Utilization of novel systemic therapies for multiple myeloma: A retrospective study of front-line regimens using the SEER-Medicare data

Disparities in Multiple Myeloma Treatment Patterns in the United States: A Systematic Review

We performed a systematic review of the literature investigating the demographic and insurance-related factors linked to disparities in multiple myeloma (MM) care patterns in the United States from 2003 to 2021. Forty-six observational studies were included. Disparities in MM care patterns were reported based on patient race in 76% of studies (34 out of 45 that captured race as a study variable), ethnicity in 60% (12 out of 20), insurance in 77% (17 out of 22), and distance from treating facility, urbanicity, or geographic region in 62% (13 out of 21). A smaller proportion of studies identified disparities in MM care patterns based on other socioeconomic characteristics, with 36% (9 out of 25) identifying disparities based on income estimate or employment status and 43% (6 out of 14) based on language barrier or education-related factors. Sociodemographic characteristics are frequently associated with disparities in care for individuals diagnosed with MM. There is a need for further research regarding modifiable determinants to accessing care such as insurance plan design, patient out-of-pocket costs, preauthorization criteria, as well as social determinants of health. This information can be used to develop actionable strategies for reducing MM health disparities and enhancing timely and high-quality MM care.

Association of individual low-income status and area deprivation with mortality in multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Lower individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) and area-level SES have each been associated with poor survival outcomes among patients with multiple myeloma (MM). A body of literature suggests that individual-level SES may be differentially associated with mortality depending on area-level SES, and vice versa. This study assessed the effect of the cross-level interaction between individual low-income status and area deprivation on mortality among patients with MM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data (2006-2016). Individuals were defined as having low income if they were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and/or if they received the Low-Income Subsidy. The county-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) was linked to individual-level SEER-Medicare data and categorized into quintiles, from the least deprived (Quintile 1) to the most deprived (Quintile 5). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations between low-income status, area deprivation, and all-cause mortality were estimated from a mixed-effects Cox proportional-hazards (PH) model.

RESULTS

The mortality hazard was higher for individuals with low income than individuals without low income in all quintiles of area deprivation, with the exception of Quintile 5 (Quintile 1: HR 1.53 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-1.77]; Quintile 2: HR 1.17 [95%CI: 1.01-1.36]; Quintile 3: HR 1.34 [95%CI: 1.18-1.53]; Quintile 4: HR 1.33 [95%CI: 1.17-1.52]; Quintile 5: HR 1.09 [95%CI: 0.96-1.23]). Among individuals without low income, individuals residing in the most deprived area had a higher mortality hazard than individuals residing in the least deprived area (HR: 1.22 [95%CI: 1.03-1.45]). In contrast, among individuals with low income, residing in a more deprived area, Quintile 2, was associated with a lower hazard of death than residing in the least deprived area, Quintile 1 (HR: 0.82 [95%CI: 0.67-0.99]), and there was no statistically significant difference between Quintile 1 and Quintiles 3, 4, and 5.

DISCUSSION

In this analysis, there was a statistically significant cross-level interaction between individual low-income status and area deprivation on mortality. More research is needed to fully understand the mechanism behind these associations, but the findings show that patients and their health should be considered in the context of where they live.

Multisite Quality Improvement Initiative to Identify and Address Racial Disparities and Deficiencies in Delivering Equitable, Patient-Centered Care for Multiple Myeloma-Exploring the Differences between Academic and Community Oncology Centers

Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is complex; however, with equal access to care, clinical outcomes for Black patients match those in other patient groups. To reveal and begin to address clinical practice barriers to equitable, patient-centered MM care, this quality improvement (QI) initiative assessed patient electronic medical records (EMRs) and surveyed patients and providers at two large hospital systems and four community-based practices. For the educational intervention, providers participated in feedback-focused grand rounds sessions to reflect on system barriers and develop action plans to improve MM care. EMR reviews revealed infrequent documentation of cytogenetics and disease staging at community-based practices compared to large hospital systems. In surveys, providers from each care setting reported different challenges in MM care. Notably, the goals of treatment for patients and providers aligned at community clinics while providers and patients from large hospital systems had discordant perspectives. However, providers in community settings underreported race-associated barriers to care and identified different factors impacting treatment decision-making than Black patients. Relative to pre-session responses, providers were more likely to report high confidence after the educational sessions in aligning treatment decisions with guidelines and clinical evidence and shared decision-making (SDM). This QI study identified discordant perceptions among providers at large hospital systems and community-based practices in providing quality MM care. Provider education yielded increased confidence in and commitment to patient-centered care.

A stratified therapeutic model incorporated with studies on regulatory B cells for elderly patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

Despite the availability of new agents, elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM) usually present with poor outcomes due to the heterogeneity of disease conditions, especially immune deficiency. Regulatory B cells (Bregs) can be involved in immune defects by exerting immune regulatory functions in MM. In order to provide more evidence-based practice for the elderly MM, the study established and assessed a stratified therapeutic model with studies on Bregs for Chinese Elderly Multiple Myeloma in 2021 (CEMM2021).

METHODS

In this open-label, non-interventional, prospective study in the real world, 159 newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients over 65 years old were sequentially recruited and bone marrow aspirates prior to treatment were obtained to detect the ratios of Bregs by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Based on the CEMM2021 model, 147 patients had received at least one cycle of induction therapy, including bortezomib/dexamethasone (Bd) (n = 80), lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) (n = 27), Bd with a third agent X (Bd + X) (n = 27), and other regimens (n = 13). The proportions of patients achieving very good partial response or better were comparable among Bd, Bd + X, and Rd groups (41.9% vs. 54.5% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.472). Besides, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different among Rd, Bd, and Bd + X groups. Multivariable analysis showed that induction efficacy less than partial response (PR) were poor prognostic factors for PFS, while Revised-International Staging System (R-ISS) III and efficacy less than PR were poor prognostic factors for OS. This study also found that the ratios of bone marrow Bregs <10% (p = 0.036) and SUVmax of PET-CT scan >4.2 (p = 0.000) were closely correlated with OS in the elderly MM.

CONCLUSIONS

For the elderly NDMM, the CEMM2021 algorithm in our center might provide a valuable reference for the guidance of therapeutic strategies, with the combination of Bregs resulting in an effective and clinically meaningful prediction in contemporary treatment.

Optimal Supportive Care With Selinexor Improves Outcomes in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND

Supportive care improves outcomes in many cancers. In the pivotal STORM study selinexor, a first-in-class, oral, selective exportin 1 inhibitor, and low-dose dexamethasone proved to be an effective treatment for patients with triple-class refractory myeloma. We conducted a post-hoc analysis to test the hypothesis that increased utilization of supportive care measures in a sub-cohort of the STORM study prolonged treatment duration with- and improved efficacy of- selinexor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The STORM protocol included specific recommendations for dose modifications and supportive care to mitigate selinexor most common adverse events (AEs) including nausea, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia. The Tisch Cancer Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine (MSSM) incorporated additional supportive care strategies within the framework of the STORM protocol.

RESULTS

Of 123 patients enrolled in STORM, 28 were enrolled at MSSM. The overall response rate was 26.2% in the overall STORM population and 53.6% in the MSSM cohort. Moreover, duration of response, progression free survival, and overall survival were longer in the MSSM cohort. AEs and dose modification events were similar in the 2 groups. The MSSM cohort had more dose reductions (67.9% vs. 50.5%), and higher use of multiple antiemetic agents (71.4% vs. 50.1%) and romiplostim (32.1% vs. 6.3%), but less discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs (3.6% vs. 25.3%).

CONCLUSION

These results suggests that in addition to more frequent dose reductions, prompter and more aggressive supportive care may have contributed to the low discontinuation rate, longer duration therapy, and greater efficacy rates observed in the MSSM cohort. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02336815).

Survival, health care resource utilization and expenditures of first-line treatments for multiple myeloma patients ineligible for transplant in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

We aimed to provide real-world information on survival, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and expenditures related to various first lines of therapy (1LOTs) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients who were transplant ineligible (TI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database (2008-2016), we identified 1,511 NDMM-TI patients who had received 1LOT since June 2012. We categorized 1LOT regimens into four groups: bortezomib (V)+thalidomide (T), V, T, and non-V/T. Patients' characteristics were collected. The overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), frequencies of HCRU (hospitalization, visiting outpatient and emergency departments), and related expenditures within one year after commencement of the 1LOT were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

The mean age of the included patients was 71.3 (SD 10.7) years, and 40.4% of patients had a CCI score ≥3. Most patients (747; 49.4%) were in the V+T group and, after adjusting for covariates, had a significantly longer OS (median, 22.2 months) and EFS (9.1 months) than those in the T group (12.6 and 4.5 months, respectively) and the non-V/T group (12.2 and 3.2 months, respectively), but they were mostly comparable with patients in the V group (23.8 and 6.6 months, respectively). Compared to those in the V+T group, patients in the T and non-V/T groups had 29% and 39% fewer outpatient visits and 15% and 24% lower total expenditure, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our real-world data consolidate evidence for the effectiveness of bortezomib-containing regimens as the 1LOT in NDMM-TI patients at the expense of more outpatient visits and higher total costs.

Utilization of novel systemic therapies for multiple myeloma: A retrospective study of front-line regimens using the SEER-Medicare data

The landscape of treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) has significantly changed over the last decade due to novel agents that have shown superiority in efficacy such as proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) over traditional therapies. However, the real-world utilization of these new agents has not been studied well. This study evaluated year-to-year changes in treatment choices in a cohort of patients aged 66 or older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry linked with Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare) data who were diagnosed with MM between 2007 and 2011. We identified 2477 symptomatic newly diagnosed patients who were followed for 6 months or more postdiagnosis and treated with systemic therapies but not with stem cell transplantation. Symptomatic patients were identified by evidence of hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, or bone lesions (CRAB criteria). The minimum follow-up was imposed to ensure sufficient data to characterize treatment. Our analysis found that the proportion of treated patients increased from 75% in the 2007 cohort to 79% in the 2011 cohort. The share of PI-based regimens including PI plus alkylating agents, PI plus IMiD, and PI-only increased from 9% to 21%, 3% to 11%, and 16% to 22%, respectively, between 2007 and 2011. These findings translate to the share of PI-based regimens having increased from 28% to 55% and that of IMiDs-based regimens (excluding PI plus IMiD) having decreased from 43% to 27%. In conclusion, while the usage of PIs among elderly MM patients increased significantly replacing IMiD-based regimens (with or without alkylating agents but not with PI) between 2007 and 2011, this significant shift did not increase the proportion of treated patients.