Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Chinese Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Updated Analysis of LEPUS

Clinical outcomes of pomalidomide-based and daratumumab-based therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A real-world cohort study in China

BACKGROUND

Comparative investigations evaluating the efficacy of pomalidomide-based (Pom-based) versus daratumumab-based (Dara-based) therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remain scarce, both in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 140 RRMM patients treated with Pom-based or Dara-based or a combination of pomalidomide and daratumumab (DPd) regimens in a Chinese tertiary hospital between December 2018 and July 2023.

RESULTS

The overall response rates (ORR) for Pom-based (n = 48), Dara-based (n = 68), and DPd (n = 24) groups were 57.8%, 84.6%, and 75.0%, respectively (p = 0.007). At data cutoff on August 1, 2023, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.5) for the Pom-based group, 10.5 months (5.2-15.8) for the Dara-based group, and 6.7 months (4.0-9.3) for the DPd group (p = 0.056). Multivariate analysis identified treatment regimens (Dara-based vs. Pom-based, DPd vs. Pom-based) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) as independent prognostic factors for PFS. In the subgroups of patients aged >65 years, with ECOG PS ≥2, lines of therapy ≥2, extramedullary disease or double-refractory disease (refractory to both lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors), the superiority of Dara-based regimens over Pom-based regimens was not evident. A higher incidence of infections was observed in patients receiving Dara-based and DPd regimens (Pom-based 39.6% vs. Dara-based 64.7% vs. DPd 70.8%, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world settings, Pom-based, Dara-based, and DPd therapies exhibited favorable efficacy in patients with RRMM. Dara-based therapy yielded superior clinical response and PFS compared to Pom-based therapy.

Efficacy and safety of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives

The current study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) through meta-analysis.

Methods

As of June 2023, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the clinical outcomes of anti-CD38 mAbs plus immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) plus dexamethasone and IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone for RRMM patients were included. Efficacy outcomes were mainly evaluated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The safety was analyzed with hematologic and nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). All results were pooled using hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR), and their 95% confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI).

Results

This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs in total. Compared with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone, anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone significantly prolonged PFS (HR: 0.552, 95% CI = 0.461 to 0.659, 95% PI = 0.318 to 0.957) and OS (HR: 0.737, 95% CI = 0.657 to 0.827, 95% PI = 0.626 to 0.868) in patients with RRMM. Additionally, RRMM patients receiving anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone achieved higher rates of overall response (RR: 1.281, 95% CI = 1.144 to 1.434, 95% PI = 0.883 to 1.859), complete response or better (RR: 2.602, 95% CI = 1.977 to 3.424, 95% PI = 1.203 to 5.628), very good partial response (VGPR) or better (RR: 1.886, 95% CI = 1.532 to 2.322, 95% PI = 0.953 to 3.731), and minimum residual disease (MRD)-negative (RR: 4.147, 95% CI = 2.588 to 6.644, 95% PI = 1.056 to 16.283) than those receiving IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone. For TEAEs, the rates of hematologic and nonhematologic TEAEs, including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), pneumonia, bronchitis, dyspnea, diarrhea, pyrexia, back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia, and hypertension, were higher in the anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone group than in the IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone group.

Conclusion

Our study showed that anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone improved PFS and OS, and achieved higher rates of overall response, complete response or better, VGPR or better, and MRD-negative, as well as higher rates of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, URTI, pneumonia, bronchitis, dyspnea, diarrhea, pyrexia, back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia, and hypertension in RRMM patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023431071.