Search

D-VMP is a novel treatment for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TIE NDMM). D-VMP significantly prolonged PFS versus VMP in the ALCYONE trial. The FIRST trial investigated Rd given in 28-day cycles until disease progression, Rd for 18 cycles, and MPT for 12 cycles for TIE NDMM. As no randomized controlled trials comparing D-VMP to standard-of-care regimens such as those in FIRST are available, an MAIC was performed to assess relative OS and PFS for D-VMP from ALYCONE and Rd continuous, Rd 18, and MPT from FIRST. Individual patient data for D-VMP in ALCYONE were weighted to match aggregated baseline patient characteristics for each arm of FIRST. D-VMP significantly improved OS versus MPT and Rd 18, with a trend favoring D-VMP versus Rd continuous. D-VMP performed significantly better than all FIRST comparators for PFS. This MAIC demonstrates OS and PFS benefits for D-VMP versus Rd continuous, Rd 18, and MPT. © 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Introduction: The phase 3 ALCYONE study demonstrated significantly longer progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) and higher overall response rates (ORR) with daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) versus VMP alone in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). In Latin America, bortezomib- or thalidomide-based regimens remain standard of care (SoC) for this population. No head-to-head trials have compared D-VMP with SoC regimens used in Latin America. Methods: Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for baseline differences between patient populations and compare outcomes for D-VMP versus SoC regimens used in Latin America. Data for the D-VMP cohort were from the D-VMP arm of the ALCYONE trial (n = 350). Data for the SoC cohort were from the retrospective, observational Hemato-Oncology Latin America (HOLA) study, which included patients with NDMM who did not receive a transplant (n = 729). Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression. Exact, optimal, and nearest-neighbor PSM were applied to pick the best-performing method. Doubly robust estimation was the base case, since some baseline imbalances persisted. Results: All 350 patients from the D-VMP arm of ALCYONE were included in OS/PFS analyses and 338 in ORR analysis; 478 and 324 patients, respectively, from HOLA were included in these analyses. Naïve comparison revealed important differences in baseline characteristics (age, chronic kidney disease, hypercalcemia, and International Staging System [ISS] stage). After nearest-neighbor matching, baseline characteristics, except ISS stage, were well balanced; comparisons favored D-VMP over SoC for OS (hazard ratio = 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25–0.66; P = 0.002) and PFS (hazard ratio = 0.48; 95% CI 0.35–0.67; P < 0.001). After exact matching, imbalances remained in age and ISS stage; comparisons favored D-VMP over SoC for ORR (odds ratio = 5.44; 95% CI 2.65–11.82; P < 0.001). Conclusion: In transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM, D-VMP showed superior effectiveness versus bortezomib- and thalidomide-based regimens, supporting adoption of daratumumab-containing regimens in Latin America. © 2020, The Author(s).

For patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who are transplant ineligible, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) demonstrated superior efficacy based on the VISTA trial. In subsequent trials, twice-weekly bortezomib was limited to the first cycle or completely replaced with once-weekly bortezomib to reduce toxicity. Following a systematic literature review, the efficacy and safety of modified VMP schedules (pooled data from the once-weekly bortezomib VMP arm of the GIMEMA trial and the VMP arm of the ALCYONE trial) were compared to the VISTA schedule using naïve and unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Median progression-free survival was similar between VISTA and modified VMP (20.7 months [95% CI, 18.4–24.3] vs 19.6 months [95% CI, 18.8–21.0]). Peripheral neuropathy was significantly reduced with modified VMP versus VISTA VMP (all grades: naïve, 32.1% vs 46.8% and MAIC, 32.1% vs 46.7%; both p

The prognostic value of minimal residual disease (MRD) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in a large cohort of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) using a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published up to 8 June 2019, with no date limit on the indexed database. Clinical end points stratified by MRD status (positive or negative) were extracted, including hazard ratios (HRs) on PFS and OS, P values, and confidence intervals (CIs). HRs were estimated based on reconstructed patient-level data from published Kaplan- Meier curves. Forty-four eligible studies with PFS data from 8098 patients, and 23 studies with OS data from 4297 patients were identified to assess the association between MRD status and survival outcomes. Compared with MRD positivity, achieving MRD negativity improved PFS (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.29-0.37; P < .001) and OS (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51; P < .001). MRD negativity was associated with significantly improved survival outcomes regardless of disease setting (newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM), MRD sensitivity thresholds, cytogenetic risk, method of MRD assessment, depth of clinical response at the time of MRD measurement, and MRD assessment premaintenance and 12 months after start of maintenance therapy. The strong prognostic value of MRD negativity and its association with favorable outcomes in various disease and treatment settings sets the stage to adopt MRD as a treatment end point, including development of therapeutic strategies. This large meta-analysis confirms the utility of MRD as a relevant surrogate for PFS and OS in MM. © 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.