A comparison of response in the presence or absence of a delay in induction therapy with bortezomib,lenalidomide,and dexamethasone

Abstract

Purpose

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has emerged as a preferred induction therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) in the United States. Due to lenalidomide's teratogenic risk, patients and prescribers must comply with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program. The REMS program limits dispensing to certain third-party specialty pharmacies, whose average prescription fill times are longer than in-house specialty pharmacies. In practice, a delay in procurement of lenalidomide may mean that patients start therapy with only bortezomib and dexamethasone, delaying the start of more effective triplet therapy. The primary objective of this study is to determine if a delay from start of bortezomib and dexamethasone to start of triplet therapy with lenalidomide impacts rate of achievement of very good partial response (VGPR) after four cycles of RVd.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective review of adults with newly diagnosed MM who received RVd induction therapy at University of North Carolina Medical Center between April 2014 and June 2017. Patients who started lenalidomide ≥10 days after bortezomib comprised the “Delay” group, while those who started lenalidomide concurrently with bortezomib or within 1–9 days after bortezomib comprised the “No Delay” group. The primary outcome was VGPR or better response rate after four cycles of RVd.

Results

Thirty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Nine patients (23.7%) experienced any delay in initiation of lenalidomide, with a mean delay of 7.8 days (range 1–18). Four patients (10.5%) experienced a delay ≥10 days. No patients in the Delay group were of reproductive potential, compared to 8.8% in the No Delay group (p = 0.54). VGPR or better response rate did not differ between the Delay and No Delay groups (66.7% vs. 58.8%, p = 0.79). The mean number of lenalidomide prescriptions generated per RVd cycle was 1.35 (range 1–5, SD 0.74).

Conclusions

This study did not demonstrate an effect on clinical response after delays ≥10 days between bortezomib and lenalidomide initiation. No patients in the delay group were females of reproductive potential, which is the primary target for increased safety behind the REMS program.

Keywords

Lenalidomide delay multiple myeloma REMS

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Richardson

Weller

Lonial

, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2010; 116: 679–686.

Durie

BGM

Hoering

Abidi

, et al. Bortezomib with lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed myeloma without intent for immediate autologous stem-cell transplant (SWOG S0777): a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017; 389: 519–527.

Niccolai

Roman

Julius

, et al. Potential obstacles in the acquisition of oral anticancer medications. J Oncol Pract 2017; 13: e29–e36.

Adelson

Stutsky

Fradkin

, et al. Should cancer centers start their own specialty pharmacy? Quality and economic data from the oral chemotherapy program at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale New Haven Health System. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 108.

Harousseau

Attal

Aver-Loiseau

. The role of complete response in multiple myeloma. Blood 2009; 114: 3139–3146.

Kyle

Leong

, et al. Complete response in multiple myeloma: clinical trial E9486, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study not involving stem cell transplantation. Cancer 2006; 106: 1958–1966.

Van de velde

Liu

Chen

, et al. Complete response correlates with long-term survival and progression-free survival in high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2007; 92: 1399–1406.

Kariyawasan

Hughes

Jayatillake

, et al. Multiple myeloma: causes and consequences of delay in diagnosis. Q J Med 2007; 100: 635–640.

Reeder

Reece

Kukreti

, et al. Once- versus twice-weekly bortezomib induction therapy with CyBorD in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2010; 116: 3416–3417.

10.

Palumbo

Avet-Loiseau

Oliva

, et al. Revised International Staging System for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2863–2869.

11.

Durie

BGM

Harousseau

Miguel

, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006; 20: 1467–1473.

12.

Celgene Corporation. Revlimid (package insert). Summit, NJ: Celgene Corporation, 2005.

13.

About the Revlimid REMS® program. Celgene website, http://www.revlimidrems.com/about.html (2013, accessed June 10, 2018.).

14.

Approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS). U.S. Food and Drug Administration, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/rems/index.cfm?event=RemsData.page (accessed June 10, 2018).

15.

Boudes

. Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMSs): are they improving drug safety? A critical review of REMSs Requiring Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU). Drugs R D 2017; 17: 245–254.

16.

Levinson DR. FDA lacks comprehensive data to determine whether risk evaluation and mitigation strategies improve drug safety. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, 2013. OEI-04-11-00510.