Comparative effectiveness of lenalidomide/dexamethasone-based triplet regimens for treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States: An analysis of real-world electronic health records data.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective longitudinal study compared the effectiveness of dexamethasone+lenalidomide (Rd)-based triplet regimens containing proteasome inhibitors (PIs) ixazomib (IRd), carfilzomib (KRd), and bortezomib (VRd) or monoclonal antibodies (MABs) elotuzumab (ERd) and daratumumab (DRd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)-including those with high cytogenetic risk-primarily treated at community oncology clinics in the United States. METHODS: Electronic health records of adult RRMM patients in a deidentified real-world database (01/01/2014-09/30/2020) who initiated IRd, KRd, VRd, ERd, or DRd in the second or later line of therapy (LOT) were analyzed. The index date was the date of initiation of each LOT and baseline was the 6-month pre-index period. Duration of therapy (DOT), time to next therapy (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared across regimens with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of the 1,185 patients contributing 1,332 LOTs, 985 had standard cytogenetic risk (median age, 71 years) and 180 had high risk (median age, 69 years). Compared with other regimens, DRd was associated with longer DOT overall (adjusted hazard ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.42, 2.38] vs. KRd, 1.65 [1.20, 2.28] vs. ERd, 1.58 [1.23, 2.04] vs. IRd, and 1.54 [1.18, 2.00] vs. VRd), and longer TTNT and PFS. KRd was associated with shorter OS compared with DRd (1.45 [1.01, 2.08]) and VRd (1.32 [1.01, 1.73]). High-risk patients had similar outcomes with all triplet regimens. CONCLUSION: Although DRd improved clinical outcomes overall, Rd-based triplet regimens containing a PI or MAB are similarly effective in high-risk RRMM.

INSURE: a pooled analysis of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory myeloma in routine practice.

Aim: We pooled data from three observational studies (INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA and REMIX) to investigate the real-world effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Materials & methods: INSIGHT MM was a prospective study conducted in countries across Europe, Asia and North/Latin America while UVEA-IXA and REMIX were multicenter, retrospective/prospective studies conducted in Europe. Patients who had received IRd as ≥2nd line of therapy were analyzed. Primary outcomes were time-to-next treatment (TTNT) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Overall, 564 patients were included (median follow-up: 18.5 months). Median TTNT and PFS were 18.4 and 19.9 months; both outcomes were numerically longer for earlier versus later lines. Median treatment duration was 14.0 months. Overall response rate was 64.6%. No new safety concerns were noted. Conclusion: The effectiveness of IRd in routine practice appears similar to the efficacy observed in TOURMALINE-MM1. IRd benefit in earlier versus later lines was consistent with previous reports.

Use Via Early Access to Ixazomib (UVEA-IXA) Study: Effectiveness and Safety of Ixazomib-based Therapy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Outside of the Clinical Trial Setting.

BACKGROUND: In multiple myeloma (MM), improving our understanding of routine clinical practice and the effectiveness of agents outside of clinical trials is important. TOURMALINE-MM1 data resulted in approval of ixazomib for MM patients who have received ≥ 1 prior therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: UVEA-IXA comprised a retrospective chart review in the early access program, and a prospective 1-year follow-up period. Eligible patients had had a biochemical and/or symptomatic relapse after 1-3 prior lines of therapy; no anti-MM therapy for > 3 cycles at the start of ixazomib therapy; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-2. Lenalidomide- or proteasome inhibitor (PI)-refractory patients were ineligible. Primary endpoints were response and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of 357 enrolled patients, 309 were evaluable; most patients received ixazomib alongside lenalidomide (98%) and dexamethasone (97%); 61% had received 2-3 prior lines of therapy. Median PFS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.0-20.6) in all evaluable patients, and 19.6 (95% CI: 12.1-27.0) and 13.9 (95% CI: 10.1-18.1) months in patients who received 1 and ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, respectively. The overall response rate was 67% in all evaluable patients, and 72% and 63%, respectively, in patients who received 1 and ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy. Median overall survival was 35.5 months. The ixazomib safety profile was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: This study supports ixazomib-based therapy as an effective and tolerable treatment in the real-world. Outcomes were favorable in patients with 1 or ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy who were not lenalidomide- or PI-refractory.

In-class transition from bortezomib-based therapy to IRd is an effective approach in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of in-class transition to all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) following parenteral bortezomib (V)-based induction versus continued V-based therapy in US oncology clinics. Patients & methods: Non-transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) receiving in-class transition to IRd (N = 100; US MM-6), or V-based therapy (N = 111; INSIGHT MM). Results: Following inverse probability of treatment weighting, overall response rate was 73.2% with IRd versus 57.5% with V-based therapy (p < 0.0001). Median duration of treatment was 10.8 versus 5.3 months (p < 0.0001). Overall, 18/24% of patients discontinued IRd/V-based therapy due to adverse events. Conclusion: IRd after V-based induction was associated with significantly improved overall response rate and duration of treatment than continued V-based combination therapy. Clinical Trial Registration: US MM-6: NCT03173092; INSIGHT MM: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Comparison of health care costs and resource utilization for commonly used proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-based triplet regimens for the management of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Economic differences among currently available proteasome inhibitors (PI)-based lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-backbone triplet regimens-ixazomib (I), bortezomib (V), and carfilzomib (K) plus Rd-remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HCRU) and health care costs of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the United States treated with IRd, VRd, and KRd. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study using IQVIA PharMetrics Plus adjudicated claims US data (January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020) included adult patients with all available data who initiated IRd, VRd, or KRd in second line of therapy or later (LOT2+) on or after September 1, 2015. The index date was the treatment initiation date for each LOT (multiple LOTs per patient were included) and the baseline was 6 months pre-index. MM-related and all-cause HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up and reported per patient per month (PPPM; 2020 US Dollars). For MM-related costs only, treatment administration costs were excluded from outpatient (OP) costs and instead summed with pharmacy costs. HCRU/costs were compared between treatment groups using generalized linear models (GLMs). Cost variables were compared using 2-part models and GLM with log transformation and γ distribution. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted for imbalance of baseline confounders across treatment groups. RESULTS: The study included 511 patients contributing 542 LOTs (IRd: n = 153; VRd: n = 262; KRd: n = 127). Before IPTW, mean observed time spent on therapy was 8.5, 9.3, and 7.3 months for the IRd, VRd, and KRd cohorts, respectively. During follow-up and after IPTW, IRd and VRd were associated with significantly fewer OP visits vs KRd. Post-IPTW comparisons of MM-related costs for IRd vs KRd yielded lower OP costs for IRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,428; P < 0.001), contributing to lower total medical costs (-$3,813; P < 0.001) and total health care cost savings with IRd vs KRd (-$5,813; P = 0.001). MM-related OP costs were lower for VRd (mean diff. PPPM: -$3,543; P < 0.001) than KRd, reducing its total MM-related medical costs (-$3,997; P = 0.002), leading to total MM-related health care cost savings with VRd vs KRd (-$12,357; P < 0.001). All-cause cost comparisons yielded similar results (total health care cost savings for IRd and VRd vs KRd: -$6,371 and -$13,629, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the US insurance-payer perspective, patients treated with IRd and VRd had significant medical cost savings vs KRd due to lower OP costs when excluding treatment administration costs. The differential economic impacts of PI-Rd regimens in this study may help to inform treatment decisions for patients with MM. DISCLOSURES: This study and article were supported by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Dr Sanchez has no conflicts to declare. Dr Chari has the following relationships: Research Support/Principal Investigator: Amgen, Array Biopharma, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Klein, Janssen, Millenium/Takeda, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Oncoceutics, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Consultant: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm; Scientific Advisory Board: Amgen, Celgene, Millenium/Takeda, Janssen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics. Drs Cherepanov, Huang, Dabora, and Noga are current employees of Takeda, while Drs Stull and Young are ex-employees of Takeda; Drs Cherepanov and Huang also own stocks in Takeda. Dr DerSarkissian, Ms Cheng, Ms Zhang, Mr Banatwala, and Dr Duh are employees of Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), a consulting firm that received funding from Takeda to conduct this study. Ms Pi was an employee of AG at the time of the study. Dr Ailawadhi has the following relationships to declare: Research Support and Consulting for BMS, GSK, and Janssen; Research Support from AbbVie, Arch Oncology, Cellectar, Medimmune, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor; Consulting for Beigene, Oncopeptides, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

Rates of Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination and Correlation With Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Infections are a common reason for hospitalization and death in multiple myeloma (MM). Although pneumococcal vaccination (PV) and influenza vaccination (FV) are recommended for MM patients, data on vaccination status and outcomes are limited in MM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized data from the global, prospective, observational INSIGHT MM study to analyze FV and PV rates and associated outcomes of patients with MM enrolled 2016-2019. RESULTS: Of the 4307 patients enrolled, 2543 and 2500 had study-entry data on FV and PV status. Overall vaccination rates were low (FV 39.6%, PV 30.2%) and varied by region. On separate multivariable analyses of overall survival (OS) by Cox model, FV in the prior 2 years and PV in the prior 5 years impacted OS (vs. no vaccination; FV: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.90; P = .003; PV: HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42-0.63; P < .0001) when adjusted for age, region, performance status, disease stage, cytogenetics at diagnosis, MM symptoms, disease status, time since diagnosis, and prior transplant. Proportions of deaths due to infections were lower among vaccinated versus non-vaccinated patients (FV: 9.8% vs. 15.3%, P = .142; PV: 9.9% vs. 18.0%, P = .032). Patients with FV had generally lower health resource utilization (HRU) versus patients without FV; patients with PV had higher or similar HRU versus patients without PV. CONCLUSION: Vaccination is important in MM and should be encouraged. Vaccination status should be recorded in prospective clinical trials as it may affect survival. This trial was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov as #NCT02761187.

Understanding Amyloidosis: Unraveling the Complexities and Therapeutic Approaches for Oncology Nurses.

BACKGROUND:  Primary systemic light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare clonal plasma cell disorder characterized by the production of abnormal immunoglobulin fragments, which form insoluble fibrils that aggregate as amyloid deposits in organs and tissues, leading to organ dysfunction and death. OBJECTIVES:  The aim of this literature review is to increase awareness of AL amyloidosis and educate nurses on the care of this patient population. METHODS:  This overview is based on a literature search of AL amyloidosis, including its pathogenesis, prognosis, and presentation. Guidance for nursing assessment, intervention, and patient education throughout the disease trajectory is presented. FINDINGS:  AL amyloidosis is a rare disease resulting in organ impairment and death if untreated. Nursing management includes knowledge of key assessment, monitoring, intervention, and education strategies with goals to preserve organ function and improve survival and quality of life in patients with AL amyloidosis.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of triplets containing bortezomib (B), carfilzomib (C), daratumumab (D), or ixazomib (I) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the US.

Multiple available combinations of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators (IMIDs), and monoclonal antibodies are shifting the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatment landscape. Lack of head-to-head trials of triplet regimens highlights the need for real-world (RW) evidence. We conducted an RW comparative effectiveness analysis of bortezomib (V), carfilzomib (K), ixazomib (I), and daratumumab (D) combined with either lenalidomide or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd or Pd) in RRMM. A retrospective cohort of patients initiating triplet regimens in line of therapy (LOT) ≥ 2 on/after 1/1/2014 was followed between 1/2007 and 3/2018 in Optum's deidentified US electronic health records database. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; regimens were compared using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Seven hundred forty-one patients (820 patient LOTs) with an Rd backbone (VRd, n = 349; KRd, n = 218; DRd, n = 99; IRd, n = 154) and 348 patients (392 patient LOTs) with a Pd backbone (VPd, n = 52; KPd, n = 146; DPd, n = 149; IPd, n = 45) in LOTs ≥2 were identified. More patients ≥75 years received IRd (39.6%), IPd (37.8%), and VRd (36.7%) than other triplets. More patients receiving VRd/VPd were in LOT2 vs other triplets. Unadjusted median TTNT in LOT ≥ 2: VRd, 13.9; KRd, 8.7; IRd, 11.4; DRd, not estimable (NE); and VPd, 12.0; KPd, 6.7; IPd, 9.5 months; DPd, NE. In covariate-adjusted analysis, only KRd vs DRd was associated with a significantly higher risk of next LOT initiation/death (HR 1.72; P = 0.0142); no Pd triplet was significantly different vs DPd in LOT ≥ 2. Our data highlight important efficacy/effectiveness gaps between results observed in phase 3 clinical trials and those realized in the RW.

Ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in routine clinical practice: effectiveness in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Lay abstract Proteasome inhibitors are drugs used in multiple myeloma (MM), a blood cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow. Ixazomib is the first oral proteasome inhibitor to be approved for use in MM, when given in combination with two other oral drugs, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, to adult patients who have received one prior therapy. Our study, which was conducted in routine clinical practice, found that the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone in previously treated MM patients were similar to those seen in the Phase III clinical trial on which approval was based. These findings are important because they suggest that MM patients in everyday practice can achieve the same benefits from this treatment as patients in clinical trials, despite often being in poorer health.

Targeted therapies for the treatment of leukemia.

OBJECTIVES: To review novel targeted therapies for the treatment of leukemia. DATA SOURCES: Professional journals, books, and government publications. CONCLUSION: Nonspecific cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents provide marginal therapeutic benefit and significant toxicity when used in the treatment of leukemia. There is a tremendous need for new therapies with increased efficacy and decreased adverse effects. Advances in molecular science, genetics, and immunology, along with improved laboratory technology, have led to the discovery of unique targets integral to the growth and proliferation of malignant cells which are providing the foundation for the development of a new generation of antitumor agents. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses must be prepared to educate patients, administer novel therapies, and manage side effects.

Colony-stimulating factors: beyond the effects on hematopoiesis.

The effects of sargramostim and filgrastim on hematopoietic cells are described. Filgrastim is a lineage-specific colony-stimulating factor (CSF), mainly affecting neutrophils. In addition to enhancing neutrophil recovery, filgrastim may also enhance neutrophil functional activity. Filgrastim does not have any meaningful effect on monocytes or macrophages; however, recent data indicate that filgrastim has a stimulatory effect on Th2 lymphocyte-inducing dendritic cells. These dendritic cells facilitate humoral immune responses, but they also produce inhibitory cytokines that diminish cell-mediated immunity. Sargramostim is a multilineage CSF, affecting neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells. Sargramostim has a greater impact on Th1 lymphocyte-inducing dendritic cells, which facilitate cell-mediated immune responses, including antitumor activity. The broader activity of sargramostim on both types of antigen-presenting cells (macrophages and dendritic cells) may account for the reports of benefit beyond enhanced neutrophil recovery that have been seen in clinical trials of patients with leukemia and patients undergoing stem-cell transplantation. Given the disparate activity of these two CSFs on the immune system and the types of immune responses generated, it is prudent for clinicians to consider these effects when choosing an agent for enhancing neutrophil recovery in various clinical settings.