Dataset Information

Defining Unmet Need Following Lenalidomide Refractoriness: Real-World Evidence of Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma (MM) continues to evolve with the development of novel therapies and the earlier adoption of continuous treatments into the treatment pathway. Lenalidomide-refractory patients now represent a challenge with inferior progression free survival (PFS) reported to subsequent treatments. We therefore sought to describe the natural history of MM patients following lenalidomide in the real world.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort review of patients with relapsed MM who received lenalidomide-based treatments in the U.K. Data were collected for demographics, subsequent therapies, treatment responses, survival outcomes and clinical trial enrollment.

Results

198 patients received lenalidomide-based treatments at a median of 2 prior lines of therapy at a median of 41 months (range 0.5-210) from diagnosis. 114 patients (72% of 158 evaluable) became refractory to lenalidomide. The overall survival (OS) after lenalidomide failure was 14.7 months having received between 0-6 subsequent lines of therapy. Few deep responses were observed with subsequent treatments and the PFS to each further line was < 7 months. There was a steep reduction in numbers of patients able to receive further treatment, with an associated increase in number of deaths. The OS of patients progressing on lenalidomide who did not enter a clinical trial incorporating novel agents was very poor (8.8 months versus 30 months, p 0.0002), although the trials group were a biologically fitter group.

Conclusion

These data demonstrate the poor outcomes of patients failing lenalidomide-based treatments in the real world, the highlight need for more effective treatments.

SUBMITTER: Lecat CSY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8335564 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a large randomized trial examining ethnic differences in response to a brief alcohol intervention following an alcohol-related injury, we showed that Hispanics, but not non-Hispanics, were more likely to reduce alcohol intake in comparison with treatment as usual (Addiction 105:62, 2010). The current study evaluates whether the observed improvements in drinking outcomes previously reported among Hispanics following brief intervention might be related to prior or subsequent treatment utilization.MethodsThis study is a secondary analysis of data collected in a randomized clinical trial that evaluated ethnic differences in the effect of a brief motivational intervention (BMI) on alcohol use among medical inpatients admitted for alcohol-related injury. For this study, statistical analyses were carried out to compare alcohol use, alcohol problems, treatment utilization, and unmet treatment need between Hispanic (n = 537) and non-Hispanic White (n = 668) inpatients. In addition, we examined the relationship between prior treatment utilization and unmet treatment need and alcohol use outcomes following brief intervention and the impact of brief intervention on subsequent treatment utilization and unmet treatment need.ResultsIn comparison with non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics at baseline reported heavier drinking, more alcohol problems, greater unmet treatment need, and lower rates of treatment utilization. Among Hispanics, multilevel analyses showed that prior treatment utilization or unmet treatment need did not moderate the effect of BMI on alcohol outcomes. Furthermore, BMI did not significantly impact subsequent treatment utilization or unmet treatment need among Hispanics. Finally, treatment utilization and unmet treatment need at 6 months were not significant mediators between BMI and alcohol use outcomes at follow-up.ConclusionsThe benefits of brief intervention among Hispanics do not appear to be better explained by subsequent engagement in mutual help groups or formal substance abuse treatment. Prior history of treatment, regardless of the severity of alcohol problems, does not appear to influence the impact of brief intervention on alcohol use among Hispanics. These findings support prior results reporting the benefits of brief intervention among Hispanics and demonstrate that these improvements are not related to prior or subsequent treatment utilization.

Project description:Most patients cannot be included in randomized clinical trials. We report real-world outcomes of all Danish patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with daratumumab-based regimens until 1 January 2019.MethodsInformation of 635 patients treated with daratumumab was collected retrospectively and included lines of therapy (LOT), hematologic responses according to the International Myeloma Working Group recommendations, time to next treatment (TNT) and the cause of discontinuation of treatment. Baseline characteristics were acquired from the validated Danish Multiple Myeloma Registry (DMMR).ResultsDaratumumab was administrated as monotherapy (Da-mono) in 27.7%, in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (Da-IMiD) in 57.3%, in combination with proteasome inhibitors (Da-PI) in 11.2% and in other combinations (Da-other) in 3.8% of patients. The median number of lines of therapy given before daratumumab was 5 for Da-mono, 3 for Da-IMiD, 4 for Da-PI, and 2 for Da-other. In Da-mono, overall response rate (ORR) was 44.9% and median time to next treatment (mTNT) was 4.9 months. In Da-IMiD, ORR was 80.5%, and mTNT was 16.1 months. In Da-PI, OOR was 60.6% and mTNT was 5.3 months. In patients treated with Da-other, OOR was 54,2% and mTNT was 5.6 months. The use of daratumumab in early LOT was associated with longer TNT (p<0.0001). Patients with amplification 1q had outcome comparable to standard risk patients, while patients with t(4;14), t(14;16) or del17p had worse outcome (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis indicated that timing of treatment (timing of daratumumab in the sequence of all LOT that the patients received throughout the course of their disease) was the most important factor for outcome (p<0.0001).ConclusionThe real-world outcomes of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab are worse than the results of clinical trials. Outcomes achieved with daratumumab were best when daratumumab was used in combination with IMIDs and in early LOT. Patients with high-risk CA had worse outcomes, but patients with amp1q had similar outcomes to standard-risk patients.