Outcomes of ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone for multiple myeloma: A multicenter retrospective analysis

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.

Lenalidomide use in multiple myeloma (Review)

Lenalidomide is a second-generation new immunomodulatory medication used to treat multiple myeloma (MM). Its mechanism of action involves affecting the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor, interleukin-6, cytochrome c, caspase-8, as well as other factors including immunological modulation and the direct killing of cells, among others, rendering it a fundamental medication, useful for the treatment of MM. Combining lenalidomide with other medications such dexamethasone, bortezomib, ixazomib, carfilzomib and daratumumab can markedly alleviate MM. When autologous-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) cannot be utilized to treat newly diagnosed individuals with MM (NDMM), monotherapy maintenance following lenalidomide and dexamethasone may be employed. Following ASCT, single-agent maintenance with lenalidomide can be performed as an additional treatment. The combination of bortezomib and lenalidomide has been demonstrated to be associated with favorable response rates, tolerable toxicity, and therapeutic benefits although caution is warranted to prevent the onset of peripheral neuropathy with its use. A new-generation oral drug with an excellent safety profile, ixazomib, is more practical and therapeutically applicable in relapsed refractory MM. However, the frequent occurrence of cardiovascular events, hematocrit, and infections with it require flexible adjustment in its clinical application. Carfilzomib produces a rapid and profound response in patients with NDMM eligible for transplantation, but its cardiovascular side effects need to be closely monitored. The primary aim of the present review was to examine the pharmacological properties and pharmacokinetics of lenalidomide, as well as the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide-based treatments with reference to data from clinical trials and real-world studies.

Real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of Ixazomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: a multicenter experience in Turkey

A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted to explore effectiveness and safety of ixazomib plus lenalidomide with dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients following at least ≥ two lines of therapy. Patients' treatment responses, overall response rate, progression-free survival rate, and adverse events were recorded. Mean age of 54 patients was 66.5 ± 9.1 years. There were 20 patients (37.0%) with progression. Median progression-free survival was 13 months in patients who received a median of three therapy lines in a 7.5-month follow-up period. Overall response rate was 38.5%. Of 54 patients, 19 (40.4%) had at least one adverse event, and nine (19.1%) had an adverse event of at least grade 3 or more. Of 72 adverse events observed in 47 patients, 68% were grade 1 or 2. Treatment was not stopped in any patient due to adverse events. IRd combination therapy was effective and safe in heavily treated RRMM patients.

Real-world toxicity and effectiveness of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in Korean patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd) have proven efficacy and an excellent safety profile in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there are limited reports on the real-world safety and effectiveness of IRd regimens in Asian patients with RRMM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 60 patients with RRMM who were treated with IRd.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 68 years. Forty percent of patients did not meet the eligibility criteria for the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial. Patients received a median of one prior line of therapy. Non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) were more common than hematologic AEs. The most common AE was skin rash, followed by gastrointestinal toxicities. Most grade 3 or higher AEs were observed in less than 5% of the patients, except for skin rashes and infections. IRd therapy did not aggravate peripheral neuropathy (PN) in 20 of the 24 patients with pre-existing peripheral neuropathy. The overall response rate was 85%. After a median follow-up of 26.3 months, the median progression-free survival was 25.9 months and overall survival was not reached.

CONCLUSION

Ixazomib and Rd combination therapy had a comparable toxicity profile and effectiveness in real-world RRMM patients.

Ixazomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Routine Clinical Practice: Extended Follow-Up Analysis and the Results of Subsequent Therapy

Simple Summary

We report the final outomes of the addition of ixazomib to the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the routine clinical practice. With prolonged follow-up, the overall response rate was similar in both cohorts, but the addition of ixazomib induced more deeper responses. Median progression free survival was significantly better in patients receiving ixazomib and translated into better overal survival. Inferior results were seen in patients who were pretreated with lenalidomide in previous regimens. We conclude that the treatment using IRD regimen in routine practice is easy, well tolerated, and with very good therapeutic outcomes, comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial.

Abstract

Background: We confirmed the benefit of addition of ixazomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in unselected real-world population. We report the final analysis for overall survival (OS), second progression free survival (PFS-2), and the subanalysis of the outcomes in lenalidomide (LEN) pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Methods: We assessed 344 patients with RRMM, treated with IRD (N  =  127) or RD (N  = 217). The data were acquired from the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). With prolonged follow-up (median 28.5 months), we determined the new primary endpoints OS, PFS and PFS-2. Secondary endpoints included the next therapeutic approach and the survival measures in LEN pretreated and LEN refractory patients. Results: The final overall response rate (ORR) was 73.0% in the IRD cohort and 66.8% in the RD cohort. The difference in patients reaching ≥VGPR remained significant (38.1% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.028). Median PFS maintained significant improvement in the IRD cohort (17.5 vs. 12.5 months, p = 0.013) with better outcomes in patients with 1–3 prior relapses (22.3 vs. 12.7 months p = 0.003). In the whole cohort, median OS was for IRD vs. RD patients 40.9 vs. 27.1 months (p = 0.001), with further improvement within relapse 1-3 (51.7 vs. 27.8 months, p ˂ 0.001). The median PFS of LEN pretreated (N = 22) vs. LEN naive (N = 105) patients treated by IRD was 8.7 vs. 23.1 months (p = 0.001), and median OS was 13.2 vs. 51.7 months (p = 0.030). Most patients in both arms progressed and received further myeloma-specific therapy (63.0% in the IRD group and 53.9% in the RD group). Majority of patients received pomalidomide-based therapy or bortezomib based therapy. Significantly more patients with previous IRD vs. RD received subsequent monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab—16.3% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.0054; isatuximab 5.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026) and carfilzomib (12.5 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.004). The median PFS-2 (progression free survival from the start of IRD/RD therapy until the second disease progression or death) was significantly longer in the IRD cohort (29.8 vs. 21.6 months, p = 0.016). There were no additional safety concerns in the extended follow-up. Conclusions: The IRD regimen is well tolerated, easy to administer, and with very good therapeutic outcomes. The survival measures in unsorted real-world population are comparable to the outcomes of the clinical trial. As expected, patients with LEN reatment have poorer outcomes than those who are LEN-naive. The PFS benefit of IRD vs. RD translated into significantly better PFS-2 and OS, but the outcomes must be accounted for imbalances in pretreatment group characteristics (especially younger age and stem cell transplant pretreatment), and in subsequent therapies.

Application of urine immunofixation electrophoresis in prognostic evaluation of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with myeloma

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the value of urine immunofixation electrophoresis in prognostic evaluation of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with myeloma.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients with multiple myeloma admitted to Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University from November 2013 to December 2014 were included as research subjects. All patients received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were followed up for five years. Outcomes were evaluated according to the recovery status: complete response (CR), very good partial response (VGPR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progression disease (PD). In addition, the overall response rate (CR+VGPR) of patients was observed and their urine immunoglobulin status was measured by immunofixation electrophoresis. The Kaplan-Meier method was utilized to plot the survival curve, and the Log-rank method was adopted to analyze the relationship between CR+VGPR and PR and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) survival in patients with myeloma.

RESULTS

The basic clinical type of immunofixation electrophoresis was as follows: 19 cases (55.88%) of IgG, 7 cases (20.59%) of IgA, 6 cases (17.65%) of IgM, and 2 cases (5.88%) of light chain type. Outcomes: 13 cases (38.24%) of CR, 12 cases (35.29%) of VGPR, 9 cases (26.47%) of PR, and 25 cases (73.53%) of the overall response rate (CR+VGPR). Compared with IgG, CR, VGPR and PR of IgA, IgM and light chain had statistically significant differences in outcome (p<0.05), and CR+VGPR of patients with IgG was higher than that of patients with IgA, IgM and light chain type (p<0.05). Two of the 34 patients were lost to follow-up. The log-rank analysis showed that the survival rate of patients with CR+VGPR was higher than that of patients with PR (p<0.05). Patients with IgA, IgM, and light chain type had an increased number of prognostic death compared with those with IgG (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with IgG type myeloma are superior to those with IgA, IgM and light chain type in terms of the prognosis of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, which has a certain clinical reference value.

[The efficacy and safety profile of ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a multicenter real-world study in China]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (IRd) in Chinese patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) . Methods: This study comprising 14 medical centers in China included patients with relapsed/refractory MM who received at least. Ixazomib at an initial oral dose of 4 mg was administered. Seven patients had dose adjustment to 3 mg at the time of first dose. The lenalidomide doses were adjusted according to creatinine clearance rate. The efficacy and safety were evaluated every cycle. Results: In the study cohort of 74 patients, the median age was 65 years and 11 (14.9% ) patients received over three lines of therapy. Overall response rate (ORR) was 54.1% (40/74) , and 7 (9.5% ) , 14 (18.9% ) , and 19 (25.7% ) patients achieved stringent complete response or complete response, very good partial response, and partial response, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 9.9 and 20 months, respectively. The median time to response was 1 month. The efficacy and survival outcome were similar to those reported in the Tourmaline-MM1 China Continuous Study. The ORR of patients refractory to bortezomib, lenalidomide, and bortezomib plus lenalidomide were 52.0% (13/25) , 57.1% (4/7) , and 33.3% (6/18) , respectively. The rate of grade 3-4 adverse events was 36.5% (27/74) . Common hematological toxicities were anemia, thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, and neutropenia. Common non-hematological toxicities were fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and infections. Two cases of grade 3 peripheral neuropathy were reported. The patients eligible for the Tourmaline-MM1 China Continuous Study had a higher ORR than the ineligible patients [77.8% (14/18) vs 46.4% (26/56) , P=0.020]. There was no difference in the rate of grade 3-4 adverse events [33.3% (6/18) vs 37.5% (21/56) , P=0.749]. Conclusion: The IRd regimen had good efficacy and acceptable toxicity in Chinese patients with relapsed/refractory MM.