-
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 -
Annals of Hematology Dec 2022With the incorporation of novel agents in earlier lines of therapy, an increasing number of multiple myeloma patients are refractory to traditional classes of drugs.... (Review)
Review
With the incorporation of novel agents in earlier lines of therapy, an increasing number of multiple myeloma patients are refractory to traditional classes of drugs. Selinexor in combination with dexamethasone has emerged as a viable option for heavily pretreated triple-class relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, we analyzed available literature on the role of selinexor in RRMM. The Boston trial demonstrated that selinexor when combined with dexamethasone and bortezomib is associated with a better depth and duration of response without excessive toxicity, compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. Similarly, selinexor in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone was found to have a durable response and tolerable safety profile in both carfilzomib-naive and carfilzomib refractory RRMM patients. Selinexor in combination with IMiDs (lenalidomide and pomalidomide) as well as CD38 monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab) also have promising results. Selinexor combination therapy is both safe and effective for patients with pretreated RRMM.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Bortezomib; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 36214853
DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-04999-1 -
Expert Review of Hematology 2024To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide in combination treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide in combination treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).
METHODS
Published clinical trials were searched in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE to February 2023. The literature was screened and evaluated according to the inclusion criteria, and the data were analyzed by a random effect model. Overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and full grade or ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were the outcomes.
RESULTS
This study included 31 clinical trials, which included 4776 patients. The pooled ORR of the doublet regimens was 33.3% (95%CI: 27-39%) and the triplet regimens was 66% (95%CI: 58-74%). Among the 25 included studies, the median PFS was 8.29 months (95%CI: 7.27-9.31), and nine studies reported median OS of 19.43 months (95%CI: 14.56-24.30). In terms of safety, the most common hematologic AEs of grade ≥ 3 were neutropenia (41%) and anemia (20%); Non-hematologic AEs were pneumonia (14%) and infection/febrile neutropenia (14%).
CONCLUSIONS
Pomalidomide combined treatment regimens have shown good clinical efficacy, especially in pomalidomide + dexamethasone combined with other drugs. In terms of safety, it's important to pay attention to the likelihood of hematological adverse events when used clinically.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42023420644.
Topics: Multiple Myeloma; Humans; Thalidomide; Dexamethasone; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38421372
DOI: 10.1080/17474086.2024.2326219 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Multiple myeloma is a malignant plasma cell disorder characterised by clonal plasma cells that cause end-organ damage such as renal failure, lytic bone lesions,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma is a malignant plasma cell disorder characterised by clonal plasma cells that cause end-organ damage such as renal failure, lytic bone lesions, hypercalcaemia and/or anaemia. People with multiple myeloma are treated with immunomodulatory agents including lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide. Multiple myeloma is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, which appears to be further increased in people receiving immunomodulatory agents.
OBJECTIVES
(1) To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of aspirin, oral anticoagulants, or parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents who otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. (2) To maintain this review as a living systematic review by continually running the searches and incorporating newly identified studies.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search that included (1) a major electronic search (14 June 2021) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid; (2) hand-searching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of reference lists of included studies; and (4) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches, and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants such as vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), anti-platelet agents such as aspirin (ASA), and parenteral anticoagulants such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardised form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, and minor bleeding. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and the risk difference (RD) with its 95% CI. We then assessed the certainty of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 1015 identified citations and included 11 articles reporting four RCTs that enrolled 1042 participants. The included studies made the following comparisons: ASA versus VKA (one study); ASA versus LMWH (two studies); VKA versus LMWH (one study); and ASA versus DOAC (two studies, one of which was an abstract). ASA versus VKA One RCT compared ASA to VKA at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to VKA on all-cause mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.24; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; RD 27 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 48 fewer to 21 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.95; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 54 more; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.72; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 134 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 49.43; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 220 more; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared ASA to VKA at two years follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to VKA on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.47; RD 5 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 9 fewer to 41 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.44; RD 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 50 fewer to 34 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.95; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 54 more; very low-certainty evidence). ASA versus LMWH Two RCTs compared ASA to LMWH at six months follow-up. The pooled data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.81; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 38 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.08; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 11 fewer to 43 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 7.71, 95% CI 0.97 to 61.44; RD 7 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 60 more; very low-certainty evidence); major bleeding (RR 6.97, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.11; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 133 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.78; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 50 more; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared ASA to LMWH at two years follow-up. The pooled data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.89; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 68 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.72; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 78 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 166.17; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 165 more; very low-certainty evidence). VKA versus LMWH One RCT compared VKA to LMWH at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.10; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 32 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 5.93; RD 36 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 135 more; very low-certainty evidence); PE (RR 8.96, 95% CI 0.49 to 165.42; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 164 more; very low-certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.17; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 30 more; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no major bleeding occurred in either arm. One RCT compared VKA to LMWH at two years follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of VKA relative to LMWH on all-cause mortality (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.90; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence); symptomatic DVT (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.63; RD 32 more per 1000, 95% CI 9 fewer to 120 more; very low-certainty evidence); and PE (RR 9.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 166.17; RD 8 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 165 more; very low-certainty evidence). ASA versus DOAC One RCT compared ASA to DOAC at six months follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of ASA relative to DOAC on DVT, PE, and major bleeding and minor bleeding (minor bleeding: RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 79.94; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 79 more; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no DVT, PE, or major bleeding events occurred in either arm. These results did not change in a meta-analysis including the study published as an abstract.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of the available evidence for the comparative effects of ASA, VKA, LMWH, and DOAC on all-cause mortality, DVT, PE, or bleeding was either low or very low. People with multiple myeloma considering antithrombotic agents should balance the possible benefits of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Fibrinolytic Agents; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Multiple Myeloma
PubMed: 34582035
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014739 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Aug 2020There is a paucity of head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy and harms of pharmacological treatments for systemic sclerosis-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a paucity of head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy and harms of pharmacological treatments for systemic sclerosis-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).
METHODS
We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) in order to compare the effects of different treatments with the placebo on change in forced vital capacity (FVC), change in diffusion lung capacity for CO (DLCO), serious adverse events (SAEs), discontinuation for adverse events and mortality in SSc-ILD. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and log odds ratio were estimated using NMA with fixed effects.
RESULTS
Nine randomized clinical trials (926 participants) comparing eight interventions and the placebo for an average follow-up of one year were included. Compared to the placebo, only rituximab significantly reduced FVC decline (SMD (95% CI) = 1.00 (0.39 to 1.61)). Suitable data on FVC outcome for nintedanib were not available for the analysis. No treatments influenced DLCO. Safety and mortality were also not different across treatments and the placebo, although there were few reported events. Cyclophosphamide and pomalidomide were less tolerated than the placebo, mycophenolate, and nintedanib.
CONCLUSION
Only rituximab significantly reduced lung function decline compared to the placebo. However, direct head-to-head comparison studies are required to confirm these findings and to better determine the safety profile of various treatments.
PubMed: 32784580
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9082560 -
Cancers Nov 2021Novel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) promise to improve outcomes but are also associated with substantial increasing costs. Evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Novel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) promise to improve outcomes but are also associated with substantial increasing costs. Evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of novel treatments is necessary, but a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the cost-effectiveness evidence of novel treatments is currently lacking.
METHODS
We searched Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science and EconLIT ProQuest to identify all cost-effectiveness evaluations of novel pharmacological treatment of MM reporting cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and cost per life year (LY) gained since 2005. Quality and completeness of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.
RESULTS
We identified 13 economic evaluations, comprising 32 comparisons. Our results show that novel agents generate additional LYs (range: 0.311-3.85) and QALYs (range: 0.1-2.85) compared to backbone regimens and 0.02 to 1.10 LYs and 0.01 to 0.91 QALYs for comparisons between regimens containing two novel agents. Lifetime healthcare costs ranged from USD 60,413 to 1,434,937 per patient. The cost-effectiveness ratios per QALY gained ranged from dominating to USD 1,369,062 for novel agents compared with backbone therapies and from dominating to USD 618,018 for comparisons between novel agents.
CONCLUSIONS
Cost-effectiveness ratios of novel agents were generally above current willingness-to-pay thresholds. To ensure access, cost-effectiveness should be improved or cost-effectiveness ratios above current thresholds should be accepted.
PubMed: 34830761
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225606 -
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy Mar 2023We evaluate the efficacy and safety of Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody, in combination with concomitant treatment regimens for multiple myeloma (MM)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
We evaluate the efficacy and safety of Elotuzumab, an immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody, in combination with concomitant treatment regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) patients.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched systematically up to 2 August 2022.
RESULTS
Five randomized control trials with a total of 1,763 participants were included. Elotuzumab combination therapy improved PFS and OS by 14% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86) and 20% (HR 0.80), respectively, relative to the non-Elotuzumab regimen. Adding Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide plus Dexamethasone regimen (HR 0.82) or Pomalidomide plus Dexamethasone regimen (HR 0.54) were considered to improve the PFS. Meanwhile, the risk of disease progression was only reduced for patients with relapsed/refractory MM (HR 0.70) but not for newly diagnosed/untreated MM (HR 0.93). Finally, the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.12) and the risk of infection (RR 1.09) and cardiac disorders (RR 1.32) were higher for the experimental group compared to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings showed that Elotuzumab combination therapy prolonged OS and PFS compared to non-Elotuzumab treatments in patients with MM. However, further investigations are required to establish the most effective combination of the Elotuzumab regimen.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Dexamethasone; Treatment Outcome; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36638778
DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2169139 -
Annals of Hematology Mar 2021Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease, and patients usually receive multiple lines of therapy. Due to the abundance of novel treatments for MM, we conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease, and patients usually receive multiple lines of therapy. Due to the abundance of novel treatments for MM, we conducted a network meta-analysis to identify combinations that could fare better than others in relapsed/refractory MM, in the setting of novel drugs. We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases for phase III trials in previously treated MM that had lenalidomide or bortezomib in the control arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), extracted as hazard-ratio. We used the P score to rank treatments. Thirteen studies were included. All but two studies compared one novel agent against two, with or without dexamethasone. Based on the P score, daratumumab and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin had a higher probability of achieving better PFS, followed by isatuximab, carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and panobinostat. Although most overall survival data were not mature enough, the addition of a second or third novel agent to either immunomodulatory (IMID) or proteasome inhibitor (PI) backbone seemed to improve survival (HR = 0.84, 95CI 0.77-0.92). Severe adverse events were more frequent with isatuximab, panobinostat, and pomalidomide. In summary, in the absence of trials directly comparing two novel agents-based therapies, we provide a tool that indirectly compares these newer therapies and that can help physicians to prioritize some regimens over others.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bortezomib; Dexamethasone; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Lenalidomide; Male; Middle Aged; Multiple Myeloma; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Progression-Free Survival; Recurrence
PubMed: 33432438
DOI: 10.1007/s00277-021-04404-3 -
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Jul 2019Pomalidomide (Pom) has demonstrated synergistic antiproliferative activity in combination regimens as a result of its distinct anticancer, antiangiogenic, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Pomalidomide (Pom) has demonstrated synergistic antiproliferative activity in combination regimens as a result of its distinct anticancer, antiangiogenic, and immunomodulatory effects. This review aimed to compare outcome measures of different Pom regimens for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search identified a total of 1374 studies. Thirty-five studies assessing 4623 subjects met the inclusion criteria: phase 2/3 trial, ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, and clearly documented efficacy outcomes like overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and progression-free survival. Statistical analyses for meta-analysis was performed by CMA version 3 and Cochrane Q statistics (P < .05 considered significant, I index for heterogeneity). A random effects model was used if there was significant heterogeneity (P ≥ .05 over I ≥ 50%).
RESULTS
Pooled analysis showed ORR 47.1% across all Pom-based (2- and 3-drug) regimens. Stratified analysis for efficacy outcomes (pooled ORR [%] and mean progression-free survival [months]) are reported. With doublet regimen, Pom with low-dose dexamethasone (LoDex) was the most common regimen (35.7%, 6.1 months), and overall survival was 14.37 months. With triplet regimens, pooled ORR was 61.9% (I = 87.3%). These included bortezomib + Pom + LoDex (83.5%, 15.7 months), carfilzomib-Pom + LoDex (77.1%, 15.3 months), Pom + LoDex-bendamustine (74.2%), Pom-dexamethasone-daratumumab (64.5%), Pom + LoDex-cyclophosphamide (59.4%, 9.5 months), and Pom + LoDex-doxorubicin (32%). Leading adverse events were myelosuppression, with mean incidences of grade 3 or higher neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of 47.6%, 26.5%, and 20.8%, respectively. Mean incidence of grade 3 or higher nonhematologic adverse events were infections 29.1%, pneumonia 13.8%, and fatigue 10%.
CONCLUSION
Three-drug Pom regimens yielded double the response rates compared to Pom + LoDex (pooled ORR, 61.9% vs. 35.7%), with bortezomib + Pom + LoDex and carfilzomib-Pom + LoDex demonstrating better outcomes than other regimens.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Recurrence; Retreatment; Thalidomide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31060991
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2019.04.003 -
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Oct 2022Oral oncolytic treatments (OOTs) have improved the prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, the effectiveness of these therapies is undermined by poor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Oral oncolytic treatments (OOTs) have improved the prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, the effectiveness of these therapies is undermined by poor adherence. We aimed to characterize the real-world adherence to, and persistence with, OOTs for MM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical abstracts databases were searched for relevant observational studies published in English up to November 21, 2021. This was supplemented by manual searches of abstracts from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, and the European Hematology Association as well as screening the references of included articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Following screening of 11,557 articles, 19 studies involving 27,129 patients in 8 countries (France, the US, Germany, Italy, the UK, Brazil, South Korea, and Belgium) prescribed OOTs (lenalidomide, thalidomide, pomalidomide, panobinostat, ixazomib, and melphalan) for MM were included. The overall pooled proportion of adherent patients was 67.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.1%-77.8%). The pooled proportion of adherent patients was higher in self-reported questionnaire-based studies compared to those using prescription/dispensing data (81.6% vs. 61.0%; P-value for difference = .08). Across 5 studies involving 15,363 patients, a pooled proportion of 35.8% (95% CI: 22.0-50.9) discontinued treatment. Factors reported to be associated with nonadherence included increasing age, higher comorbidity, polypharmacy, and a lack of social support.
CONCLUSION
In patients with MM, adherence to and persistence with OOTs remains suboptimal. To achieve desired clinical outcomes, interventions to improve adherence and minimize discontinuation may be warranted.
Topics: Humans; Lenalidomide; Medication Adherence; Melphalan; Multiple Myeloma; Panobinostat; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Thalidomide
PubMed: 35764491
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2022.05.003