Treatment of Lenalidomide Exposed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Network Meta-Analysis of Lenalidomide-Sparing Regimens.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Botta C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8079718 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Lenalidomide is an amino-substituted derivative of thalidomide with direct antiproliferative and cytotoxic effects on the myeloma tumor cell, as well as antiangiogenic activity and immunomodulatory effects. Together with the introduction of bortezomib and thalidomide, lenalidomide has significantly improved the survival of patients with relapsed and refractory myeloma. The most common adverse events associated with lenalidomide include fatigue, skin rash, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. In addition, when lenalidomide is combined with dexamethasone or other conventional cytotoxic agents, there is an increase in the incidence of venous thromboembolic events. There is now evidence that continued treatment with lenalidomide has a significant impact on survival by improving the depth and duration of response. This highlights the value of adverse event management and appropriate dose adjustments to prevent toxicity, and of allowing continued treatment until disease progression. In this review, we will discuss the different lenalidomide-based treatment regimens for patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. This is accompanied by recommendations of how to manage and prevent adverse events associated with lenalidomide-based therapy.
| S-EPMC3430086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with multiple myeloma who have relapsed after or become refractory to lenalidomide in early treatment lines represent a clinically important population in need of effective therapies. The safety and efficacy of pomalidomide, low-dose dexamethasone, and daratumumab was evaluated in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after one to two prior treatment lines in the phase 2 MM-014 study. Patients received pomalidomide 4?mg daily from days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40?mg weekly (28-day cycles). Daratumumab 16?mg/kg was administered per label. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Per protocol, all patients (N?=?112) had received lenalidomide in their most recent prior regimen (75.0% lenalidomide refractory). ORR was 77.7% (76.2% in lenalidomide-refractory patients); median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median PFS was not reached (1-year PFS rate 75.1%). The most common hematologic grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (62.5%). Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 31.3% of patients, including 13.4% with grade 3/4 pneumonia. These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide-based therapy as early as second line in patients with RRMM, even immediately after lenalidomide failure, indicating that switching from the immunomodulatory agent class is not necessary.
| S-EPMC7685974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) for whom the benefits of lenalidomide have been exhausted in early treatment lines need effective therapies. In cohort A of the phase 2 MM-014 trial, we examined the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone immediately after lenalidomide-based treatment failure in patients with RRMM and two prior lines of therapy. Pomalidomide 4 mg was given on days 1 to 21 of 28-day cycles. Dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged >75 years) was given on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The intention-to-treat population comprised 56 patients; all received prior lenalidomide (87·5% lenalidomide refractory) and 39 (69·6%) received prior bortezomib. ORR was 32·1% (28·2% in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median PFS was 12·2 months (7·9 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). Median OS was 41·7 months (38·6 months in the prior-bortezomib subgroup). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (25·0%), pneumonia (14·3%) and fatigue (14·3%). These findings support earlier sequencing of pomalidomide-based therapy in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with RRMM, including those who have become refractory to lenalidomide. Trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01946477.
| S-EPMC7027539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains a big clinical challenge, due to its biological and clinical complexity. Leading hematologists have performed many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) worldwide, and their findings were summarized in a recently published network meta-analysis (NMA) but with certain limitations. Materials and methods:We performed an updated NMA of RCTs related to RRMM treatment, focusing on efficacy measures including the nonresponse rate (NRR), time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The PubMed database was searched. We extended the literature search strategy of a previous NMA to June 30, 2017 and included additional primary RCTs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank the regimens. A weighted-average method was used to rank the regimens by summarizing SUCRAs across different outcome measures. Results:Finally, a total of 24 RCTs were included in this updated NMA. According to the result, the combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone showed better efficacy than other regimens in terms of NRR, TTP, and PFS (NRR: odds ratio [OR] =0.046, 95% credible interval [CrI] =[0.024, 0.085]; TTP: hazard ratio [HR] =0.14, 95% CrI =[0.092, 0.2]; PFS: HR =0.12, 95% CrI =[0.077, 0.18], compared with dexamethasone singlet). The combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone showed better efficacy than other regimens in terms of OS (HR =0.30, 95% CrI =[0.17, 0.54], compared with dexamethasone). The combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone ranked first in terms of overall efficacy (weighted average of SUCRAs =0.920). Conclusion:The combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone may currently be the most effective regimen in the population of RRMM patients. Triplet regimens containing daratumumab, ixazomib, carfilzomib, or elotumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone can be recommended as first-line therapies for RRMM patients.
| S-EPMC6109665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for assessing the efficacy of new treatments compared to standard treatments. However, the reasoning behind treatment selection in RCTs is often unclear. Here, we focus on a cohort of RCTs in multiple myeloma (MM) to understand the patterns of competing treatment selections.MethodsWe used social network analysis (SNA) to study relationships between treatment regimens in MM RCTs and to examine the topology of RCT treatment networks. All trials considering induction or autologous stem cell transplant among patients with MM were eligible for our analysis. Medline and abstracts from the annual proceedings of the American Society of Hematology and American Society for Clinical Oncology, as well as all references from relevant publications were searched. We extracted data on treatment regimens, year of publication, funding type, and number of patients enrolled. The SNA metrics used are related to node and network level centrality and to node positioning characterization.Results135 RCTs enrolling a total of 36,869 patients were included. The density of the RCT network was low indicating little cohesion among treatments. Network Betweenness was also low signifying that the network does not facilitate exchange of information. The maximum geodesic distance was equal to 4, indicating that all connected treatments could reach each other in four "steps" within the same pathway of development. The distance between many important treatment regimens was greater than 1, indicating that no RCTs have compared these regimens.ConclusionOur findings show that research programs in myeloma, which is a relatively small field, are surprisingly decentralized with a lack of connectivity among various research pathways. As a result there is much crucial research left unexplored. Using SNA to visually and analytically examine treatment networks prior to designing a clinical trial can lead to better designed studies.
| S-EPMC4131914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This phase 1 dose-escalation study evaluated pomalidomide, bortezomib (subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV)) and low-dose dexamethasone (LoDEX) in lenalidomide-refractory and proteasome inhibitor-exposed relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In 21-day cycles, patients received pomalidomide (1-4?mg days 1-14), bortezomib (1-1.3?mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8 and 11 for cycles 1-8; days 1 and 8 for cycle ?9) and LoDEX. Primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Thirty-four patients enrolled: 12 during escalation, 10 in the MTD IV bortezomib cohort and 12 in the MTD SC bortezomib cohort. Patients received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy; 97% bortezomib exposed. With no dose-limiting toxicities, MTD was defined as the maximum planned dose: pomalidomide 4 mg, bortezomib 1.3?mg/m2 and LoDEX. All patients discontinued treatment by data cutoff (2 April 2015). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (44%) and thrombocytopenia (26%), which occurred more frequently with IV than SC bortezomib. No grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy or deep vein thrombosis was reported. Overall response rate was 65%. Median duration of response was 7.4 months. Pomalidomide, bortezomib and LoDEX was well tolerated and effective in lenalidomide-refractory and bortezomib-exposed patients with RRMM.
| S-EPMC5729338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data from two randomized pivotal, phase 3 trials evaluating the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) were pooled to characterize the subset of patients who achieved long-term benefit of therapy (progression-free survival ⩾ 3 years). Patients with long-term benefit of therapy (n = 45) had a median duration of treatment of 48.1 months and a response rate of 100%. Humoral improvement (uninvolved immunoglobulin A) was more common in patients with long-term benefit of therapy (79% vs 55%; P = 0.002). Significant predictors of long-term benefit of therapy in multivariate analysis were age < 65 years (P = 0.03), β2-microglobulin <2.5 mg/l (P = 0.002) and fewer prior therapies (P = 0.002). The exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of grade 3-4 neutropenia was lower in patients with long-term benefit of therapy (13.9 vs 38.2 per 100 patient-years). The EAIR for invasive second primary malignancy was the same in patients with long-term benefit of therapy and other patients (1.7 per 100 patient-years). These findings indicate that patients with RRMM can experience long-term benefit with lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment with manageable side effects.
| S-EPMC4571985 | biostudies-other
Project description:This phase 1/2 trial evaluated the maximum tolerated doses, safety, and efficacy of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVD) combination in patients with relapsed lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma (MM). In phase 1, dose level 1 consisted of pomalidomide (4 mg by mouth on days 1 to 21), IV or subcutaneous bortezomib (1.0 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22), and dexamethasone (40 mg by mouth on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) given every 28 days. Bortezomib was increased to 1.3 mg/m2 for dose level 2 and adopted in the phase 2 expansion cohort. We describe the results of 50 patients. Objective response rate was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73-94) among all evaluable patients (stringent complete response, 12%; complete response, 10%; very good partial response, 28%; and partial response, 36%) and 100% among high-risk patients. Within a median follow-up of 42 months, 20% remain progression free, 66% are alive, and 4% remain on treatment. Median progression-free survival was 13.7 months (95% CI, 9.6-17.7). The most common toxicities were neutropenia (96%), leukopenia (84%), thrombocytopenia (82%), anemia (74%), and fatigue (72%); however, the majority of these were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade ≥3 toxicities included neutropenia (70%), leukopenia (36%), and lymphopenia (20%). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 patients. In conclusion, PVD is a highly effective combination in lenalidomide-refractory MM patients. Weekly administration of bortezomib enhanced tolerability and convenience. Toxicities are manageable, mostly consisting of mild cytopenias with no significant neuropathy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01212952.
| S-EPMC5606008 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThromboprophylaxis is routinely used with lenalidomide-based regimens in multiple myeloma because of a substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known about the incidence of VTE with contemporary lenalidomide-based regimens. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis with currently used lenalidomide-based regimens in patients with myeloma.MethodsThe Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from study inception to January 2019 for keywords to cover the following concepts: "lenalidomide," "venous thromboembolism," and "multiple myeloma." Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials evaluating lenalidomide-based regimens with thromboprophylaxis were included. The pooled incidence rate of VTE was estimated using a random-effects model.ResultsThe search generated 1372 citations, with 51 clinical trials and 9069 patients included for analysis. The most common thromboprophylaxis agents were aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin, administered either per risk-stratification or at investigators' discretion. The pooled incidence of VTE in trials of patients who had newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma was 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%) over median treatment durations ranging from 2 to 34 cycles, which translated into 1.2 VTE events per 100 patient-cycles (95% CI, 0.9-1.7 VTE events per 100 patient-cycles). Among contemporary regimens, the risk of VTE was low with combined lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (0.2 [95% CI, 0.1-0.6] events/100 patient-cycles) and lenalidomide maintenance (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.7] events per 100 patient-cycles). VTE risk was higher with combined lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone plus proteasome inhibitors (1.3 [95% CI, 0.7-2.3] events per 100 patient-cycles).ConclusionsDespite adequate thromboprophylaxis, lenalidomide-based regimens have a substantial risk of VTE in controlled clinical trial settings. Further studies are needed on new thromboprophylaxis strategies with regimens that have a high VTE risk.
| S-EPMC7453956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lenalidomide (Len) plus dexamethasone (Dex) is approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). It is possible that single-agent Len may be effective as prolonged treatment regimen in RRMM once patients demonstrate an initial response to Len+Dex induction. Patients with RRMM who responded to first-line Len+Dex in an observational study (NCT01430546) received up to 24 cycles of either Len (25 mg/day) or Len+Dex (25 mg/day and 40 mg/week) as prolonged treatment in a subsequent phase 2 clinical trial (NCT01450215). In the observational study (N = 133), median time to response was 1.7 (range 0.6-9.6) months. A complete response to all treatments received in both studies was observed in 11% of patients; very good partial response and partial response rates were 31% and 38%, respectively. Corresponding response rates in the subgroup of patients who did not enter the phase 2 trial (n = 71) were 3%, 18%, and 39%, respectively. Rates of disease progression at 2 years in the phase 2 trial were 47% versus 31% for Len versus Len+Dex (P = 0.14). After 36 months median follow-up in surviving patients, median time to progression was not reached with Len+Dex and was 24.9 months (95% confidence interval 12.5-not calculable, P < 0.001) with Len. Three-year OS among the total observational study population was 61% (95% CI, 52-69%). The corresponding rate among patients who entered the phase 2 clinical trial was 73% (95% CI, 60-83%) and was significantly lower among those patients who achieved ?PR but did not proceed into the phase 2 trial (55%; P = 0.01). In the phase 2 trial, OS was 73% in both treatment arms (P = 0.70). Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more common with prolonged (phase 2 trial) versus short-term (observational study) Len administration but remained manageable. Prolonged treatment with Len with or without Dex provides sustained, clinically relevant responses and demonstrates an acceptable safety profile.
| S-EPMC6010717 | biostudies-literature