Search

Objectives: To characterize the impact of prior exposure and refractoriness to lenalidomide or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) on the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib–lenalidomide–dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Methods: INSURE is a pooled analysis of adult RRMM patients who had received IRd in ≥2 line of therapy from three studies: INSIGHT MM, UVEA‐IXA, and REMIX. Results: Overall, 391/100/68 were lenalidomide‐naïve/−exposed/−refractory and 37/411/110 were PI‐naïve/−exposed/−refractory. Median duration of therapy (DOT) was 15.3/15.6/4.7 months and median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 21.6/25.8/5.6 months in lenalidomide‐naïve/exposed/refractory patients. Median DOT and PFS in PI‐naïve/exposed/refractory patients were 20.4/15.2/6.9 months and not reached/19.8/11.4 months, respectively. The proportion of lenalidomide‐naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA‐IXA who discontinued a study drug due to adverse events (AEs) was ixazomib, 31.6/28.2/28.0% and 18.6/6.7/10.5%; lenalidomide, 21.9/28.2/16.0% and 16.1/6.7/10.5%; dexamethasone, 18.4/20.5/16.0% and 10.6/0/10.5%, respectively. The proportion of PI‐naïve/exposed/refractory patients in INSIGHT and UVEA‐IXA who discontinued a study drug due to AEs was: ixazomib, 44.4/28.8/27.8% and 22.2/16.7/15.7%; lenalidomide, 33.3/22.0/19.4% and 16.7/15.9/11.8%; dexamethasone, 33.3/17.4/16.7% and 16.7/9.5/7.8%, respectively. REMIX AE discontinuation rates were unavailable. Conclusion: IRd appeared to be effective in RRMM patients in routine clinical practice regardless of prior lenalidomide or PI exposure, with better outcomes seen in lenalidomide‐ and/or PI‐nonrefractory versus refractory patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We pooled data from three observational studies (INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA and REMIX) to investigate the real-world effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Materials & methods: INSIGHT MM was a prospective study conducted in countries across Europe, Asia and North/Latin America while UVEA-IXA and REMIX were multicenter, retrospective/prospective studies conducted in Europe. Patients who had received IRd as ≥2nd line of therapy were analyzed. Primary outcomes were time-to-next treatment (TTNT) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Overall, 564 patients were included (median follow-up: 18.5 months). Median TTNT and PFS were 18.4 and 19.9 months; both outcomes were numerically longer for earlier versus later lines. Median treatment duration was 14.0 months. Overall response rate was 64.6%. No new safety concerns were noted. Conclusion: The effectiveness of IRd in routine practice appears similar to the efficacy observed in TOURMALINE-MM1. IRd benefit in earlier versus later lines was consistent with previous reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]