-
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 -
Neurological Sciences : Official... Sep 2023Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) is a demyelinating disease of the central nervous system caused by a reactivation of the human polyomavirus 2 (HPyV-2,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) is a demyelinating disease of the central nervous system caused by a reactivation of the human polyomavirus 2 (HPyV-2, previously known as JCV) in immunosuppressed individuals. Few cases of PML have been described in multiple myeloma (MM) patients.
METHODS
We described a case of PML in a patient with MM with fatal worsening that occurred during SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also performed a literature review to update the 16 cases series of MM patients with PML already collected until April 2020.
RESULTS
A 79-year-old female patient with refractory IgA lambda MM in Pomalidomide- Cyclophosphamide-Dexamethasone regimen developed gradual lower limbs and left arm paresis along with a decreased consciousness 3.5 years after the MM diagnosis. Symptoms developed shortly after the recognition of hypogammaglobulinemia. After SARS-CoV-2 infection, her neurological status quickly worsened until she deceased. MRI features and JCV-positive PCR on CSF confirmed the PML diagnosis. Our literature review adds sixteen clinical cases of PML in MM published between May 2020 and March 2023 to the 16 cases already collected in the previously published review by Koutsavlis.
DISCUSSION
PML has been increasingly described in MM patients. It remains questionable if the HPyV-2 reactivation is determined by the severity of MM itself, by the effect of drugs or by a combination of both. SARS-CoV-2 infection may have a role in worsening PML in affected patients.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Leukoencephalopathy, Progressive Multifocal; JC Virus; Multiple Myeloma; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 37421487
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-06944-0 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Arthritis Research & Therapy Jun 2021New molecular mechanisms that can be targeted with specific drugs have recently emerged for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. Over the past 3 years,... (Review)
Review
New molecular mechanisms that can be targeted with specific drugs have recently emerged for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. Over the past 3 years, the achievement of one large phase 3 trial has led to the approval by drug agencies of the first drug licenced for SSc-related interstitial lung disease. Given this exciting time in the SSc field, we aimed to perform a systemic literature review of phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials and large observational studies about targeted therapies in SSc. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies from 2016 with targeted therapies as the primary treatment in patients with SSc for skin or lung involvement as the primary clinical outcome measure. Details on the study characteristics, the trial drug used, the molecular target engaged by the trial drug, the inclusion criteria of the study, the treatment dose, the possibility of concomitant immunosuppression, the endpoints of the study, the duration of the study and the results obtained were reviewed. Of the 973 references identified, 21 (4 conference abstracts and 17 articles) were included in the systematic review. A total of 15 phase 1/phase 2 clinical trials, 2 phase 3 clinical trials and 2 observation studies were analysed. The drugs studied in phase 1/phase 2 studies included the following: inebilizumab, dabigatran, C-82, pomalidomide, rilonacept, romilkimab, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, pirfenidone, lenabasum, abatacept, belimumab, riociguat, SAR100842 and lanifibranor. All but 3 studies were performed in early diffuse SSc patients with different inclusion criteria, while 3 studies were performed in SSc patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). Phase 3 clinical trials investigated nintedanib and tocilizumab. Nintedanib was investigated in SSc-ILD patients whereas tocilizumab focused on early diffuse SSc patients with inflammatory features. Two observational studies including > 50 patients with rituximab as the targeted drug were also evaluated. All these studies offer a real hope for SSc patients. The future challenges will be to customize patient-specific therapeutics with the goal to develop precision medicine for SSc.
Topics: Humans; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Scleroderma, Diffuse; Scleroderma, Systemic
PubMed: 34074331
DOI: 10.1186/s13075-021-02536-5 -
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Jul 2021Lenalidomide use in nearly all induction regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) has led to the treatment of lenalidomide-refractory disease becoming one of the most...
INTRODUCTION
Lenalidomide use in nearly all induction regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) has led to the treatment of lenalidomide-refractory disease becoming one of the most important clinical questions in its treatment. Given the lack of direct comparisons of treatment regimens for lenalidomide-refractory MM, we used a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included lenalidomide-refractory subgroup analysis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review to identify RCTs for MM that enrolled patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease, then performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) using random effects model to compare regimens.
RESULTS
We identified 123 discrete RCTs, of which 7 reported primary outcomes for lenalidomide-refractory MM. These were linked in 2 discrete networks totaling 1698 lenalidomide-refractory patients. Network 1 compared bortezomib (bort)/dexamethasone (dex) versus other treatments, and analysis showed triplet therapy with pomalidomide (pom)/bort/dex (hazard ratios [HR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.84), daratumumab (dara)/bort/dex (HR 0.36, 95% CI, 0.21-0.63), and dara/carfilzomib (carf)/dex (HR 0.38, 95% CI, 0.21-0.69) as more effective than bort/dex. Network 2 compared dex versus other treatments, and analysis showed pom/dex (HR 0.50, 95% CI, 0.40-0.62), isatuximab (isa)/pom/dex (HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.20-0.44), and elotuzumab (elo)/pom/dex (HR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.16-0.45) as more effective than dex. Within each network, monoclonal antibody (mAb)-containing regimens had lower HRs and higher P-scores than non-mAb regimens, indicating higher likelihood of these regimens being most efficacious.
CONCLUSION
The results of our NMA demonstrated that for lenalidomide-refractory MM, triplet therapy containing mAbs are superior. There is need for further RCTs to better ascertain the best standard of care for these patients.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Humans; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Network Meta-Analysis; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33962898
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2021.03.006