Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost-of-Illness in Systemic Light Chain (AL) Amyloidosis in Europe: Results From the Real-World, Retrospective EMN23 Study

OBJECTIVES

To report healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and safety outcomes in systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis from the EMN23 study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective, observational, multinational EMN23 study included 4,480 patients initiating first-line treatment for AL amyloidosis in 2004-2018 and assessed, among other objectives, HCRU and safety outcomes. HCRU included hospitalizations, examinations, and dialysis; safety included serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Data were descriptively analyzed by select prognostic factors (e.g., cardiac staging by Mayo2004/European) for 2004-2010 and 2011-2018. A cost-of-illness analysis was conducted for the UK and Spain.

RESULTS

HCRU/safety and dialysis data were extracted for 674 and 774 patients, respectively. Of patients with assessed cardiac stage (2004-2010: 159; 2011-2018: 387), 67.9% and 61.0% had ≥ 1 hospitalization, 56.0% and 51.4% had ≥ 1 SAE, and 31.4% and 28.9% had ≥ 1 AESI across all cardiac stages in 2004-2010 and 2011-2018, respectively. The per-patient-per-year length of hospitalization increased with disease severity (cardiac stage). Of patients with dialysis data (2004-2010: 176; 2011-2018: 453), 23.9% and 14.8% had ≥ 1 dialysis session across all cardiac stages in 2004-2010 and 2011-2018, respectively. The annual cost-of-illness was estimated at €40,961,066 and €31,904,386 for the UK and Spain, respectively; dialysis accounted for ∼28% (UK) and ∼35% (Spain) of the total AL amyloidosis costs.

CONCLUSIONS

EMN23 showed that the burden of AL amyloidosis is substantial, highlighting the need for early disease diagnosis and effective treatments targeting the underlying pathology.

Lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) versus bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone (VMP) in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: A comparison of two prospective trials

There are currently no direct head-to-head clinical trials evaluating bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) versus lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd). VMP (257 cases) and Rd (222 cases) arms of two randomized phase III trials were employed to assess the treatment influence on outcome in untreated elderly MM patients. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary and secondary end-points, respectively, and were investigated according to treatments administered over a 60-months follow-up period. While VMP significantly reduced the disease progression rate between enrolment and 12 months of follow-up, no difference between the two schedules was found between 12 and 32 months. After 32 months, Rd-treated patients had a lower incidence of disease progression. A statistically significant higher OS rate was seen in the VMP arm, which was maintained after data adjustment for potential confounders. Both approaches showed acceptable toxicity profiles. The profound tumor reduction by VMP over Rd justifies the initial higher PFS rate in favor of the bortezomib schedule, while the Rd regimen overcomes this evident initial drawback in reducing the tumor burden by long-term drug administration, gaining a subsequent improved disease control. VMP is associated with a significant reduced risk of death. This study may help physicians make a more informed therapy choice.

Individualizing treatment decisions for older adults with hematologic malignancies

Hematologic malignancies are a common cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults, who represent the majority of patients diagnosed with these diseases. Treatment options and disease outcomes have improved in recent years because of the development of novel treatment strategies and the design of elderly-specific clinical trials. Despite this, extrapolation of clinical trial data to patients routinely seen in practice is challenging because of the presence of multimorbidity and functional impairments. Individualized treatment decision making requires not only an understanding of underlying tumor biology but also careful estimation of an older patient's anticipated ability to withstand the stresses of therapy. This article will discuss approaches to standardizing patient assessment strategies and tailoring therapeutic decisions for older adults with hematologic malignancies with a focus on acute myeloid leukemia (AML), allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, multiple myeloma (MM), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard approach in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Our aims were to compare consolidation with high-dose melphalan plus ASCT versus chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) plus lenalidomide, and maintenance with lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide alone.

METHODS

We did an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 study at 59 centres in Australia, Czech Republic, and Italy. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma aged 65 years or younger. Patients received a common induction with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and subsequent chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (3 g/m(2)) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for stem-cell mobilisation and collection. Using a 2 × 2 partial factorial design, we randomised patients to consolidation with either chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (six cycles of cyclophosphamide [300 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15], dexamethasone [40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22], and lenalidomide [25 mg, days 1-21]) or two courses of high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) and ASCT. We also randomised patients to maintenance with lenalidomide (10 mg, days 1-21) plus prednisone (50 mg, every other day) or lenalidomide alone. A simple randomisation sequence was used to assign patients at enrolment into one of the four groups (1:1:1:1 ratio), but the treatment allocation was disclosed only when the patient reached the end of the induction and confirmed their eligibility for consolidation. Both the patient and the treating clinician did not know the consolidation and maintenance arm until that time. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention-to-treat. The trial is ongoing and some patients are still receiving maintenance. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01091831.

FINDINGS

389 patients were enrolled between July 6, 2009, and May 6, 2011, with 256 eligible for consolidation (127 high-dose melphalan and ASCT and 129 chemotherapy plus lenalidomide) and 223 eligible for maintenance (117 lenalidomide plus prednisone and 106 lenalidomide alone). Median follow-up was 52·0 months (IQR 30·4-57·6). Progression-free survival during consolidation was significantly shorter with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide compared with high-dose melphalan and ASCT (median 28·6 months [95% CI 20·6-36·7] vs 43·3 months [33·2-52·2]; hazard ratio [HR] for the first 24 months 2·51, 95% CI 1·60-3·94; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival did not differ between maintenance treatments (median 37·5 months [95% CI 27·8-not evaluable] with lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 28·5 months [22·5-46·5] with lenalidomide alone; HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59-1·20; p=0·34). Fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide than with high-dose melphalan and ASCT; the most frequent were haematological (34 [26%] of 129 patients vs 107 [84%] of 127 patients), gastrointestinal (six [5%] vs 25 [20%]), and infection (seven [5%] vs 24 [19%]). Haematological serious adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and no patients allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (10%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and nine (7%) allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. During maintenance, adverse events did not differ between groups. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [8%] of 117 patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 14 [13%] of 106 allocated lenalidomide alone), infection (eight [8%] vs five [5%]), and systemic toxicities (seven [6%] vs two [2%]). Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (11%) patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone versus ten (9%) allocated lenalidomide alone. Four patients died because of adverse events, three from infections (two during induction and one during consolidation) and one because of cardiac toxic effects.

INTERPRETATION

Consolidation with high-dose melphalan and ASCT remains the preferred option in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma, despite a better toxicity profile with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide.

FUNDING

Celgene.

European Myeloma Network recommendations on the evaluation and treatment of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma management has undergone profound changes in the past thanks to advances in our understanding of the disease biology and improvements in treatment and supportive care approaches. This article presents recommendations of the European Myeloma Network for newly diagnosed patients based on the GRADE system for level of evidence. All patients with symptomatic disease should undergo risk stratification to classify patients for International Staging System stage (level of evidence: 1A) and for cytogenetically defined high- versus standard-risk groups (2B). Novel-agent-based induction and up-front autologous stem cell transplantation in medically fit patients remains the standard of care (1A). Induction therapy should include a triple combination of bortezomib, with either adriamycin or thalidomide and dexamethasone (1A), or with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (2B). Currently, allogeneic stem cell transplantation may be considered for young patients with high-risk disease and preferably in the context of a clinical trial (2B). Thalidomide (1B) or lenalidomide (1A) maintenance increases progression-free survival and possibly overall survival (2B). Bortezomib-based regimens are a valuable consolidation option, especially for patients who failed excellent response after autologous stem cell transplantation (2A). Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone or melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide are the standards of care for transplant-ineligible patients (1A). Melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide with lenalidomide maintenance increases progression-free survival, but overall survival data are needed. New data from the phase III study (MM-020/IFM 07-01) of lenalidomide-low-dose dexamethasone reached its primary end point of a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival as compared to melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide and provides further evidence for the efficacy of lenalidomide-low-dose dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible patients (2B).

Bortezomib, melphalan, prednisone (VMP) versus melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide (MPT) in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: A retrospective case-matched study

Novel agents in combination with melphalan and prednisone (MP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma (MM). Randomized trials comparing MP plus bortezomib (VMP) versus MP plus thalidomide (MPT) are lacking. Nine hundred and fifty-six elderly (>65 years) newly diagnosed MM patients from six European randomized trials were retrospectively analyzed and matched for age, albumin, and beta2-microglobulin at diagnosis, 296 patients were selected from the VMP groups, and 294 from MPT. Complete response rate was 21% in the VMP patients and 13% in the MPT patients (P = 0.007). After a median follow-up of 34 months (range, 1-92), VMP significantly prolonged both PFS (median 32.5 vs. 22.9 months, HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.82; P < 0.001) and OS (median 79.7 vs. 45.1 months, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.32-0.59; P < 0.001) in comparison with MPT. The benefit in terms of OS of the VMP group was quite similar among patients with different risk factors defined by sex, ISS, ECOG performance status, or serum creatinine but not among patients ≥ 75 years. Multivariate analysis confirmed that VMP was an independent predictor of longer PFS and OS. In a control-case matched analysis, PFS and OS were prolonged in patients who received VMP in comparison with those treated with MPT.

MET dysregulation is a hallmark of aggressive disease in multiple myeloma patients

Abnormal activation of MET/HGF (Hepatocyte Growth Factor) pathway has been described in several tumours and increased HGF plasmatic levels have been detected in patients with aggressive multiple myeloma (MM). MET and HGF mRNA expression was investigated in 105 samples of purified plasma cells derived from newly diagnosed MM patients treated with bortezomib-based induction therapy. Gene expression was compared with response to therapy and clinical outcome. MET gene copy number was also evaluated. MET mRNA expression was higher in CD138(+) than in CD138(-) cells (median 76·90 vs. 11·24; P = 0·0009). Low MET mRNA expression characterized patients with better response (complete response or very good partial response) compared to other patients (median 56·10 vs. 134·83; P = 0·0006). After a median follow-up of 50 months, patients with high MET mRNA expression displayed a worse progression-free survival (PFS; P = 0·0029) and overall survival (OS; P = 0·0023) compared to those with low MET mRNA levels. Patients with both high MET mRNA expression and high β2-microglobulin level (>5·5 mg/l) had further worse median PFS (P < 0·0001) and OS (P < 0·0001). Patients carrying 4 MET gene copies (8 out of 82, 9·8%) also had a short PFS. High MET mRNA expression identifies patients with dismal PFS and OS and the combination with high β2-microglobulin further characterizes patients with worse outcome.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide followed by maintenance with bortezomib-thalidomide compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma: updated follow-up and improved survival

PURPOSE

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) has improved overall survival in multiple myeloma. This randomized trial compared VMP plus thalidomide (VMPT) induction followed by bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance (VMPT-VT) with VMP in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomly assigned 511 patients who were not eligible for transplantation to receive VMPT-VT (nine 5-week cycles of VMPT followed by 2 years of VT maintenance) or VMP (nine 5-week cycles without maintenance).

RESULTS

In the initial analysis with a median follow-up of 23 months, VMPT-VT improved complete response rate from 24% to 38% and 3-year progression-free-survival (PFS) from 41% to 56% compared with VMP. In this analysis, median follow-up was 54 months. The median PFS was significantly longer with VMPT-VT (35.3 months) than with VMP (24.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001). The time to next therapy was 46.6 months in the VMPT-VT group and 27.8 months in the VMP group (HR, 0.52; P < .001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was greater with VMPT-VT (61%) than with VMP (51%; HR, 0.70; P = .01). Survival from relapse was identical in both groups (HR, 0.92; P = .63). In the VMPT-VT group, the most frequent grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (38%), thrombocytopenia (22%), peripheral neuropathy (11%), and cardiologic events (11%). All of these, except for thrombocytopenia, were significantly more frequent in the VMPT-VT patients.

CONCLUSION

Bortezomib and thalidomide significantly improved OS in multiple myeloma patients not eligible for transplantation.

Individualizing treatment decisions for older adults with hematologic malignancies

Hematologic malignancies are a common cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults, who represent the majority of patients diagnosed with these diseases. Treatment options and disease outcomes have improved in recent years because of the development of novel treatment strategies and the design of elderly-specific clinical trials. Despite this, extrapolation of clinical trial data to patients routinely seen in practice is challenging because of the presence of multimorbidity and functional impairments. Individualized treatment decision making requires not only an understanding of underlying tumor biology but also careful estimation of an older patient's anticipated ability to withstand the stresses of therapy. This article will discuss approaches to standardizing patient assessment strategies and tailoring therapeutic decisions for older adults with hematologic malignancies with a focus on acute myeloid leukemia (AML), allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, multiple myeloma (MM), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Novel treatment paradigm for elderly patients with multiple myeloma

The treatment of multiple myeloma has undergone important changes in the last few years. The use of novel agents, such as the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide, and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib, has increased the treatment options available and significantly improved the outcome of this rare disease. Several trials have shown the advantages linked to the use of novel agents both in young patients, who are considered eligible for transplantation, and elderly patients, who are considered transplant ineligible. In the non-transplant setting, novel agent-containing regimens have replaced the traditional melphalan-prednisone approach. Preliminary data also support the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy to further improve outcomes. An appropriate management of side effects is fundamental for the success of the treatment, and outcome should always be balanced against the toxicity profile associated with the regimen used. This review provides an overview of the latest strategies including novel agents used to treat elderly patients with multiple myeloma.

Aspirin, Warfarin, or Enoxaparin Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Treated With Thalidomide: A Phase III, Open-Label, Randomized Trial

Purpose

In patients with myeloma, thalidomide significantly improves outcomes but increases the risk of thromboembolic events. In this randomized, open-label, multicenter trial, we compared aspirin (ASA) or fixed low-dose warfarin (WAR) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for preventing thromboembolism in patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens.

Patients and Methods

A total of 667 patients with previously untreated myeloma who received thalidomide-containing regimens and had no clinical indication or contraindication for a specific antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy were randomly assigned to receive ASA (100 mg/d), WAR (1.25 mg/d), or LMWH (enoxaparin 40 mg/d). A composite primary end point included serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden deaths during the first 6 months of treatment.

Results

Of 659 analyzed patients, 43 (6.5%) had serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden death during the first 6 months (6.4% in the ASA group, 8.2% in the WAR group, and 5.0% in the LMWH group). Compared with LMWH, the absolute differences were +1.3% (95% CI, −3.0% to 5.7%; P = .544) in the ASA group and +3.2% (95% CI, −1.5% to 7.8%; P = .183) in the WAR group. The risk of thromboembolism was 1.38 times higher in patients treated with thalidomide without bortezomib. Three major (0.5%) and 10 minor (1.5%) bleeding episodes were recorded.

Conclusion

In patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens, ASA and WAR showed similar efficacy in reducing serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, and sudden deaths compared with LMWH, except in elderly patients where WAR showed less efficacy than LMWH.

Blockade of interleukin-6 signalling with siltuximab enhances melphalan cytotoxicity in preclinical models of multiple myeloma

Signalling through the interleukin (IL)-6 pathway induces proliferation and drug resistance of multiple myeloma cells. We therefore sought to determine whether the IL-6-neutralizing monoclonal antibody siltuximab, formerly CNTO 328, could enhance the activity of melphalan, and to examine some of the mechanisms underlying this interaction. Siltuximab increased the cytotoxicity of melphalan in KAS-6/1, INA-6, ANBL-6, and RPMI 8226 human myeloma cell lines (HMCLs) in an additive-to-synergistic manner, and sensitized resistant RPMI 8226.LR5 cells to melphalan. These anti-proliferative effects were accompanied by enhanced activation of drug-specific apoptosis in HMCLs grown in suspension, and in HMCLs co-cultured with a human-derived stromal cell line. Siltuximab with melphalan enhanced activation of caspase-8, caspase-9, and the downstream effector caspase-3 compared with either of the single agents. This increased induction of cell death occurred in association with enhanced Bak activation. Neutralization of IL-6 also suppressed signalling through the phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt pathway, as evidenced by decreased phosphorylation of Akt, p70 S6 kinase and 4E-BP1. Importantly, the siltuximab/melphalan regimen demonstrated enhanced anti-proliferative effects against primary plasma cells derived from patients with myeloma, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, and amyloidosis. These studies provide a rationale for translation of siltuximab into the clinic in combination with melphalan-based therapies.

Lenalidomide, melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (RMPT) for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

This multicenter, open-label, non-comparative phase II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage therapy with lenalidomide, melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (RMPT) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Oral lenalidomide (10 mg/day) was administered on days 1-21, and oral melphalan (0.18 mg/kg) and oral prednisone (2 mg/kg) on days 1-4 of each 28-day cycle. Thalidomide was administered at 50 mg/day or 100 mg/day on days 1-28; six cycles were administered in total. Maintenance included lenalidomide 10 mg/day on days 1-21, until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression. Aspirin (100 mg/day) was given as thromboprophylaxis. A total of 44 patients with relapsed/refractory MM were enrolled and 75% achieved at least a partial response (PR), including 32% very good PR (VGPR) and 2% complete response (CR). The 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 51% and the 1-year overall survival (OS) from study entry was 72%. Grade 4 hematologic adverse events included neutropenia (18%), thrombocytopenia (7%) and anemia (2%). Grade 3 non-hematologic adverse events were infections (14%), neurological toxicity (4.5%) and fatigue (7%). No grade 3/4 thromboembolic events or peripheral neuropathy were reported. In conclusion, RMPT is an active salvage therapy with good efficacy and manageable side effects. This study represents the basis for larger phase III randomized trials.

Melphalan, prednisone, thalidomide and defibrotide in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results of a multicenter phase I/II trial

BACKGROUND

Defibrotide is a novel orally bioavailable polydisperse oligonucleotide with anti-thrombotic and anti-adhesive effects. In SCID/NOD mice, defibrotide showed activity in human myeloma xenografts. This phase I/II study was conducted to identify the most appropriate dose of defibrotide in combination with melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide in patients with relapsed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, and to determine its safety and tolerability as part of this regimen.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a phase I/II, multicenter, dose-escalating, non-comparative, open label study. Oral melphalan was administered at a dose of 0.25 mg/kg on days 1-4, prednisone at a dose of 1.5 mg/kg also on days 1-4 and thalidomide at a dose of 50-100 mg/day continuously. Defibrotide was administered orally at three dose-levels: 2.4, 4.8 or 7.2 g on days 1-4 and 1.6, 3.2, or 4.8 g on days 5-35.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. In all patients, the complete response plus very good partial response rate was 9%, and the partial response rate was 43%. The 1-year progression-free survival and 1-year overall survival rates were 34% and 90%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia and fatigue. Deep vein thrombosis was reported in only one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

This combination of melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide together with defibrotide showed anti-tumor activity with a favorable tolerability. The maximum tolerated dose of defibrotide was identified as 7.2 g p.o. on days 1-4 followed by 4.8 g p.o. on days 5-35. Further trials are needed to confirm the role of this regimen and to evaluate the combination of defibrotide with new drugs.

Defibrotide: a review on clinical use and future development

BACKGROUND

Defibrotide is a deoxyribonucleic acid derivative that has been developed for the treatment of different vascular disorders.

OBJECTIVE

The authors reviewed the literature to give due representation to the spectrum of pharmacological properties and clinical application of this drug, evaluating consolidate and innovative application.

METHODS

The authors used PubMed from November 1982 to December 2007 and meeting abstracts (form American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting) with updated data as the sources for this review and selecting the most relevant papers when two or more articles covered the same point of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Defibrotide has been used effectively in the treatment of endothelial complications of allogeneic stem cell transplantation and recent preclinical evidences suggest an antiangiogenic effect and an anticancer activity. Further in vivo and in vitro investigations are needed.

Investigational treatments for multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma remains a fatal neoplasm and new treatments are urgently needed. In recent years, advances in understanding the molecular pathophysiology of myeloma and the mechanisms of drug resistance led to the development of several novel agents. The drugs with the most available clinical data are thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide. Impressive results obtained with these agents - both in relapsed disease and in newly diagnosed patients - have significantly improved the outcome of myeloma patients. Several other new targeted agents are presently under investigation. These include monoclonal antibodies, agents that target mammalian target of rapamycin, histone acetylation, heat-shock proteins, growth factor signalling cascades, oncogenes, signal transducer and activators of the transcription pathway, Akt pathway and MAPK pathway. Their mechanisms of action, the available knowledge on their efficacy, safety and possible future clinical application are reviewed.