Efficacy of first-line treatment options in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: A network meta-analysis

Lenalidomide or Thalidomide for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma? An Overview of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES

To present an overview of evidence of efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life of lenalidomide or thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in 5 databases until July 2022. We included systematic reviews with network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the use of lenalidomide compared with thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was used to appraise the quality of included reviews. The results were focused on the lenalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (RDc) versus thalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (TDc) and induction with melphalan + prednisone + lenalidomide, followed by maintenance with lenalidomide (MPR-R) versus induction with melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide, followed by maintenance with thalidomide (MPT-T) regimens.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. Only 1 study did not show any weakness in critical domains of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. For overall survival, RDc proved to be superior to TDc; however, no study showed significant difference between MPR-R and MPT-T. For progression-free survival, 2 of 3 studies showed that RDc is better than TDc; however, no difference between MPR-R and MPT-T was found. Regarding safety, these lenalidomide-based regimens had a lower risk for neurologic adverse events, with an increased risk of hematologic adverse events. No health-related quality of life meta-analyses were found.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that, in terms of efficacy and safety, lenalidomide-based regimen is a good option for treatment of transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in the public health system of Brazil, especially for those patients who develop severe neuropathy with thalidomide.

Structure and function of therapeutic antibodies approved by the US FDA in 2023

In calendar year 2023, the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved a total of 55 new molecular entities, of which 12 were in the class of therapeutic antibodies. Besides antibody protein drugs, the US FDA also approved another five non-antibody protein drugs, making the broader class of protein drugs about 31% of the total approved drugs. Among the 12 therapeutic antibodies approved by the US FDA, 8 were relatively standard IgG formats, 3 were bivalent, bispecific antibodies and 1 was a trivalent, bispecific antibody. In 2023, no new antibody-drug conjugates, immunocytokines or chimeric antigen receptor-T cells were approved. Of the approved antibodies, two targeted programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1) for orphan indications, two targeted CD20 for diffuse large B cell lymphoma, two targeted different receptors (B-cell maturation antigen [BCMA] and G-coupled protein receptor class C, group 5, member D [GPRC5D]) for treatment of multiple myeloma, and one each that targeted amyloid-β protofibrils for Alzheimer's disease, neonatal Fc receptor alpha-chain for myasthenia gravis, complement factor C5 for CD55 deficiency with hyper-activation of complement, angiopathic thrombosis and severe protein-losing enteropathy disease, interleukin (IL)-23p19 for severely active ulcerative colitis, IL-17A-F for plaque psoriasis and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-F protein for season-long RSV prophylaxis in infants.

Efficacy and safety of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives

The current study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) through meta-analysis.

Methods

As of June 2023, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the clinical outcomes of anti-CD38 mAbs plus immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) plus dexamethasone and IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone for RRMM patients were included. Efficacy outcomes were mainly evaluated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The safety was analyzed with hematologic and nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). All results were pooled using hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR), and their 95% confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI).

Results

This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs in total. Compared with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone, anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone significantly prolonged PFS (HR: 0.552, 95% CI = 0.461 to 0.659, 95% PI = 0.318 to 0.957) and OS (HR: 0.737, 95% CI = 0.657 to 0.827, 95% PI = 0.626 to 0.868) in patients with RRMM. Additionally, RRMM patients receiving anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone achieved higher rates of overall response (RR: 1.281, 95% CI = 1.144 to 1.434, 95% PI = 0.883 to 1.859), complete response or better (RR: 2.602, 95% CI = 1.977 to 3.424, 95% PI = 1.203 to 5.628), very good partial response (VGPR) or better (RR: 1.886, 95% CI = 1.532 to 2.322, 95% PI = 0.953 to 3.731), and minimum residual disease (MRD)-negative (RR: 4.147, 95% CI = 2.588 to 6.644, 95% PI = 1.056 to 16.283) than those receiving IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone. For TEAEs, the rates of hematologic and nonhematologic TEAEs, including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), pneumonia, bronchitis, dyspnea, diarrhea, pyrexia, back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia, and hypertension, were higher in the anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone group than in the IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone group.

Conclusion

Our study showed that anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone improved PFS and OS, and achieved higher rates of overall response, complete response or better, VGPR or better, and MRD-negative, as well as higher rates of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, URTI, pneumonia, bronchitis, dyspnea, diarrhea, pyrexia, back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia, and hypertension in RRMM patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023431071.

Network meta-analysis of randomized trials in multiple myeloma: Efficacy and safety in frontline therapy for patients not eligible for transplant

The treatment scenario for newly-diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients (NEMM) is quickly evolving. Currently, combinations of proteasome inhibitors and/or immunomodulatory drugs +/- the monoclonal antibody Daratumumab are used for first-line treatment, even if head-to-head comparisons are lacking. To compare efficacy and safety of these regimens, we performed a network meta-analysis of 27 phase 2/3 randomized trials including a total of 12,935 patients and 23 different schedules. Four efficacy/outcome and one safety indicators were extracted and integrated to obtain (for each treatment) the surface under the cumulative ranking-curve (SUCRA), a metric used to build a ranking chart. With a mean SUCRA of 83.8 and 80.08 respectively, VMP + Daratumumab (DrVMP) and Rd + Daratumumab (DrRd) reached the top of the chart. However, SUCRA is designed to work for single outcomes. To overcome this limitation, we undertook a dimensionality reduction approach through a principal component analysis, that unbiasedly grouped the 23 regimens into three different subgroups. On the bases of our results, we demonstrated that first line treatment for NEMM should be based on DrRd (most active, but continuous treatment), DrVMP (quite "fixed-time" treatment), or, alternatively, VRD and that, surprisingly, melphalan as well as Rd doublets still deserve a role in this setting.