Infection risks in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials from 2015 to 2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) remain at an increased risk of infection due to the disease process, as well as the ensuing treatments.Methods
We performed a systematic review to evaluate the monthly risk of grade III/IV infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia in patients with myeloma enrolled in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Results
The risk of grade III or higher infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia persists among all phases of treatment. There was no statistical difference in grade III or higher infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia between frontline and relapsed/refractory setting. In the maintenance setting, the complications of infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia were low, but not negligible. Three-drug regimens were no more likely than two-drug regimens to have an increased risk of Grade III or higher infection.Conclusions
This is the first study to quantify the monthly risk of grade III or higher infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia across different treatment regimens in the frontline, maintenance, and relapsed/refractory settings. The results of our systematic review demonstrate a significant risk for severe infection, pneumonia, and neutropenia in patients with MM. Further studies are needed to determine the value of antibiotic prophylaxis in a broader myeloma patient population, as well as other approaches that will further mitigate the morbidity and mortality related to infection in this vulnerable patient population.
SUBMITTER: Balmaceda N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8233183 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeWhether patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) needed to receive early interventional treatment remains controversial. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of early treatment over deferred treatment for patients with SMM.MethodsMEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched to May 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of early treatment over deferred treatment. Primary outcome measure was mortality, and secondary outcome measures were progression, response rate, and adverse events.ResultsOverall, 5 trials including 449 patients were identified. There was a markedly reduced risk of disease progression with early treatment (Odds Ratio [OR]?=?0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?0.07 to 0.24). There were no significant differences in mortality and response rate (OR?=?0.85, 95% CI?=?0.45 to 1.60, and OR?=?0.63, 95% CI?=?0.32 to 1.23, respectively). More patients in the early treatment arm experienced gastrointestinal toxicities (OR?=?10.02, 95%CI?=?4.32 to 23.23), constipation (OR?=?8.58, 95%CI?=?3.20 to 23.00) and fatigue or asthenia (OR?=?2.72, 95%CI?=?1.30 to 5.67). No significant differences were seen with the development of acute leukemia (OR?=?2.80, 95%CI?=?0.42 to 18.81), hematologic cancer (OR?=?2.07, 95%CI?=?0.43 to 10.01), second primary tumors (OR?=?3.45, 95%CI?=?0.81 to 14.68), nor vertebral compression (OR?=?0.18, 95%CI?=?0.02 to 1.59).ConclusionsEarly treatment delayed disease progression but increased the risk of gastrointestinal toxicities, constipation and fatigue or asthenia. The differences on vertebral compression, acute leukemia, hematological cancer and second primary tumors were not statistically significant. Based on the current evidence, early treatment didn't significantly affect mortality and response rate. However, further much larger trials were needed to provide more evidence.
| S-EPMC4184905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceA thorough understanding of the optimal role and sequence of agents for treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) requires knowledge of the use and rate of postprotocol therapies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).ObjectivesTo examine the proportion of MM RCTs that reported postprotocol therapies and, among those, the percentage of patients who received no further therapy and how treatments differed between the control and intervention arms.Evidence reviewThe reporting of postprotocol therapies was systematically assessed in published MM RCTs using 3 databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials) for MM RCTs from January 1, 2005, to December 30, 2019. All MM RCTs were included, and all other studies, such as editorials, nonrandomized studies, and review articles, were excluded.FindingsA total of 103 RCTs were identified (47 251 patients); of these, 45 (43.7%) reported subsequent treatments in that publication or in any subsequent publication. Trials funded by pharmaceutical companies (26 of 47 [55.3%]) were more likely to report subsequent treatments than cooperative group studies (19 of 56 [33.9%]) (χ21,103 = 4.8; P = .03). Differences were found in the treatments received between the intervention and control arms of RCTs. When data were reported, 5150 of 9351 patients (54.9%) in RCTs of newly diagnosed MM and 2197 of 4501 patients (48.8%) in RCTs of relapsed/refractory MM received any subsequent therapy.Conclusions and relevancePostprotocol therapies in MM RCTs are often not reported and, when they are, many patients receive no further therapy. Reporting guidelines for postprotocol therapies are needed.
| S-EPMC8082314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite major therapeutic advancements, multiple myeloma (MM) is still incurable and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains a challenge; the rational choice of the most appropriate regimen in this setting is currently undefined. We performed a systematic review and 2 standard pairwise meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of regimens that have been directly compared with bortezomib or immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiDs) in head-to-head clinical trials and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the relevance of each regimen on the basis of all the available direct and indirect evidence. Sixteen trials were included in the pairwise meta-analyses, and 18 trials were included in the NMA. Pairwise meta-analyses showed that a 3-drug regimen (bortezomib- or IMiD-based) was superior to a 2-drug regimen in progression-free-survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). NMA showed that an IMiD backbone associated with anti-MM monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (preferably) or proteasome inhibitors had the highest probability of being the most effective regimen with the lowest toxicity. The combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone ranked as the first regimen in terms of activity, efficacy, and tolerability according to the average value between surface under the cumulative ranking curve of PFS, overall survival, ORR, complete response rate, and safety. This is the first NMA comparing all currently available regimens evaluated in published randomized trials for the treatment of RRMM, but our results need to be interpreted taking into account differences in their patient populations. Our analysis suggests that IMiDs plus new anti-MM mAb-containing regimens are the most active therapeutic option in RRMM.
| S-EPMC5738982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS), a disabling demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, is associated with cognitive impairment, spasticity, and fatigue. There are still no established guidelines on the management of MS-related sequela. Memantine has the potential to reduce glutamate toxicity, thereby reducing consequent cognitive impairment, spasticity, and fatigue. Objectives: This study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of memantine in preventing cognitive impairment, reducing spasticity and fatigue, and controlling disability in MS patients through a review of relevant randomized trials. Methods: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and HERDIN were searched from inception to May 2020 for relevant trials. Results: The search yielded 203 articles; four studies were included in the analysis. Pooled evidence shows that memantine compared with placebo does not significantly improve PASAT, ASS, MFIS, and EDSS scores of patients with MS. Memantine is associated with mild adverse drug events such as dizziness, fatigue, and anxiety. Conclusion: There is not enough evidence to support the efficacy of memantine in preventing cognitive decline, controlling spasticity, reducing fatigue, and preventing disability. Future researches should consider the different MS subtypes, effect of co-administration of disease-modifying therapies, longer duration of administration, and more sensitive outcome measures to evaluate the potential benefit of memantine in MS.
| S-EPMC7917060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the past decades, many novel agents have improved response and survival of patients with multiple myeloma. Nevertheless, it remains challenging when they suffer relapsing. Thus, novel therapeutic agents are needed. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a novel agent panobinostat for patients with relapsed or/and refractory MM. A systematic literature review identified studies for clinical trials about panobinostat in patients with relapsed or/and refractory MM. We searched studies published between January 2000 and December 2015 in Pubmed, Ovid, EBSCO and the Cochrane library. Random-effect pooled estimates were calculated for overall response rate and rates of common adverse effects. The results showed 11 clinical trials including 700 patients with relapsed or/and refractory MM treated with panobinostat were identified. The ORR varied between 0.08 and 0.67. Pooled analyses showed the results that the ORR was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.31-0.59, I(2) = 90.5%, P = 0.000) for panobinostat combined with any other kind of drugs. The most common Grade3/4 adverse effects were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, anemia, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea and so on. In conclusion, based on our analyses, the regimen of panobinostat combining with other agents seems to be well tolerated and efficacious in patients with relapsed or/and refractory MM.
| S-EPMC4895230 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based vs non-bortezomib-based post-transplantation therapy in patients with multiple myeloma. METHODS:Data of relevant randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of bortezomib as post-transplantation consolidation or maintenance therapy was obtained through a comprehensive search. The outcome measures included response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse events (AEs). The hazard ratio (HR), Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were applied to evaluate the effect of bortezomib in relation to the end points such as progression-free survival, overall survival, response rate, and AEs. RESULTS:Three randomized controlled trials comprising 1,518 participants were included in this study. Pooled ORs for the rates of overall response, and complete response and near complete response, were 1.85 and 1.75, respectively. Pooled HR for progression-free survival favored bortezomib-based therapy over non-bortezomib-based therapy (0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.81), while no statistically significant difference could be found between the two groups regarding the pooled HR for 3-year overall survival. Moreover, incidence rates of overall adverse events and grade 3 and 4 peripheral neuropathy were similar in the bortezomib-based groups and the non-bortezomib-based groups (P=0.12 and P=0.41, respectively). The corresponding cumulative meta-analyses of the rates of overall response rate, complete response and near complete response, and grades 3 and 4 peripheral neuropathy supported the superiority of bortezomib-based maintenance therapy over consolidation therapy. CONCLUSION:Bortezomib-based therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation, with tolerable AEs, could obviously improve the response as well as the outcome of multiple myeloma patients, particularly when bortezomib was administered as maintenance therapy.
| S-EPMC4474400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMyeloma survival has greatly increased over past decades. We investigated trends in survival over time in New Zealand by age, ethnicity, and geography and thus examined potential inequalities among these population subgroups.MethodsFrom data supplied by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, all new diagnoses of multiple myeloma (ICD-10 code C90) between 1990 and 2016 were extracted, as well as their matched mortality data. Cox's proportional hazards regression and competing risks regression were used to estimate multivariable survival functions.ResultsBetween 1 January 1990 and 1 December 2015, 6642 myeloma cases were registered by the New Zealand Cancer Registry. Although survival from myeloma increased substantially from 1990-1994 to 2010-2015, 5-year survival was still only about 60% in 2010-2015. The greatest improvement in survival was for people aged 60-69 years at diagnosis. Using Cox's proportional hazards regression, Māori showed an increased risk of myeloma death but this was predominantly due to differences in competing risks among ethnic groups. Competing risks analysis found the greatest improvement in myeloma survival in Pacific Islanders, and in 2010-2015 Māori had better survival than other ethnicities. Myeloma survival improved significantly over time in all regional health authorities but in all time periods the Central and Southern regions had significantly poorer survival than the Midland region.ConclusionsImprovements in myeloma survival have been unequal across subgroups and regions in New Zealand. Detailed information about utilization of chemotherapeutic agents and transplantation in New Zealand is not available. This information, as well as more detailed hematological data, is essential to further explore the relationships and reasons for differing myeloma survival in population subgroups of New Zealand.
| S-EPMC8283947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Thromboembolic and bleeding events after vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are major public concerns leading to vaccine hesitancy. Due to low incidence, an individual randomized controlled trial (RCT) is underpowered to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 vaccines increase the risks of thromboembolism and hemorrhage. Methods We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, medRxiv databases, and reference lists of relevant articles to identify RCTs that reported thromboembolic, hemorrhagic events, and thromboembolism/hemorrhage-related death after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled thromboembolic risk related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines compared to placebo. The secondary outcomes included estimating the risks of arterial thromboembolism (ATE), venous thromboembolisms (VTE), hemorrhage, thrombocytopenia, and thromboembolism/hemorrhage-related death. Results Eight RCTs of 4 vaccine platforms comprised of 195,196 participants were retrieved. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were not associated with an increased risk of overall thromboembolism (risk ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.61–2.14; I2 = 35%), ATE (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.46–2.06; I2 = 21%), VTE (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.72–2.99; I2 = 0%), hemorrhage (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.35–2.68; I2 = 0), and thromboembolism/hemorrhage-related death (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.16–1.79; I2 = 0). Compared to the baseline estimated risk of these outcomes in participants administered placebos, the risk differences with vaccines were very small and not statistically significant. These findings were consistent in the subgroup analysis across 4 vaccine platforms. Conclusion Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, hemorrhage, and thromboembolism/hemorrhage-related death. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12959-021-00340-4.
| S-EPMC8590131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Great progress in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has been made due to the development of novel drugs. Patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) can be enrolled in early-phase clinical trials, but their performance across the last decade is unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis on the overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for phase I and phase II trials investigating an experimental compound as a single agent or in combination with dexamethasone, published from January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2020. Eighty-eight articles were included, describing 61 phase I trials involving 1835 patients and 37 phase II trials involving 2644 patients. There was a high degree of heterogeneity. Using a random-effects model, the 95% CIs of the estimated ORR were 8-17% for phase I trials and 18-28% for phase II trials. There were significant subgroup differences in ORR between the years of publication in phase I trials and between drug classes in both phase I and phase II trials. The ORR in early-phase clinical trials in RRMM is substantial, especially in phase II trials, but due to high heterogeneity a general assessment of clinical benefit before participation is difficult to offer to patients.
| S-EPMC7921415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Carfilzomib (Carf) is a second-generation proteasome inhibitor approved for patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who failed ? 1 prior lines of therapy. We performed a systematic review of Carf literature with meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety in RRMM patients.Based on literature search, we included a total of 14 eligible phase I/II, phase II and phase III Carf based clinical trials. The cumulative incidence and odds ratios (OR) were calculated with random effect model, using ''R'' software with metaphor package.2906 evaluable RRMM patients from published clinical trials included. The pooled overall response rate (ORR) was 45% (95% CI: 29-62). The pooled clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 56% (95% CI: 41-71). OR from 3 randomized clinical trials showed that Carf significantly improved ORR and CBR compared to control groups (OR 2.4, P < 0.0001; 2.02, P = 0.0007, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed significantly better ORR (P < 0.0001) and CBR (P < 0.001) with combination regimens compared to monotherapy. Response was significantly higher with high dose of Carf (>20/27 mg/m2) compared to standard dose (ORR 65% vs. 35%, P = 0.03). Compared to control group, the OR of developing cardiotoxicity (P = 0.002) and hypertension (P < 0.0001) were significantly higher with Carf, while no difference in peripheral neuropathy (P = 0.28).Carf produces significantly better responses with acceptable safety profile in RRMM patients. Combination regimens and higher dose Carf offers better response with no significant extra toxicity. Its efficacy is regardless of cytogenetics or disease stage. Incidences of cardiotoxicity and hypertension seem higher with Carf.
| S-EPMC5955098 | biostudies-literature