-
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 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Nov 2016The objective of this review was to determine the impact of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based therapy on infection risk in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The objective of this review was to determine the impact of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based therapy on infection risk in patients with myeloma across three treatment periods: induction, maintenance therapy and relapse/refractory disease (RRMM).
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT) of IMiD and PI-based therapy versus conventional therapy from 1990 to 2015 using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was conducted. Study methods, characteristics, interventions, outcomes and rate of infection were extracted using a standardised tool.
FINDINGS
Thirty RCTs of 13,105 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. The rate of severe infection with the use of IMiD-based therapy was 13.4%, 22.4%, 10.5% and 16.6% for induction therapy for non-transplant- and transplant-eligible patients, maintenance therapy and therapy for RRMM, respectively. Rate of severe infection with PI-based induction in transplant-eligible patients was 19.7%. Compared to conventional therapy, use of IMiD-based induction therapy was associated with reduced risk for transplant patients (RR 0.76, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with PI-based therapy. For maintenance therapy and RRMM, use of IMiD-based therapy was significantly associated with 74% and 51% increased risk of severe infection, respectively. Compared to thalidomide, bortezomib-based induction therapy and lenalidomide maintenance therapy were associated with increased risk of severe infection (RR 2.03, p < 0.01; RR 1.95, p = 0.03).
INTERPRETATION
The differential impact of myeloma therapies on risk for infection and the effect of treatment phases upon risk have now been established. Thalidomide is associated with the lowest risk of severe infection when used for induction and maintenance therapy.
FUNDING
Fight Cancer Foundation.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bortezomib; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Induction Chemotherapy; Infections; Lenalidomide; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Multiple Myeloma; Proteasome Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Thalidomide
PubMed: 27592069
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.025 -
European Journal of Haematology Jan 2021Lenalidomide maintenance, commonly prescribed in the postautologous transplantation (AHCT) setting for multiple myeloma (MM), is associated with development of secondary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Lenalidomide maintenance, commonly prescribed in the postautologous transplantation (AHCT) setting for multiple myeloma (MM), is associated with development of secondary primary malignancies (SPM). Proteasome inhibitor maintenance (PIM) has also been evaluated in MM. We conduct a systematic review/meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of PIM in MM.
METHODS
Performing a comprehensive search of the medical literature using PubMed/Medline and EMBASE on September 11, 2019, we extracted data on clinical outcomes related to benefits (OS, PFS, and depth of hematologic response [DOHR]) and harms (SPM and adverse events). 2144 references were identified; three studies were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of 1760 patients were included in the analysis; 507 patients received bortezomib and 395 received ixazomib maintenance. Control arms were either placebo (n = 261) or thalidomide (n = 358). PIM did not improve OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-1.05, P = .15) but improved PFS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, P ≤ .00001) and DOHR (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.98, P = .02) compared with control. There were no significant differences between PIM and control regarding SPM (p = NS) and ≥grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN) (p = NS).
CONCLUSIONS
PIM following AHCT in MM improves PFS and DOHR without an increase in development of SPM or severe PN compared with placebo/thalidomide.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Combined Modality Therapy; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Multiple Myeloma; Prognosis; Proteasome Inhibitors; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32799387
DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13506 -
Emerging protein degradation strategies: expanding the scope to extracellular and membrane proteins.Theranostics 2021Classic small molecule inhibitors that directly target pathogenic proteins typically rely on the accessible binding sites to achieve prolonged occupancy and influence... (Review)
Review
Classic small molecule inhibitors that directly target pathogenic proteins typically rely on the accessible binding sites to achieve prolonged occupancy and influence protein functions. The emerging targeted protein degradation (TPD) strategies exemplified by PROteolysis TArgeting Chimeras (PROTACs) are revolutionizing conventional drug discovery modality to target proteins of interest (POIs) that were categorized as "undruggable" before, however, these strategies are limited within intracellular POIs. The novel new degrader technologies such as LYsosome-TArgeting Chimaeras (LYTACs) and Antibody-based PROTACs (AbTACs) have been successfully developed to expand the scope of TPD to extracellular and membrane proteins, fulfilling huge unmet medical needs. Here, we systematically review the currently viable protein degradation strategies, emphasize that LYTACs and AbTACs turn a new avenue for the development of TPD, and highlight the potential challenges and directions in this vibrant field.
Topics: Animals; Cellular Microenvironment; Drug Delivery Systems; Drug Discovery; Humans; Lysosomes; Membrane Proteins; Proteasome Endopeptidase Complex; Proteins; Proteolysis
PubMed: 34373745
DOI: 10.7150/thno.62686 -
European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry Dec 2023Targeted protein degradation (TPD) has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach with potential advantages over traditional occupancy-based inhibitors in terms of... (Review)
Review
Targeted protein degradation (TPD) has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach with potential advantages over traditional occupancy-based inhibitors in terms of dosing, side effects and targeting "undruggable" proteins. Targeted degraders can theoretically bind any nook or cranny of targeted proteins to drive degradation. This offers convenience versus the small-molecule inhibitors that must function in a well-defined pocket. The degradation process depends mainly on two cell self-destruction mechanisms, namely the ubiquitin-proteasome system and the lysosomal degradation pathway. Various TPD strategies (e.g., proteolytic-targeting chimeras, molecular glues, lysosome-targeting chimeras, and autophagy-targeting chimeras) have been developed. These approaches hold great potential for targeting dysregulated proteins, potentially offering therapeutic benefits. In this article, we systematically review the mechanisms of various TPD strategies, potential applications to drug discovery, and recent advances. We also discuss the benefits and challenges associated with these TPD strategies, aiming to provide insight into the targeting of dysregulated proteins and facilitate their clinical applications.
Topics: Proteolysis; Proteasome Endopeptidase Complex; Autophagy; Drug Discovery; Lysosomes
PubMed: 37778240
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115839 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2022Space travelers are exposed to microgravity (µ), which induces enhanced bone loss compared to the age-related bone loss on Earth. Microgravity promotes an increased... (Review)
Review
Space travelers are exposed to microgravity (µ), which induces enhanced bone loss compared to the age-related bone loss on Earth. Microgravity promotes an increased bone turnover, and this obstructs space exploration. This bone loss can be slowed down by exercise on treadmills or resistive apparatus. The objective of this systematic review is to provide a current overview of the state of the art of the field of bone loss in space and possible treatment options thereof. A total of 482 unique studies were searched through PubMed and Scopus, and 37 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies showed that, despite increased bone formation during µ, the increase in bone resorption was greater. Different types of exercise and pharmacological treatments with bisphosphonates, RANKL antibody (receptor activator of nuclear factor κβ ligand antibody), proteasome inhibitor, pan-caspase inhibitor, and interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody decrease bone resorption and promote bone formation. Additionally, recombinant irisin, cell-free fat extract, cyclic mechanical stretch-treated bone mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes, and strontium-containing hydroxyapatite nanoparticles also show some positive effects on bone loss.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Bone Resorption; Bone and Bones; Humans; Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor-kappa B; Space Flight; Weightlessness
PubMed: 35955775
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158650 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The current study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)...
Efficacy and safety of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
The current study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) through meta-analysis.
METHODS
As of June 2023, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the clinical outcomes of anti-CD38 mAbs plus immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) plus dexamethasone and IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone for RRMM patients were included. Efficacy outcomes were mainly evaluated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The safety was analyzed with hematologic and nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). All results were pooled using hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR), and their 95% confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI).
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs in total. Compared with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone, anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone significantly prolonged PFS (HR: 0.552, 95% CI = 0.461 to 0.659, 95% PI = 0.318 to 0.957) and OS (HR: 0.737, 95% CI = 0.657 to 0.827, 95% PI = 0.626 to 0.868) in patients with RRMM. Additionally, RRMM patients receiving anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone achieved higher rates of overall response (RR: 1.281, 95% CI = 1.144 to 1.434, 95% PI = 0.883 to 1.859), complete response or better (RR: 2.602, 95% CI = 1.977 to 3.424, 95% PI = 1.203 to 5.628), very good partial response (VGPR) or better (RR: 1.886, 95% CI = 1.532 to 2.322, 95% PI = 0.953 to 3.731), and minimum residual disease (MRD)-negative (RR: 4.147, 95% CI = 2.588 to 6.644, 95% PI = 1.056 to 16.283) than those receiving IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone. For TEAEs, the rates of hematologic and nonhematologic TEAEs, including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), pneumonia, bronchitis, dyspnea, diarrhea, pyrexia, back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia, and hypertension, were higher in the anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone group than in the IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone group.
CONCLUSION
Our study showed that anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone improved PFS and OS, and achieved higher rates of overall response, complete response or better, VGPR or better, and MRD-negative, as well as higher rates of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, URTI, pneumonia, bronchitis, dyspnea, diarrhea, pyrexia, back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia, and hypertension in RRMM patients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023431071.
PubMed: 38144527
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1240318 -
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 -
Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Dec 2023Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease despite advances in treatment options. Recently, selinexor has shown promising efficacy for relapsed/refractory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease despite advances in treatment options. Recently, selinexor has shown promising efficacy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), whereas its optimal timing and drug combination remain unclear. In order to assess the various regimens that incorporate selinexor, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.
METHODS
Clinical trials and real-world studies involving MM patients treated with selinexor were included. Pooled risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the rates, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and concurrent -value assessment. A random-effects model was employed to provide a more conservative evaluation.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies enrolling 817 patients were reviewed. The usage of selinexor as the fifth-line or prior therapy achieved a higher objective response rate (ORR) (65.9% versus 23.4%, < 0.01) and longer pooled progression-free survival (PFS) (median: 12.5 months versus 2.9 months, < 0.01) than those after the fifth-line usage. In addition, early usage also resulted in a consistent trend of pooled overall survival (median: 22.7 months versus 8.9 months, = 0.26), compared with post-fifth-line usage. Selinexor and dexamethasone (Xd) plus either protease inhibitors (PIs) or immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) achieved better ORRs than the Xd-only regimen for RRMM, with ORRs of 56.1%, 52.5% and 24.6%, respectively (< 0.01).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, using selinexor as the fifth-line or prior therapy had a beneficial impact on RRMM. The regimen of Xd plus PIs or IMiDs was recommended.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Immunomodulating Agents; Dexamethasone; Drug Combinations; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36920065
DOI: 10.1080/16078454.2023.2187972 -
Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Dec 2022Despite conspicuous advances in innovating novel drugs and combination regimens in multiple myeloma (MM) in recent decades, the most appropriate maintenance regimens... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite conspicuous advances in innovating novel drugs and combination regimens in multiple myeloma (MM) in recent decades, the most appropriate maintenance regimens after inductive therapy are still controversial and opaque.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to identify the most effective maintenance treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients via network meta-analysis.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholars from inception to April, 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) were generated for dichotomous variants. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Eventually a total of 19 trials, including 11 treatments and 8337 patients, were included in this analysis. For OS, lenalidomide (OR ranged from 1.61 to 1.99) and daratumumab (OR ranged from 1.83 to 2.41) showed significant efficacy over placebo. Maintenance therapy comprising lenalidomide-carfilzomib (OR ranged from 3.19 to 6.95), lenalidomide-prednisone (OR ranged from 2.62 to 4.44), bortezomib-thalidomide (OR ranged from 2.48 to 3.64), daratumumab (OR ranged from 2.0 to 2.98), lenalidomide (OR ranged from 1.4 to 3.19), ixazomib (OR ranged from 1.36 to 2.05), thalidomide (OR ranged from 1.5 to 1.86) demonstrated significant effects in prolongin PFS compared with placebo; Among the efficient therapies, lenalidomide-carfilzomib was significantly superior to lenalidomide (OR ranged from 2.18 to 2.20), daratumumab (OR ranged from 1.49 to 2.66) and ixazomib (OR ranged from 2.75 to 3.57).
CONCLUSION
Considering OS and PFS, lenalidomide-carfilzomib should be recommended as the best therapy. In clinical practice, this must be weighed against the increased risk of adverse events and financial burden. However, more head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Boron Compounds; Bortezomib; Glycine; Humans; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Network Meta-Analysis; Prednisone; Thalidomide
PubMed: 36125238
DOI: 10.1080/16078454.2022.2121900