Global disparities in patients with multiple myeloma: a rapid evidence assessment.

There are disparities in outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We evaluated the influence of sociodemographic factors on global disparities in outcomes for patients with MM. This rapid evidence assessment (PROSPERO, CRD42021248461) followed PRISMA-P guidelines and used the PICOS framework. PubMed and Embase® were searched for articles in English from 2011 to 2021. The title, abstract, and full text of articles were screened according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The sociodemographic factors assessed were age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. Outcomes were diagnosis, access to treatment, and patient outcomes. Of 84 articles included, 48 were US-based. Worldwide, increasing age and low socioeconomic status were associated with worse patient outcomes. In the US, men typically had worse outcomes than women, although women had poorer access to treatment, as did Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients. No consistent disparities due to sex were seen outside the US, and for most factors and outcomes, no consistent disparities could be identified globally. Too few studies examined disparities in diagnosis to draw firm conclusions. This first systematic analysis of health disparities in patients with MM identified specific populations affected, highlighting a need for additional research focused on assessing patterns, trends, and underlying drivers of disparities in MM.

Extrapolation of Survival Data Using a Bayesian Approach: A Case Study Leveraging External Data from Cilta-Cel Therapy in Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Extrapolating long-term overall survival (OS) from shorter-term clinical trial data is key to health technology assessment in oncology. However, extrapolation using conventional methods is often subject to uncertainty. Using ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma, we used a flexible Bayesian approach to demonstrate use of external longer-term data to reduce the uncertainty in long-term extrapolation. METHODS: The pivotal CARTITUDE-1 trial (NCT03548207) provided the primary efficacy data for cilta-cel, including a 12-month median follow-up snapshot of OS. Longer-term (48-month median follow-up) survival data from the phase I LEGEND-2 study (NCT03090659) were also available. Twelve-month CARTITUDE-1 OS data were extrapolated in two ways: (1) conventional survival models with standard parametric distributions (uninformed), and (2) Bayesian survival models whose shape prior was informed from 48-month LEGEND-2 data. For validation, extrapolations from 12-month CARTITUDE-1 data were compared with observed 28-month CARTITUDE-1 data. RESULTS: Extrapolations of the 12-month CARTITUDE-1 data using conventional uninformed parametric models were highly variable. Using informative priors from the 48-month LEGEND-2 dataset, the ranges of projected OS at different timepoints were consistently narrower. Area differences between the extrapolation curves and the 28-month CARTITUDE-1 data were generally lower in informed Bayesian models, except for the uninformed log-normal model, which had the lowest difference. CONCLUSIONS: Informed Bayesian survival models reduced variation of long-term projections and provided similar projections as the uninformed log-normal model. Bayesian models generated a narrower and more plausible range of OS projections from 12-month data that aligned with observed 28-month data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CARTITUDE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03548207. LEGEND-2 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03090659, registered retrospectively on 27 March 2017, and ChiCTR-ONH-17012285.

Cost saving, patient centered algorithm for progenitor cell mobilization for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Administration of plerixafor with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilizes CD34+ cells much more effectively than G-CSF alone, but cost generally limits plerixafor use to patients at high risk of insufficient CD34+ cell collection based on low peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ counts following 4 days of G-CSF. We analyzed costs associated with administering plerixafor to patients with higher day 4 CD34+ cell counts to decrease apheresis days and explored the use of a fixed split dose of plerixafor instead of weight-based dosing. We analyzed 235 patients with plasma cell disorders or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who underwent progenitor cell mobilization and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) between March 2014 and December 2017. Two hundred ten (89%) received G-CSF plus Plerixafor and 25 (11%) received G-CSF alone. Overall, 180 patients (77%) collected in 1 day, 53 (22%) in 2 days and 2 (1%) in 3 days. Based on our data, we present a probabilistic algorithm to identify patients likely to require more than one day of collection using G-CSF alone. CD34+ cell yield, ANC and platelet recovery were not significantly different between fixed and standard dose plerixafor. Plerixafor enabled collection in 1 day and with estimated savings of $5000, compared to patients who did not receive plerixafor and required collection for three days. While collection and processing costs and patient populations vary among institutions, our results suggest re-evaluation of current algorithms.

Expert review on soft-tissue plasmacytomas in multiple myeloma: definition, disease assessment and treatment considerations.

In this review, two types of soft-tissue involvement in multiple myeloma are defined: (i) extramedullary (EMD) with haematogenous spread involving only soft tissues and (ii) paraskeletal (PS) with tumour masses arising from skeletal lesions. The incidence of EMD and PS plasmacytomas at diagnosis ranges from 1·7% to 4·5% and 7% to 34·4% respectively. EMD disease is often associated with high-risk cytogenetics, resistance to therapy and worse prognosis than in PS involvement. In patients with PS involvement a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen may be the best option followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in transplant eligible patients. In patients with EMD disease who are not eligible for ASCT, a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen such as lenalidomide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (RVD) may be the best option, while for those eligible for high-dose therapy a myeloma/lymphoma-like regimen such as bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTD)-RVD/cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide (PACE) followed by SCT should be considered. In both EMD and PS disease at relapse many strategies have been tried, but this remains a high-unmet need population.

International harmonization in performing and reporting minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma trials.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment is incorporated in an increasing number of multiple myeloma (MM) clinical trials as a correlative analysis, an endpoint or even as a determinant of subsequent therapy. There is substantial heterogeneity across clinical trials in how MRD is assessed and reported, creating challenges for data interpretation and for the design of subsequent studies. We convened an international panel of MM investigators to harmonize how MRD should be assessed and reported in MM clinical trials. The panel provides consensus on which MM trials should include MRD, the recommended time points for MRD assessment, and expected analytical validation for MRD assays. We subsequently outlined parameters for reporting MRD results implementing the intention-to-treat principle. The panel provides guidance regarding the incorporation of newer peripheral blood-based and imaging-based approaches to detection of residual disease. Recommendations are summarized in 13 consensus statements that should be followed by sponsors, investigators, editors, and reviewers engaged in designing, performing, and interpreting MM trials.

Safety and Cost Benefits of the Rapid Daratumumab Infusion Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma in both frontline and relapsed/refractory settings. Its major limitation is the long infusion time, especially with the first dose. Recent data demonstrated the feasibility of infusing daratumumab at an accelerated rate of 90 minutes starting from cycle 1 on day 15. Herein, we report the safety profile and cost associated with rapid daratumumab infusion protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A chart review was performed to identify patients who completed at least 1 cycle of daratumumab (single agent or in combination) from April 2016 to October 2018. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: cohort 1 received rapid daratumumab infusion after its implementation in March 2018, whereas cohort 2 included patients treated with daratumumab administered at the standard rate. The primary endpoint was to compare differences in rates of infusion-related reactions (IRRs). An Excel (Microsoft)-based model was developed to estimate cost and productivity. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients with relapsed/refractory disease were included in this study (53 in cohort 1 and 47 in cohort 2). Of the 53 patients in cohort 1, 18 (34%) received rapid daratumumab infusion starting with cycle 1. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of IRRs between cohort 1 and 2 (1.9% vs. 4.3%, P = .59); 1 patient in cohort 1 developed an IRR. The total costs estimated for a 52-week regimen of daratumumab infused at standard and rapid rates were $137,200 and $122,200 (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that rapid daratumumab infusion is safe and tolerable and provides cost savings for patients with relapsed/refractory disease.

Mortality by a proxy performance status as defined by a claims-based measure for disability status in older patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: We applied a claims-based definition of disability status as a proxy for performance status (PS) and examined associations between PS and mortality in a population-based cohort of older US adults with multiple myeloma (MM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified older (≥66 years) Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with MM January 1, 2008-December 31, 2011, who began first-line therapy in the study period (through December 31, 2012). We estimated predicted probability of poor PS for each patient at initiation of each line up to fourth-line therapy, classified as poor (predicted probability ≥0.11) or good (<0.11) PS, and examined mortality. Crude overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test for survival comparison between PS groups. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association between poor PS and mortality risk, adjusted for baseline characteristics by lines of therapy. RESULTS: Of 12,547 patients, 5841, 2372, and 819 initiated second-, third-, and fourth-line in the study period. Poor PS proportions were 16.6%, 21.8%, 18.4%, and 18.2% at each line. Crude overall survival was worse for poor PS patients across lines (P < 0.01 for each). Adjusted hazards ratios (95% CI) of mortality for patients with poor versus good PS were 1.28 (1.18-1.40), first-line; 1.55 (1.36-1.77), second-line; 1.35 (1.10-1.65), third-line; 1.22 (0.84-1.76), fourth-line. CONCLUSION: The claims-based prediction model for disability status performed as expected as a proxy for PS in older Medicare patients with MM. PS was an independent risk factor for mortality. Further studies assessing the effect of PS on mortality by therapies are warranted.

International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma.

Treatment of multiple myeloma has substantially changed over the past decade with the introduction of several classes of new effective drugs that have greatly improved the rates and depth of response. Response criteria in multiple myeloma were developed to use serum and urine assessment of monoclonal proteins and bone marrow assessment (which is relatively insensitive). Given the high rates of complete response seen in patients with multiple myeloma with new treatment approaches, new response categories need to be defined that can identify responses that are deeper than those conventionally defined as complete response. Recent attempts have focused on the identification of residual tumour cells in the bone marrow using flow cytometry or gene sequencing. Furthermore, sensitive imaging techniques can be used to detect the presence of residual disease outside of the bone marrow. Combining these new methods, the International Myeloma Working Group has defined new response categories of minimal residual disease negativity, with or without imaging-based absence of extramedullary disease, to allow uniform reporting within and outside clinical trials. In this Review, we clarify several aspects of disease response assessment, along with endpoints for clinical trials, and highlight future directions for disease response assessments.

Patterns of total cost and economic consequences of progression for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have addressed the cost patterns of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) before and after first relapse. This US claims analysis evaluated, from a US health plan perspective, patterns of total direct costs of care from treatment initiation to progression for patients with MM treated with novel agents, using time to next therapy (TTNT) as a proxy measure for progression. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using a large US claims database, evaluating patients with claims for MM between 2006 and 2013. Patients with claims for stem cell transplant (SCT) were excluded. The analysis focused on patients receiving lenalidomide (LEN) or bortezomib (BORT) based treatment, for whom complete claim history was available through initiation of subsequent treatment. Average patient monthly direct costs were determined, including medical and pharmacy costs, and total cost patterns over quarterly time periods were calculated. RESULTS: The study population comprised 2843 patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and 1361 with relapsed MM. Total monthly cost for patients with NDMM declined steadily, from $15,734 initially to $5082 at 18+ months after therapy. Upon initiation of second-line therapy, total monthly costs rose to $13,876 and declined to $6446 18 months later. Although NDMM cost levels for individual ordinal months were similar between the LEN and BORT groups, TTNT was longer for LEN-based treatments (37 months). The BORT-treated cohort had higher average monthly total costs for NDMM and for the common time period through 37 months after initiation of therapy ($7534 vs $10,763 for LEN and BORT, respectively). Key limitations of this study, in addition to the lack of mortality and staging information available from claims data, include the definition of TTNT based on change in treatment or a defined gap in therapy prior to retreatment, which may differ from actual time of progression in some patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with NDMM receiving either LEN- or BORT-based treatment without SCT, followed until TTNT, total direct monthly costs (drug + medical) declined steadily over time. Monthly costs returned to near initial levels when patients began second-line therapy and then followed a similar pattern of decline. Due to the longer TTNT for patients initiated on LEN and the associated longer period of below-average costs, patients initiated with LEN-based treatments had mean monthly total costs >$3200 lower than total costs for patients initiated on BORT during the first 3 years after starting treatment, cumulating to nearly $120,000 in lower costs for patients initiated on LEN.