Efficacy of first-line treatments for multiple myeloma patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation: a network meta-analysis

Clinical consensus on treatments for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: double-blinded Delphi panel

Aim: Obtain clinical consensus on factors impacting first-line prescribing for transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Materials & methods: A double-blinded, modified Delphi panel was employed. USA-based hematologists/oncologists who treat TIE patients with NDMM were selected as expert panelists. Results: Consensus was reached that patient frailty, performance status, comorbidities, treatment efficacy, and adverse event profile affect first-line prescribing. All panelists agreed it is important to use the most efficacious treatment first; 88% of panelists considered daratumumab-containing regimens the most efficacious. Panelists agreed treatment should be continued until progression while benefits outweigh risk. Conclusion: Findings reinforce the importance of using the most efficacious regimen upfront for TIE NDMM, and nearly all panelists considered daratumumab-containing regimens the most efficacious treatment.

Revisiting the Role of Alkylating Agents in Multiple Myeloma: Up-to-Date Evidence and Future Perspectives

From the 1960s to the early 2000s, alkylating agents (e.g., melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and bendamustine) remained a key component of standard therapy for newly-diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Later on, their associated toxicities (including second primary malignancies) and the unprecedented efficacy of novel therapies have led clinicians to increasingly consider alkylator-free approaches. Meanwhile, new alkylating agents (e.g., melflufen) and new applications of old alkylators (e.g., lymphodepletion before chimeric antigen receptor T-cell [CAR-T] therapy) have emerged in recent years. Given the expanding use of antigen-directed modalities (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibodies, and CAR-T therapy), this review explores the current and future role of alkylating agents in different treatment settings (e.g., induction, consolidation, stem cell mobilization, pre-transplant conditioning, salvage, bridging, and lymphodepleting chemotherapy) to ellucidate the role of alkylator-based regimens in modern-day MM management.

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.

Treatment Regimens for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis

Introduction

Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of relevant therapies for the treatment of TIE patients with NDMM.

Methods

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different treatment options for TIE patients with NDMM were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA includes recent primary and long-term OS readouts from SWOG S0777, ENDURANCE, MAIA, and ALCYONE. Relevant trials were identified through a systematic literature review. Relative efficacy measures (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs] for PFS and OS) were extracted and synthesised in random-effects NMAs.

Results

A total of 122 publications describing 45 unique RCTs was identified. Continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) was selected as the referent comparator. Daratumumab-containing treatments (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd], daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) had the highest probabilities of being more effective than Rd continuous for PFS (HR: D-Rd, 0.53; D-VMP, 0.57, VRd, 0.77) and OS (HR: D-Rd, 0.68; VRd, 0.77, D-VMP, 0.78). D-Rd had the highest chance of being ranked as the most effective treatment with respect to PFS and OS. Results using a smaller network focusing on only those regimens that are relevant in Europe were consistent with the primary analysis.

Conclusions

These comparative effectiveness data may help inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02083-8.

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

BACKGROUND

Despite major therapeutic advances, the rational choice of the most appropriate first-line regimen in newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma (TIE-MM) is currently undefined.

AIM

We aimed to identify the most effective first-line treatment for TIE-MM patients.

METHODS

A total of 37 articles, including 34 treatments and 16,681 patients, were included in this Bayesian network meta-analysis. The outcomes of interest were risk ratios (RR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Based on surface under cumulative ranking curve values, daratumumab-bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (Dara-VMP) and daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Dara-Rd28) showed superiority compared to other combinations regarding 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month PFS. Dara-VMP also ranked first for 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month OS.

CONCLUSION

Our finding supports the incorporation of daratumumab into first-line regimens. Additionally, these results highlight the relative benefit of incorporating novel agents like monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory derivatives, and proteasome inhibitors in combination with the currently existing treatment options.

Cost-effectiveness of Novel Treatment Sequences for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma

IMPORTANCE

Although 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.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal sequence of treatment for patients with NTE MM from the perspective of the patient, physician, and society.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using 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.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty 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 MEASURES

The primary outcomes of the model were overall survival (OS), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Sequences 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 RELEVANCE

These 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.

Bortezomib-based therapy in non-transplant multiple myeloma patients: a retrospective cohort study from the FABIO project

Introduction:

Randomized clinical trials showed that bortezomib, in addition to conventional chemotherapy, improves survival and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation. The aim of this retrospective population-based cohort study is the evaluation of both clinical and economic profile of bortezomib-based versus conventional chemotherapy in daily clinical practice.

Methods:

Healthcare utilization databases of six Italian regions were used to identify adult patients with non-transplant MM, who started a first-line therapy with bortezomib-based or conventional chemotherapy. Patients were matched by propensity score and were followed from treatment start until death, lost to follow-up or study end-point. Overall survival (OS) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Association between first-line treatment and risk of death was estimated by a conditional Cox proportional regression model. Average mean cumulative costs were estimated and compared between groups.

Results:

In the period 2010–2016, 3509 non-transplant MM patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 1157 treated with bortezomib-based therapy were matched to 1826 treated with conventional chemotherapy. Median OS and RMST were 33.9 and 27.9 months, and 42.9 and 38.4 months, respectively, in the two treatment arms. Overall, these values corresponded to a HR of death of 0.79 (95% CI 0.71–0.89) over a time horizon of 84 months. Average cumulative cost were 83,839 € and 54,499 €, respectively, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 54,333 € per year of life gained, a cost coherent with the willingness-to-pay thresholds frequently adopted from Western countries.

Conclusions:

These data suggested that, in a large cohort of non-transplant MM patients treated outside the experimental setting, first-line treatment with bortezomib-based therapy was associated with a favourable effectiveness and cost-effectiveness profile.

Bortezomib-Based Regimens for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma in China: A Report of 12-Year Real-World Data

Background: Improve the treatment quality might affect patients’ efficacy and survival.

Methods: Five hundred thirty multiple myeloma patients treated in four hematological centers in China from February 2006 to August 2018 were enrolled. General characteristics, treatment regimens and cycles, efficacy, survival and adverse events of the patients treated before and after August 2013 (later refer to as the before-2013 and after-2013 group) were analyzed and compared.

Results: The results suggested that patients who received optimized treatment regimen and route of administration completed more cycles of treatment in the after-2013 group. Although the overall response rate was similar between the two groups (88.6 vs. 90.5%), patients in the after-2013 group had higher complete remission rate (39.1 vs. 28.6%) and better progression-free survival. Subgroup analysis suggested that patients aged 65 years and older, with non-high-risk D-S, ISS, and R-ISS stages, had a significant benefit in progression-free survival.

Conclusion: Therefore, in clinical practice in China, by reducing the economic burden brought by the treatment on patients and optimizing the treatment regimen, more patients can be treated with better regimens in a prolonged duration to achieve better efficacy and survival, especially in elderly and non-high-risk patients.

Daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs standard-of-care regimens: Efficacy in transplant-ineligible untreated myeloma

Daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (D‐Rd) recently received FDA approval for the treatment of transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The present PEGASUS study compared progression‐free survival (PFS) in patients treated with D‐Rd in the MAIA trial and patients treated with common standard‐of‐care regimens from the Flatiron Health electronic health record‐derived deidentified database, which has data from patients treated primarily at community‐based oncology practices in the United States. Individual‐level patient data from both data sources were used to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of D‐Rd to bortezomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (VRd) and bortezomib‐dexamethasone (Vd); lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (Rd) was the common anchor for the ITC. Hazard ratios (HRs) reflecting direct comparisons of PFS within MAIA (D‐Rd vs Rd) and Flatiron Health (VRd vs Rd; Vd vs Rd) were used to make ITCs for D‐Rd vs VRd and Vd, respectively. After application of MAIA inclusion/exclusion criteria and propensity‐score weighting, the Flatiron Health patients resembled the MAIA trial population on measured baseline characteristics. Based on the direct comparison within MAIA, treatment with D‐Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to Rd (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42, 0.71). Based on the ITCs, D‐Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to VRd (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48, 0.98) and Vd (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33, 0.69). In the absence of head‐to‐head trials comparing D‐Rd to VRd or Vd, the present ITC may help inform treatment selection in transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM.

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

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.

Updated Perspectives on the Management of Multiple Myeloma in Older Patients: Focus on Lenalidomide

Multiple myeloma is a hematologic malignancy that predominantly affects older adults, with a median age at diagnosis of 70 years old. A mainstay of multiple myeloma treatment is lenalidomide, which is an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) that changed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma. This is particularly true for older adults who do not undergo autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Several pivotal trials summarized in this review demonstrate the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in older adults with multiple myeloma, including significant improvements in response rates, progression-free survival and overall survival in the first-line and relapsed/refractory settings. Potential adverse effects include venous thromboembolism, cytopenias, and second malignancies and the doses tolerated in real-world older patients are often lower than those utilized in clinical trials enrolling select older patients. Given the heterogeneity of aging, several approaches to measuring frailty have been developed and validated to aid in predicting which older adults may benefit from empiric dose reduction to reduce the risk of toxicity and improve the tolerability of treatment. A number of randomized trials have explored a range of approaches utilizing lenalidomide in older adults in both the up-front and relapsed setting, ranging from attenuated maintenance strategies through quadruplet combination therapies including proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. This wealth of literature provides a great number of options, which can make it difficult for a clinician to determine a single optimal recommendation for an individual patient. While lenalidomide is currently part of standard of care, the treatment of multiple myeloma is growing rapidly. There is a need to expand clinical trials participation to older adults with multiple myeloma. Incorporation of validated comprehensive geriatric assessments in clinical trials for multiple myeloma could provide a more accurate depiction of the older patient population and is an area for future exploration.

Monoclonal antibodies in newly diagnosed and smoldering multiple myeloma: an updated review of current clinical evidence

Introduction: Monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) are rapidly changing the therapeutic scenario of multiple myeloma. Most of the available data, however, come from studies performed in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.Area covered: Here, the most recent results from clinical trials that have investigated (or are investigating) efficacy and safety of MoAbs as front-line treatments in both transplant-eligible and not-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, as well as in smoldering myeloma, are reviewed. PubMed reported articles before 28 March 2020, and abstracts presented at the last ASCO, ASH, EHA, and IMW meetings were considered. Among others, pertinent data regarding daratumumab, isatuximab, elotuzumab, and pembrolizumab will be analyzed.Expert opinion: Introduction of MoAbs as first-line therapy will likely provide a significant improvement in the clinical outcome of patients with multiple myeloma. This will also require an appropriate re-positioning of salvage therapies. The role of MoAbs in smoldering myeloma appears to be promising, but adequate follow-up is needed.

Multiple drug combinations of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide for first-line treatment in adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a "c". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design. Overall survival (OS) Evidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty). Progression-free survival (PFS) Treatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months). Adverse events The risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc. VMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared. Treatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP. Quality of life QoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.

Relative efficacy of treatment options in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results from a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

Established treatments for transplant-ineligible (TNE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) include melphalan and prednisone (MP) combined with either bortezomib (VMP) or thalidomide (MPT), or lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). New treatments for TNE NDMM include Rd plus bortezomib (RVd) and daratumumab plus VMP (VMP + D), daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D + Rd). Relative efficacy of these treatments was compared using a network meta-analysis. Eight trials identified by a systematic literature review were included in the primary analysis; hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used. Rd was superior to other MP-based regimens for OS and PFS. There was strong evidence that, compared with Rd, both D + Rd and RVd improved PFS (HR 0.57; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.43, 0.73 and HR 0.72; 95% CrI 0.56, 0.91, respectively). However, there was strong evidence only for RVd in respect to OS (HR 0.72; 95% CrI 0.52, 0.96).

Monoclonal Antibody Therapies in Multiple Myeloma: A Challenge to Develop Novel Targets

The treatment options in multiple myeloma (MM) has changed dramatically over the past decade with the development of novel agents such as proteasome inhibitors (PIs); bortezomib and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs); thalidomide, and lenalidomide which revealed high efficacy and improvement of overall survival (OS) in MM patients. However, despite these progresses, most patients relapse and become eventually refractory to these therapies. Thus, the development of novel, targeted immunotherapies has been pursued aggressively. Recently, next-generation PIs; carfilzomib and ixazomib, IMiD; pomalidomide, histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDADi); panobinostat and monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); and elotuzumab and daratumumab have emerged, and especially, combination of mAbs plus novel agents has led to dramatic improvements in the outcome of MM patients. The field of immune therapies has been accelerating in the treatment of hematological malignancies and has also taken center stage in MM. This review focuses on an overview of current status of novel MoAb therapy including bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) antibody (BsAb), antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, in relapsed or refractory MM (RRMM). Lastly, investigational novel MoAb-based therapy to overcome immunotherapy resistance in MM is shown.