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). Whether improved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The addition of daratumumab to backbone multiple myeloma (MM) regimens is associated with improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). Whether improved outcomes are also associated with this regimen among patients with cytogenetically defined high-risk MM (HRMM) remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To measure PFS associated with adding daratumumab to backbone MM regimens among patients with HRMM.
DATA SOURCES
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, clinical trials registries, and meeting libraries were searched from inception to January 2, 2020, using terms reflecting multiple myeloma and daratumumab.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were phase 3 randomized clinical trials that compared backbone MM regimens with the same regimen plus daratumumab in newly diagnosed or relapsed or refractory MM, such that the only difference between the intervention and control groups was use of daratumumab and reported outcomes by cytogenetic risk. High-risk MM was defined as the presence of t(4;14), t(14;16), or del(17p).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, 2 investigators independently extracted study data, with disagreements resolved by a third investigator. Quality was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias method.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Data on effectiveness were extracted using hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS. Relative log-HRs were pooled using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q and the I2 statistic.
RESULTS
Of 5194 studies screened, 6 phase 3 trials were eligible, including 3 trials for newly diagnosed MM (2528 patients; 358 with HRMM) and 3 trials for relapsed or refractory MM (1533 patients; 222 with HRMM). Among patients with newly diagnosed HRMM, the addition of daratumumab to backbone regimens was associated with improved PFS (pooled HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.95; P = .02), with little evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran Q, P = .77; I2 = 0%). Similar results were seen among patients with relapsed or refractory HRMM (pooled HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30-0.67; P < .001), again with little evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran Q, P = .63; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study suggests that incorporating daratumumab to backbone regimens may be associated with improved PFS among patients with newly diagnosed HRMM or relapsed or refractory HRMM.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Cytogenetic Analysis; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Progression-Free Survival
PubMed: 32970151
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4338 -
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Mar 2018Previous network meta-analyses combined studies of immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)-containing and IMiD-free regimens, despite a lack of head-to-head randomized controlled...
BACKGROUND
Previous network meta-analyses combined studies of immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)-containing and IMiD-free regimens, despite a lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials to robustly link them. However, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with IMiD-containing regimens differ from those treated with IMiD-free regimens, especially relating to treatment history, which is an important treatment-effect modifier requiring clinical consideration when evaluating the most appropriate subsequent treatment options. A need exists to separately assess the efficacy of treatment regimens for patients who are suitable candidates for IMiD-containing and IMiD-free regimens. The presented analyses will enable clinicians to assess the best regimens to use in patients suitable for IMiD-containing regimens.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We used a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare IMiD-containing regimens in patients with RRMM. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by previous therapy line, previous bortezomib therapy, and previous lenalidomide therapy.
RESULTS
The results indicated that triplet combinations are more effective than doublet combinations. Of the triplet combinations, daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (DRd) was significantly better in improving progression-free survival in patients with RRMM than were other IMiD-containing regimens (lenalidomide, dexamethasone [Rd]: hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; carfilzomib, Rd: HR, 0.54; elotuzumab, Rd: HR, 0.54; ixazomib, Rd: HR, 0.50). Similar trends were observed for overall survival and overall response. DRd showed the greatest probability of being the best treatment for all clinical efficacy outcomes. The subgroup analyses results were consistent with the base-case results.
CONCLUSION
In patients with RRMM who are suitable for an IMiD-containing regimen, DRd showed clear advantages in survival and response outcomes compared with other IMiD-containing regimens.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 29456035
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.12.011 -
Blood Cancer Journal Jun 2020B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) plays a critical role in regulating B-cell proliferation and survival. There is evidence for BCMA expression in various hematologic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) plays a critical role in regulating B-cell proliferation and survival. There is evidence for BCMA expression in various hematologic malignancies, suggesting that BCMA may play an important role as a biomarker or therapeutic target in these diseases. Given advances in understanding the role of BCMA in B-cell development and the promise of BCMA as a therapeutic target, a systematic review is needed to rigorously assess the evidence for BCMA expression and identify areas of consensus and future research. The objective of this review was to summarize the evidence on BCMA protein and mRNA expression across hematologic malignancies. Using a PubMed database search up to 28 August 2019, a systematic literature review of publications reporting BCMA expression in patients with hematologic malignancies was conducted. Data from published congress abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology were also searched. Studies that assessed BCMA expression (protein or mRNA) in patients of any age with hematologic malignancies were included. A total of 21 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. BCMA was expressed in several hematologic malignancies, including multiple myeloma (MM), chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute B-lymphoblastic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and Hodgkin lymphoma. BCMA was expressed at uniformly high levels across all 13 MM studies and at low to moderate levels in acute myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. These results suggest that BCMA is a relevant target in MM as well as in a subset of B-cell leukemia. BCMA expression in Hodgkin lymphoma and NHL varied across studies, and further research is needed to determine the utility of BCMA as an antibody target and biomarker in these diseases. Differences in sample type, timing of sample collection, and laboratory technique used may have affected the reporting of BCMA levels.
Topics: B-Cell Maturation Antigen; Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Multiple Myeloma; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; RNA, Messenger
PubMed: 32606424
DOI: 10.1038/s41408-020-0337-y -
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Feb 2024Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 10% of hematologic cancers in the U.S.; however, incidence and mortality occur disproportionately between racial groups in real-world...
Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 10% of hematologic cancers in the U.S.; however, incidence and mortality occur disproportionately between racial groups in real-world settings. Our study's objective was to systematically characterize the disparities in overall survival (OS) among Black and White patients with MM in the US using real-world evidence studies. A systematic literature review was undertaken by searching Embase and MEDLINE for observational studies conducted in the US, published between January 1, 2015 and October 25, 2021, and reporting OS for Black and White patients with MM. Records were reviewed by 2 independent researchers. OS data were extracted as hazard ratios (HR), median survival, or %, with methods of adjustment, as reported. Evidence quality was assessed by data source, population, and variables for which HRs for risk of death were adjusted. We included 33 US studies comprising 410,086 patients (21.5% Black; 78.5% White) with MM. Receipt of treatment varied; however, most studies reported that patients either underwent stem cell transplant and/or received systemic therapy. HRs from 9 studies were considered "high quality" by comparing nationally representative, generalizable cohorts and adjusting for key prognostic, treatment, and/or socioeconomic factors. After adjustment, these data suggested that Black patients exhibit similar or superior survival outcomes compared with their White counterparts. When data are adjusted for important confounders, Black patients exhibit better or equal survival to White patients, indicating that similarities in patient populations and equal access to treatment can bridge the disparity in patient outcomes between races.
Topics: Humans; Healthcare Disparities; Multiple Myeloma; Proportional Hazards Models; Racial Groups; Black or African American; White; Survival Rate
PubMed: 37923653
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2023.09.009 -
Cancer Jun 2020Several new treatment options have been approved for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, associations of the efficacy of each... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association of adverse events and associated cost with efficacy for approved relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma regimens: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Several new treatment options have been approved for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, associations of the efficacy of each approved regimen with adverse events (AEs) and the total cost per cycle were compared with a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed Publisher, and Web of Science were searched from January 1999 to July 2018 for phase 3 RCTs of regimens (approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) used in RRMM. The relative ranking of agents was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. The primary efficacy, safety, and cost outcomes were progression-free survival with the regimen, grade 3 to 4 AEs, and the total cost per cycle (regimen cost plus average cost of managing AEs).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies including 7718 patients and evaluating 14 different regimens were identified. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone were ranked highest for reducing progression (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09-0.19; SUCRA, 1) but carried the highest probability of total cost per cycle ($41,420; 95% Credible Interval [CrCl], $58,665-$78,041; SUCRA, 0.02). Panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone were the least effective and least safe (SUCRA, 0.24), whereas bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone emerged as least effective with the highest total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.33). Carfilzomib and dexamethasone emerged as the winner when this regimen was considered in terms of efficacy and safety (SUCRA, 0.61) and efficacy and total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.60).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this NMA can provide additional guidance for the decision-making process when one is choosing the most appropriate regimen for RRMM.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bayes Theorem; Bortezomib; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dexamethasone; Drug Costs; Humans; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Oligopeptides; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thalidomide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32154922
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32831 -
Blood Advances Dec 2022Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a diminished immune response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Risk factors for an impaired immune response are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a diminished immune response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Risk factors for an impaired immune response are yet to be determined. We aimed to summarize the COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity and to identify factors that influence the humoral immune response in patients with MM. Two reviewers independently conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov from existence until 24 May 24 2022. (PROSPERO: CRD42021277005). A total of 15 studies were included in the systematic review and 5 were included in the meta-analysis. The average rate (range) of positive functional T-lymphocyte response was 44.2% (34.2%-48.5%) after 2 doses of messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. The average antispike antibody response rates (range) were 42.7% (20.8%-88.5%) and 78.2% (55.8%-94.2%) after 1 and 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, respectively. The average neutralizing antibody response rates (range) were 25% (1 study) and 62.7% (53.3%-68.6%) after 1 and 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, respectively. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics or receiving anti-CD38 therapy were less likely to have a humoral immune response with pooled odds ratios of 0.36 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.18, 0.69), I2 = 0% and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.22, 0.79), I2 = 14%, respectively. Patients who were not on active MM treatment were more likely to respond with pooled odds ratio of 2.42 (95% CI, 1.10, 5.33), I2 = 7%. Patients with MM had low rates of humoral and cellular immune responses to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal doses of vaccines and evaluate the use of monoclonal antibodies for pre-exposure prophylaxis in this population.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; Multiple Myeloma; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Antibodies, Monoclonal
PubMed: 36538342
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022008530