A randomized placebo-controlled phase II study of clarithromycin or placebo combined with VCD induction therapy prior to high-dose melphalan with stem cell support in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Comparative Meta-Analysis of Triplet vs. Quadruplet Induction Regimens in Newly Diagnosed, Treatment Naïve, Multiple Myeloma

The use of 4-drug induction regimens for treatment naïve newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is associated with improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS). However, head-to-head trials of 4-drug combinations are lacking, and instead, these regimens are typically compared to 3-drug backbones; limiting the ability to discern whether any additional benefit (or toxicity) is simply additive or represents a synergy (or interaction). We conducted a meta-analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that randomized treatment naïve NDMM patients to either a 4-drug or 3-drug induction regimen. We included 11 trials which represented 6509 unique patients. PFS for all trials in the meta-analysis was 54 months with a 4-drug induction and 8.9 months with a 3-drug induction (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.45; 0.54), but there was no benefit to using a 4-drug induction that did not include an anti-CD38 antibody (PFS 4-drug 8.1 months, PFS 3-drug 8.0 months; HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86; 1.06). Adverse events were more frequent with the quadruplet regimens but were predominately mild. High-grade (≥3) adverse events (AEs) that were more common with 4-drug regimens were infections (RR: 1.34; 95% CI 1.17; 1.54) and thrombocytopenia (RR: 1.39; 95% CI 1.12; 1.74). This study suggests that 4-drug induction regimens which include an anti-CD38 antibody improve efficacy although with additional toxicity in NDMM patients.

Immunoglobulin replacement vs prophylactic antibiotics for hypogammaglobulinemia secondary to hematological malignancy

ABSTRACT

Immunoglobulin replacement and prophylactic antibiotics are commonly used to prevent infections in patients with secondary hypogammaglobulinemia due to hematological malignancies but have never been directly compared. In this randomized controlled feasibility trial conducted in 7 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand, we enrolled patients with secondary hypogammaglobulinemia with either a history of recurrent/severe infection or an immunoglobulin G level <4 g/L. Participants were randomized in a 1:2 ratio to immunoglobulin (0.4 g/kg per 4 weeks IV) or daily antibiotics (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole 160 mg/800 mg or, if contraindicated, 100 mg doxycycline) for 12 months. Participants allocated to antibiotics were allowed to crossover after grade ≥3 infections. The primary outcome was proportion of patients alive on the assigned treatment 12 months after randomization. Between August 2017 and April 2019, 63 patients were randomized: 42 to antibiotics and 21 to immunoglobulin. Proportion of participants alive on allocated treatment at 12 months was 76% in the immunoglobulin and 71% in the antibiotic arm (Fisher exact test P=.77; odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.22-2.52). The lower quartile for time to first major infection (median, not reached) was 11.1 months for the immunoglobulin and 9.7 months for the antibiotic arm (log-rank test, P=.65). Three participants in the immunoglobulin and 2 in the antibiotic arm had grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events. A similar proportion of participants remained on antibiotic prophylaxis at 12 months to those on immunoglobulin, with similar rates of major infections. Our findings support the feasibility of progressing to a phase 3 trial. Trial registration #ACTRN12616001723471.

Interventions to reduce infections in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acquired hypogammaglobulinemia is common in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM). No previous systematic reviews (SRs) have compared different approaches to infection prevention. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of prophylactic immunoglobulin, antibiotics, and vaccination in these patients. We performed an SR and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of prophylactic immunoglobulin, antibiotics, and vaccination in adult patients with hematological malignancies commonly associated with acquired hypogammaglobulinemia, specifically, CLL, NHL, and MM. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Registry up to 9 January 2021. Results for dichotomous data were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and pooled in a random-effects model. This review was registered with PROSPERO CRD42017070825. From 10 576 studies screened, there were 21 completed RCTs and 1 ongoing. Of these, 8 evaluated prophylactic immunoglobulin (n = 370; 7 published before 2000), 5 evaluated prophylactic antibiotics (n = 1587), 7 evaluated vaccination (n = 3996), and 1 compared immunoglobulin to antibiotics (n = 60). Prophylactic immunoglobulin reduced the risk of clinically documented infection (CDI) by 28% (n = 2 trials; RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96), and vaccination reduced the risk by 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45). Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk. No intervention reduced all-cause mortality. Prophylactic immunoglobulin and antibiotics increased the risk of adverse events. Findings should be interpreted with caution, given the high risk of bias in many studies. There is a clear need for high-quality contemporary trials to establish the effectiveness of different approaches to preventing infection.

Safety of Antimicrobials for Postexposure Prophylaxis and Treatment of Anthrax: A Review

BACKGROUND

Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent for anthrax, poses a potential bioterrorism threat and is capable of causing mass morbidity and mortality. Antimicrobials are the mainstay of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and treatment of anthrax. We conducted this safety review of 24 select antimicrobials to identify any new or emerging serious or severe adverse events (AEs) to help inform their risk-benefit evaluation for anthrax.

METHODS

Twenty-four antimicrobials were included in this review. Tertiary data sources (e.g. Lactmed, Micromedex, REPROTOX) were reviewed for safety information and summarized to evaluate the known risks of these antimicrobials. PubMed was also searched for published safety information on serious or severe AEs with these antimicrobials; AEs that met inclusion criteria were abstracted and reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 1316 articles were reviewed. No consistent observations or patterns were observed among the abstracted AEs for a given antimicrobial; therefore, the literature review did not reveal evidence of new or emerging AEs that would add to the risk-benefit profiles already known from tertiary data sources.

CONCLUSIONS

The reviewed antimicrobials have known and/or potential serious or severe risks that may influence selection when recommending an antimicrobial for PEP or treatment of anthrax. Given the high fatality rate of anthrax, the risk-benefit evaluation favors use of these antimicrobials for anthrax. The potential risks of antimicrobials should not preclude these reviewed antimicrobials from clinical consideration for anthrax but rather guide appropriate antimicrobial selection and prioritization across different patient populations with risk mitigation measures as warranted.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review of Studies Published Between 2014 and 2021

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic literature review to identify the most recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple myeloma (MM) with a patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoint, and to summarize both clinical and PRO results, as well as to examine the quality of reporting by phase of disease. We also aimed to describe main type of PRO analysis used and interpretation of clinical significance of PRO findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs of cancer-directed therapy in patients with MM published between January 2014 and April 2021.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 19,798 patients enrolled were identified in our review. In all studies, PROs were secondary or exploratory endpoints. Half of the studies (n = 16) included newly diagnosed patients, 15 RCTs included patients with relapsed/refractory MM, and one study included patients with smoldering MM. Progression-free survival was the most frequently used primary endpoint. All studies provided unique PRO information that could be used to more comprehensively assess the risk/benefit of the newly tested drugs. However, the identified RCTs were heterogeneous regarding the presentation, and interpretation of PRO results.

CONCLUSION

The number of RCTs including PROs in MM research has notably increased in recent years. However, more consistency in the methodological approach to PRO assessment, and interpretation of outcomes is needed to ensure that PRO findings will be more impactful on patient care.

Triplet RVd Induction for Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has become standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This study aimed to determine the efficacy of RVd as induction therapy in terms of response rates and survival outcomes of transplant-eligible patients with NDMM.

METHODS

The databases of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until February 1, 2021. Both randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCTs from the available literature were extracted as one-arm data to assess the efficacy of each triplet regimen for the target patients in terms of response rates and survival rates for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. Data was summarized as estimated pooled value regarding each evaluated index. Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.

RESULTS

The findings of 71 studies published from 2008 to 2020 were analyzed. For RVd induction, the overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate after induction were 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.95), 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.29), and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51-0.61), respectively. Indirect comparisons in efficacy were made between RVd and other traditional triplet regimens. RVd induction led to a better ≥ CR rate than bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) regimen in both postinduction and post-ASCT phase, ≥ CR rate 0.11 (95% CI 0.08-0.15) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.12-0.32), respectively. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate and 3-year OS rate of RVd regimen were longer than that of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98) vs 0.71 (95% CI 0.61-0.80), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-0.98) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.75), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The RVd induction demonstrated confident response rates and survival benefits for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM.

Phase 2 study of clarithromycin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

The addition of clarithromycin enhances the efficacy of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in treatment-naive multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted a phase 2 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of clarithromycin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (ClaPd) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with prior lenalidomide exposure. One hundred twenty patients with a median of 5 prior lines of therapy received clarithromycin 500 mg orally twice daily, pomalidomide 4 mg orally on days 1 to 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28-day cycle. The overall response rate (ORR) was 60% with 23% achieving at least a very good partial response. There was no statistical difference in response rates for patients who were refractory to lenalidomide (ORR, 58%), bortezomib (ORR, 55%), or both lenalidomide and bortezomib (ORR, 54%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) for the cohort was 7.7 months and median overall survival (OS) was 19.2 months. A history of dual-refractoriness to lenalidomide and bortezomib did not significantly impact either PFS or OS. The most common toxicities were neutropenia (83%), lymphopenia (74%), and thrombocytopenia (71%). The most common grade ≥3 toxicities included neutropenia (58%), thrombocytopenia (31%), and anemia (28%). ClaPd is an effective combination in RRMM with response and survival outcomes that are independent of lenalidomide- or bortezomib-refractory status. Toxicities are manageable with low rates of nonhematologic or high-grade events. ClaPd is a convenient, all-oral option in RRMM with comparable efficacy to other highly active, 3-drug, pomalidomide-based combinations. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01159574.

Carfilzomib with immunomodulatory drugs for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Carfilzomib, a selective proteasome inhibitor (PI), is approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Combination regimens incorporating a PI and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) have been associated with deep responses and extended survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). Carfilzomib-based combinations with immunomodulators are being extensively studied in the frontline setting. The objective of this review was to describe efficacy and safety data for carfilzomib-based, PI/immunomodulatory combinations in NDMM. Information sources were articles indexed in PubMed and abstracts from key hematology/oncology congresses published between January 2012 and December 2018. PubMed and congresses were searched for prospective clinical studies assessing the combination of carfilzomib with an IMiD for NDMM treatment. Retrospective and preclinical reports, case reports/series, reviews, and clinical studies not evaluating carfilzomib-immunomodulator combinations in NDMM were excluded based on review of titles and abstracts. A total of nine articles and 72 abstracts were deemed relevant and included in the review. A total of six distinct carfilzomib-based, PI/immunomodulator combination regimens have been evaluated in 12 clinical trials. Overall, treatment with these regimens has resulted in deep responses, including high rates of negativity for minimal residual disease. These deep responses have translated to long progression-free survival and overall survival rates. Efficacy results for these regimens have generally been consistent across subgroups defined by age, transplant eligibility, and cytogenetic risk. The safety profile of carfilzomib in NDMM is consistent with that observed in the relapsed-refractory MM setting. Clinical studies have found that carfilzomib-based combinations with immunomodulators are highly active with a favorable safety profile in NDMM. The carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) drug backbone is a promising foundation for treatment strategies aimed at achieving long-term, deep responses (functional cures) in the frontline setting. Several ongoing studies are evaluating KRd, with or without anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Clarithromycin added to bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone impairs health-related quality of life in multiple myeloma patients

OBJECTIVES

The Danish Myeloma Study Group initiated a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded phase II study to investigate the efficacy of adding clarithromycin to cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone (VCD) induction therapy in transplant eligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. The study was prematurely terminated due to severe complications, and no effect of adding clarithromycin was found. The aim of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between the two groups and to explore the coherence hereof with adverse event (AE) registration by clinicians.

METHODS

Patients completed three validated HRQoL questionnaires at inclusion, before cyclophosphamide priming, and two months after high-dose therapy (HDT). The mean score difference was interpreted by clinically relevant differences between groups. Spearman's correlation analysis was used to compare patient-reported toxicities with AEs.

RESULTS

Of 58 included patients, 55 participated in the HRQoL reporting. Before cyclophosphamide priming, patients in the clarithromycin group reported clinically relevant reduced HRQoL for eleven domains with persistent reduction in four domains two months after HDT. Poor correlation between patient-reported toxicities and clinician-reported AEs was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the premature study termination, our data demonstrate impaired HRQoL when clarithromycin was added to the VCD regimen. We found clear underreporting of toxicities by clinicians. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02573935.