Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of frontline regimens for older transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Several treatment options are available for the management of older adults with newly diagnosed patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) who are ineligible for hematopoietic cell transplantation (tiMM). We aimed to identify treatment options that provide the best balance in terms of efficacy and safety.

Methods

We searched bibliographic databases and meeting libraries for search terms reflecting newly diagnosed and older and/or transplant-ineligible patients from inception to October 21, 2018. Phase II/III randomized trials comparing at least two first line treatment regimens for newly diagnosed tiMM were included. We extracted data on efficacy (progression free survival, PFS, overall survival and overall response rate) and safety (grade ¾ toxicities) and conducted network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods and random effects models. Relative ranking of treatment regimens was assessed using Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.

Results

We identified 27 trials involving 12,194 patients. For PFS, the four most effective regimens were: Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Melphalan and Prednisone (SUCRA 0.960) followed by Daratumumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara_RD, SUCRA 0.847), Bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide (SUCRA 0.834) and Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (SUCRA 0.739). Among these four most efficacious regimens, toxicity profile was most favorable for Dara_RD (median additional AEs per patient vs dexamethasone = 0.74; 95% CrI 0.51-1.17; SUCRA 0.430).

Conclusion

Among first line tiMM regimens, increasing efficacy is associated with increased toxicity. We provide relative ranking of these regimens for both efficacy and safety. Future studies should incorporate geriatric assessments and frailty biomarkers to refine treatment decision-making for each individual patient.

SUBMITTER: Giri S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8721742 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough the number of treatments for elderly patients with non-transplant-eligible (NTE) multiple myeloma (MM) has increased substantially, evidence is lacking on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel treatment sequences.ObjectiveTo determine the optimal sequence of treatment for patients with NTE MM from the perspective of the patient, physician, and society.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data from a Dutch observational registry, this economic evaluation combined evidence from network meta-analyses in a patient-level simulation model and modeled time-to-event and types of events from a hospital perspective with a lifetime horizon. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to September 2020.InterventionsThirty treatment sequences, including up to 3 lines of therapy, were compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP)-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LenDex)-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (PomDex).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes of the model were overall survival (OS), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness.ResultsSequences starting with daratumumab-VMP (second line: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone or elotuzumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide-maintenance bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) (second line: daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) had the largest expected OS (7.5 years), which is 3.5 additional life-years compared with VMP-LenDex-PomDex. Total costs per patient for these sequences ranged between $786 024 and $1 085 794. The sequence VMPT-VT-carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone-panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio ($98 585 per life-year gained and $132 707 per QALY gained vs VMP-LenDex-PomDex).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that sequences including novel treatments were highly effective, but the cost-effectiveness ratios were above currently accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treating MM with novel agents necessitates either a large increase in budget or a substantial reduction of drug costs by price negotiations, and these findings can support these reimbursement decisions and price negotiations.