RECORD STATUS:

None

CITATION:

Shayani S. Bortezomib. University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC). Drug Monograph. 2003

BACKGROUND:

Multiple myeloma is a malignancy of plasma cells accounting for approximately 1% of cancers and 12% of haematological malignancies. The first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, is commonly used to treat newly diagnosed as well as relapsed/refractory myeloma, either as single agent or combined with other therapies.

OBJECTIVES:

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of bortezomib on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related death (TRD).

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE (till 27 January 2016) as well as conference proceedings and clinical trial registries for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared i) bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy in each arm; ii) bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s) and iii) bortezomib dose comparisons and comparisons of different treatment administrations and schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently extracted outcomes data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted hazard ratios (HR) and their confidence intervals for OS and PFS and odds ratios (OR) for response rates, AEs and TRD. We contacted trial authors to provide summary statistics if missing. We estimated Logrank statistics which were not available. We extracted HRQoL data, where available.

MAIN RESULTS:

We screened a total of 3667 records, identifying 16 relevant RCTs involving 5626 patients and included 12 trials in the meta-analyses. All trials were randomised and open-label studies. Two trials were published in abstract form and therefore we were unable to assess potential risk of bias in full.There is moderate-quality evidence that bortezomib prolongs OS (four studies, 1586 patients; Peto OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92) and PFS (five studies, 1855 patients; Peto OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.74) from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy in each arm.There is high-quality evidence that bortezomib prolongs OS (five studies, 2532 patients; Peto OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88) but low-quality evidence for PFS (four studies, 2489 patients; Peto OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s).Four trials (N = 716) examined different doses, methods of administrations and treatment schedules and were reviewed qualitatively only.We identified four trials in the meta-analysis that measured time to progression (TTP) and were able to extract and analyse PFS data for three of the studies, while in the case of one study, we included TTP data as PFS data were not available. We therefore did not analyse TTP separately in this review.Patients treated with bortezomib have increased risk of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastro-intestinal toxicities, peripheral neuropathy, infection and fatigue with the quality of evidence highly variable. There is high-quality evidence for increased risk of cardiac disorders from analysing trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or versus other agents. The risk of TRD in either comparison group analysed is uncertain due to the low quality of the evidence.Only four trials analysed HRQoL and the data could not be meta-analysed.Subgroup analyses by disease setting revealed improvements in all outcomes, whereas for therapy setting, an improved benefit for bortezomib was observed in all outcomes and subgroups except for OS following consolidation therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

This meta-analysis found that myeloma patients receiving bortezomib benefited in terms of OS, PFS and response rate compared to those who did not receive bortezomib. This benefit was observed in trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with the same background therapy and in trials of bortezomib versus no bortezomib with different background therapy in each arm or compared to other agent(s). Further evaluation of newer proteasome inhibitors is required to ascertain whether these agents offer an improved risk-benefit profile, while more studies of HRQoL are also required.

RECORD STATUS:

This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.

CITATION:

All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG). Bortezomib (Velcade®) Penarth: All Wales Therapeutics and Toxicology Centre (AWTTC), secretariat of the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG). AWMSG Secretariat Assessment Report Advice No. 2814. 2014

Abstract:

AIMS:

Bortezomib (Velcade™, PS-341), a first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, has been extensively studied either alone or in combination with other agents for the treatment of multiple myeloma. We created a provincial guideline for the use of bortezomib, in newly diagnosed individuals (both eligible and ineligible for transplant) and in individuals with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Materials and methods: A systematic review was conducted searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and relevant meeting abstracts. Outcomes of interest were survival, disease control, response rate, response duration, quality of life and adverse effects. Members of the Cancer Care Ontario Hematology Disease Site Group (CCO HDSG), comprising physicians with content expertise, epidemiologists and consumers, developed a guideline through a systematic process that involved assessment of the best available evidence, consensus interpretation of the evidence and a validation process involving practitioners across the province.

RESULTS:

The CCO HDSG recommends the use of bortezomib-based combinations in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who are candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation and in individuals who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. The group further recommends the use of bortezomib, alone or in combination, for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. The evidence did not establish a subgroup of patients with myeloma that should be uniquely targeted for therapy with bortezomib. Qualifying statements by the HDSG address alternative dosing options, the management of cytopenias and the prevention of toxicities, including herpes zoster reactivation.

CONCLUSIONS:

Bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents can be recommended for both previously untreated or relapsed/refractory patients with multiple myeloma. Guidelines for monitoring and reducing toxicity are provided.

Este artículo no tiene resumen

Este artículo no tiene resumen

Background: Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) is significantly better than melphalan plus prednisone alone for elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma; however, toxic effects are high. We investigated a novel and less intensive bortezomib-based regimen to maintain efficacy and to reduce toxic effects. Methods: Between March, 2006, and October, 2008, 260 patients with untreated multiple myeloma, 65 years and older, from 63 Spanish centres, were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of VMP (n=130) or bortezomib plus thalidomide and prednisone (VTP; n=130) as induction therapy, consisting of one cycle of bortezomib twice per week for 6 weeks (1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32), plus either melphalan (9 mg/m2 on days 1-4) or daily thalidomide (100 mg), and prednisone (60 mg/m2 on days 1-4). The first cycle was followed by five cycles of bortezomib once per week for 5 weeks (1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) plus the same doses of melphalan plus prednisone and thalidomide plus prednisone. 178 patients completed the six induction cycles and were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bortezomib plus prednisone (n=87) or bortezomib plus thalidomide (n=91), consisting of one conventional cycle of bortezomib for 3 weeks (1·3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) every 3 months, plus either prednisone (50 mg every other day) or thalidomide (50 mg per day), for up to 3 years. Treatment codes were generated with a computerised random number generator, and neither participants nor study personnel were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was response rate in induction and maintenance phases. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00443235. Findings: In the induction phase, 105 (81%) patients in the VTP group and 104 (80%) in the VMP group achieved partial responses or better (p=0·9), including 36 (28%) and 26 (20%) complete remissions, respectively (p=0·2). Treatment with VTP resulted in more serious adverse events (40 [31%] vs 20 [15%], p=0·01) and discontinuations (22 [17%] vs 15 [12%], p=0·03) than did treatment with VMP. The most common toxicities (grade 3 or worse) were infections (one [1%] in the VTP group vs nine [7%] in the VMP group), cardiac events (11 [8%] vs 0), and peripheral neuropathy (nine [7%] vs 12 [9%]). After maintenance therapy, the complete remission rate was 42% (40 [44%] patients in complete remission in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group, 34 [39%] in the bortezomib plus prednisone group). No grade 3 or worse haematological toxicities were recorded during maintenance therapy; two (2%) patients in the bortezomib plus prednisone group and six (7%) in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group developed peripheral neuropathy. Interpretation: Reduced-intensity induction with a bortezomib-based regimen, followed by maintenance, is a safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Funding: Pethema (Spanish Program for the Treatment of Hematologic Diseases). © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

Bortezomib-dexamethasone is widely used for relapsed myeloma in routine clinical practice, but comparative data versus single-agent bortezomib are lacking. This retrospective analysis compared second-line treatment with bortezomib-dexamethasone and bortezomib using 109 propensity score-matched pairs of patients treated in three clinical trials: MMY-2045, APEX, and DOXIL-MMY-3001. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression analyses incorporating 13 clinical variables related to drug exposure or clinical outcome. Patients received intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, in 21-day cycles, alone or with oral dexamethasone 20 mg on the days of/after bortezomib dosing. Median bortezomib cumulative dose (27.02 and 28.60 mg/m(2)) and treatment duration (19.6 and 17.6 weeks) were similar with bortezomib-dexamethasone and bortezomib, respectively. The overall response rate was higher (75% vs. 41%; odds ratio=3.467; P<0.001), and median time-to-progression (13.6 vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio [HR]=0.394; P=0.003) and progression-free survival (11.9 vs. 6.4 months; HR=0.595; P=0.051) were longer with bortezomib-dexamethasone versus bortezomib, respectively. Rates of any-grade adverse events, most common grade 3 or higher adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events appeared similar between the groups. Two patients per group died of treatment-related adverse events. These data indicate the potential benefit of bortezomib-dexamethasone compared with single-agent bortezomib at first relapse in myeloma. The MMY-2045, APEX, and DOXIL-MMY-3001 clinical trials were registered at, respectively, clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 00908232, 00048230, and 00103506.

We conducted a systematic review to determine the appropriate use of bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents in patients with multiple myeloma (mm). We searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of included studies. We analyzed randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews if they involved adult mm patients treated with bortezomib and if they reported on survival, disease control, response, quality of life, or adverse effects. Twenty-six unique studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients with previously untreated mm and for candidates for transplantation, we found a statistically significant benefit in time to progression [hazard ratio (hr): 0.48, p < 0.001; and hr: 0.63, p = 0.006, respectively] and a better response with a bortezomib than with a non-bortezomib regimen (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer with bortezomib and thalidomide than with thalidomide alone (p = 0.01). In non-candidates for transplantation, a significant benefit in overall survival was observed with a bortezomib regimen (hr compared with a non-bortezomib regimen: 0.61; p = 0.008), and in transplantation candidates receiving bortezomib, the response rate was improved after induction (p = 0.004) and after a first transplant (p = 0.016). In relapsed or refractory mm, overall survival (p = 0.03), time to progression (hr: 1.82; p = 0.000004), and progression-free survival (hr: 1.69; p = 0.000026) were significantly improved with bortezomib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (compared with bortezomib alone), and bortezomib monotherapy was better than dexamethasone alone (hr: 0.77; p = 0.027). Bortezomib combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone was better than either bortezomib monotherapy or thalidomide with dexamethasone (p < 0.001). In previously untreated or in relapsed or refractory mm patients, bortezomib-based therapy has improved disease control and, in some patients, overall survival. © 2014 Multimed Inc.

The objective of the study was to investigate the effects and safety of novel agents such as bortezomib and lenalidomide in the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An initial search yielded 627 citations, of which 10 RCTs enrolling 4534 patients met the inclusion criteria. The addition of bortezomib to first-line therapy significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [0.65, 0.87], p < 0.001). On the other hand, the addition of lenalidomide had no impact on survival (HR, 0.88 [0.65, 1.20], p = 0.42). Both lenalidomide and bortezomib consistently improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with conventional therapy alone. The corresponding HRs were 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.55, 0.77] (p < 0.001) for bortezomib and 0.48, 95% CI [0.42, 0.55]; (p < 0.001) for lenalidomide, respectively. Some of the increased adverse events reported were herpes zoster (relative risk [RR], 3.64 [2.23, 5.94], p < 0.001), peripheral neuropathy (RR, 3.59 [1.89, 6.83], p < 0.001) and gastrointestinal effects (RR, 2.19 [1.37, 3.50], p = 0.001) among patients receiving bortezomib, and gastrointestinal effects (RR, 2.36 [1.33, 4.17], p = 0.003) and thromboembolic events (RR, 2.55 [1.48, 4.38], p < 0.001) among patients receiving lenalidomide. Interestingly, treatment with bortezomib seemed to be associated with a lower rate of treatment related mortality (RR, 0.39 [0.18, 0.85], p = 0.02). An increased incidence of second primary cancers was observed in the lenalidomide group (RR 2.61 [1.60, 4.27], p < 0.001). In summary, bortezomib improved OS, and both lenalidomide and bortezomib consistently improved PFS of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma when it was added to standard therapy.