Multiple drug combinations of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide for first-line treatment in adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a "c". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design. Overall survival (OS) Evidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty). Progression-free survival (PFS) Treatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months). Adverse events The risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc. VMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared. Treatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP. Quality of life QoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.

Lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone as initial therapy for multiple myeloma: a randomized Southwest Oncology Group trial (S0232)

The Southwest Oncology Group conducted a randomized trial comparing lenalidomide (LEN) plus dexamethasone (DEX; n = 97) to placebo (PLC) plus DEX (n = 95) in newly diagnosed myeloma. Three 35-day induction cycles applied DEX 40 mg/day on days 1 to 4, 9 to 12, and 17 to 20 together with LEN 25 mg/day for 28 days or PLC. Monthly maintenance used DEX 40 mg/day on days 1 to 4 and 15 to 18 along with LEN 25 mg/day for 21 days or PLC. Crossover from PLC-DEX to LEN-DEX was encouraged on progression. One-year progression-free survival, overall response rate, and very good partial response rate were superior with LEN-DEX (78% vs 52%, P = .002; 78% vs 48%, P < .001; 63% vs 16%, P < .001), whereas 1-year overall survival was similar (94% vs 88%; P = .25). Toxicities were more pronounced with LEN-DEX (neutropenia grade 3 or 4: 21% vs 5%, P < .001; thromboembolic events despite aspirin prophylaxis: 23.5% [initial LEN-DEX or crossover] vs 5%; P < .001). This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00064038.

[New therapeutic strategies for multiple myeloma. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness analyses]

The objective of the present article is the review of the most important therapeutic innovations in the treatment of multiple myeloma in terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Besides autologous transplant with peripheral-blood stem-cell, thalidomide establishes as one of the most powerful therapeutic tools in induction and maintenance treatment and together with lenalidomide and bortezomib as therapy for relapsing/refractory multiple myeloma. Considering, the last named situation thalidomide can be an adequate therapeutical option in combination with dexamethasone. Under a strictly pharmacoeconomic point of view, lenalidomide and bortezomib seem to be additional alternatives in patients previously treated with thalidomide.

Thalidomide for treatment of multiple myeloma: 10 years later

Thalidomide, bortezomib, and lenalidomide have recently changed the treatment paradigm of myeloma. In young, newly diagnosed patients, the combination of thalidomide and dexamethasone has been widely used as induction treatment before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). In 2 randomized studies, consolidation or maintenance with low-dose thalidomide has extended both progression-free and overall survival in patients who underwent ASCT at diagnosis. In elderly, newly diagnosed patients, 3 independent randomized studies have reported that the oral combination of melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide (MPT) is better than the standard melphalan and prednisone (MP). These studies have shown better progression-free survival, and 2 have shown improved overall survival for patients assigned to MPT. In refractory-relapsed disease, combinations including thalidomide with dexamethasone, melphalan, doxorubicin, or cyclophosphamide have been extensively investigated. The risks of side effects are greater when thalidomide is used in combination with other drugs. Thromboembolism and peripheral neuropathy are the major concern. The introduction of anticoagulant prophylaxis has reduced the rate of thromboembolism to less than 10%. Immediate thalidomide dose reduction or discontinuation when paresthesia is complicated by pain or motor deficit has decreased the severity of neuropathy. Future studies will define the most effective or the best sequence of combinations which could improve life expectancy.

New drugs for myeloma

Although multiple myeloma remains incurable with conventional treatments, management of the disease has recently been transformed with the introduction of three novel agents, bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide. The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of patients who have received one prior therapy; there is a growing body of clinical evidence showing its effectiveness alone and in combination in the frontline setting, with high response rates and consistently high rates of complete response. Thalidomide plus dexamethasone is approved as frontline treatment of multiple myeloma. Other combination regimens including thalidomide have demonstrated substantial activity in both relapsed and frontline settings. Recently, the thalidomide analogue lenalidomide has been approved, in combination with dexamethasone, for the treatment of patients who have received one prior therapy; this regimen has shown promising results in the frontline setting. These agents represent a new generation of treatments for multiple myeloma that affect both specific intracellular signaling pathways and the tumor microenvironment. Other novel, targeted therapies are also being evaluated in preclinical and clinical studies. Regimens incorporating bortezomib, thalidomide, lenalidomide, and other novel agents, together with commonly used conventional drugs, represent a promising future direction in myeloma treatment. At present, further investigation is required to assess the safety and activity of combinations integrating these other novel agents. However, bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide are now in widespread clinical use. This review therefore focuses on the extensive clinical data available from studies of these drugs in the treatment of newly diagnosed and advanced multiple myeloma.

Current Standards for First-Line Therapy of Multiple Myeloma

Current standards of care for first-line treatment of multiple myeloma are evolving rapidly because of the introduction of regimens based on novel agents with unique mechanisms of action: the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide. These regimens are becoming increasingly widely used, offering substantially greater benefit to patients in terms of higher response rates and, more importantly, prolonged response durations and survival compared with established standard first-line treatment strategies. A notable aspect of many of these emerging treatment options is the very high rates of complete response (CR) reported, previously only seen with transplantation-based strategies. Achievement of CR is prognostic for improved overall survival; therefore, the higher rates and quality of responses seen with the new regimens might substantially improve patient outcomes versus established standards of care. For example, addition of each of the 3 novel agents to melphalan/prednisone results in higher overall response rates and CR rates, as well as prolonged progression-free and overall survival, compared with melphalan/prednisone alone. Similar substantial improvements in response are seen with addition of the 3 agents to single-agent dexamethasone and the use of bortezomib or thalidomide in VAD (vincristine/doxorubicin/dexamethasone)-like regimens, as induction therapies before stem cell transplantation and in patients not proceeding to transplantation. Ultimately, these novel regimens might obviate the need for stem cell transplantation in a sizeable proportion of patients. The emergence of these new therapeutic options appears likely to significantly alter the first-line treatment paradigm for patients with multiple myeloma.

Emerging Role of Novel Combinations for Induction Therapy in Multiple Myeloma

Although multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, there has been a concerted effort toward understanding its molecular pathogenesis, which has paved the way for the development of highly effective, novel therapeutic agents such as the immunomodulatory agents thalidomide and lenalidomide, and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. A better understanding of the molecular basis of chemotherapy resistance and the molecular sequelae of conventional cytotoxic and novel agents on MM cells and the bone marrow microenvironment has afforded the opportunity to study novel, rationally designed combination therapies in the clinic. These regimens have shown impressive activity in relapsed/refractory MM, and recent work has demonstrated unprecedented response rates in the first-line setting rivaling those seen with autologous stem cell transplantation. Recently presented results of 2 phase III clinical trials comparing melphalan/prednisone (MP) with MP and thalidomide (MP-Thal) in older patients with newly diagnosed MM have demonstrated superior progression-free survival and overall survival rates with MP-Thal, thus providing the first evidence that the improved response rates to these novel combination regimens will translate into better patient outcomes. Herein we review the early promising clinical activity of these regimens in patients with newly diagnosed MM.