Saad Z. Usmani, MD

 The biggest impact we’ve made in patients with myeloma is for standard and intermediate-risk patients. The triplet-induction approach followed by consideration of stem cell transplantation, followed by maintenance, has become a standard of care for patients with myeloma. Now we’re thinking about quadruplet therapies for those patients to try to get deeper responses during that first year of diagnosis.

The challenge for us is in high-risk myeloma. Because myeloma is a heterogenous disease, we see high risk both with clinical features as well as specific biologic features on FISH [fluorescence in situ hybridization] cytogenetic.

There are a lot of newer drugs, newer platforms like bispecific antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and chimeric antigen receptors T-cell and anti–T-cell therapies that are coming down the line. For our colleagues practicing in the communities, it is important to partner with your closest myeloma center to give your patients access to those kinds of therapies. I suspect that over the next 5 years, navigating the various options of treatment are going to be a big challenge. People like me are still trying to figure it out, and it’s going to be more challenging for our community colleagues. Strengthening that partnership is going to be important so we can deliver the best possible care for our patients with myeloma.

Case: A 75-Year-Old Woman With Multiple Myeloma

An active 75-year-old woman presented with new onset back pain and a 10-month history of fatigue, mild sensory neuropathy

PMH: hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and atrial fibrillation; all medically controlled

PE: bony tenderness appreciated on the hips and lower back

Labs: Hb 10.2 g/dL, calcium 11.1 mg/dL, LDH 186 U/L, creatinine 1.3 mg/dL, albumin 3.7 g/dL, beta-2 microgloblulin 3.6 mcg/mL, potassium 1100 g/dL, M-protein 2.6 g/dL, lambda free light chains 4.1 mg/dL

X-ray showed L4 vertebral compression fracture

Skeletal survey showed multiple lytic lesions in femur

Bone marrow shows 40% clonal plasma cells IgG k with hyperdiploidy FISH

Patient is ineligible for ASCT due to comorbidities

Initiated treatment with daratumumab + lenalidomide + dexamethasone

Videos

Saad Usmani, MD, speculates on the current progress in treating multiple myeloma, while providing a glimpse into the future of cutting-edge treatments.

Current and Future Treatment Options for Multiple Myeloma Patients 

 The coronavirus pandemic has certainly impacted our clinical workflow as well as the way that we conduct patient care. Virtual visits and virtual medicine have made strong inroads into how we are managing patients. It’s going to be here to stay, even after the pandemic is over. We are also trying to see how we can streamline operations in the clinic so that patients have shorter exposures to the health care setting.

During the surge of the pandemic, we were modifying the patients’ regimens and trying to give them less frequent exposure to the infusion centers. Even in the absence of data, we had to do it for safety reasons. Then the subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab came along and made things a little easier for us because it reduces the period patients have to stay in the infusion center to receive daratumumab.

Subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab has improved the clinical workflow as well as patient satisfaction without impacting the efficacy of the drug. Our centers have gone to the subcutaneous formulation altogether, and we expect that most of our patients will be switching over to the subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab.

Saad Usmani, MD, reflects on the impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on his practice and the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma overall.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Treating Patients With Multiple Myeloma 

 More recently there was a study called PEGASUS that did an indirect comparison between the DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] patients treated on the MAIA trial and the common standard-of-care regimens utilizing the Flatiron Health electronic medical record database. Patient data would be identified, and there were individual patient data.

These data were used to perform what is called an indirect treatment comparison, or an anchor treatment indirect comparison, with DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone]. The comparison was with VRd [bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone], Vd [bortezomib, dexamethasone], and Rd [lenalidomide, dexamethasone].

This is not a randomized up-front clinical trial. This is an indirect comparison. We have to take these results with a grain of salt. But in the absence of a direct-comparison clinical trial of DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] vs VRd [bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone], these are probably the best data for now.

It was encouraging to see that, when compared with the identified data sets for those patients, DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] was associated with a lower risk of progression on depth compared with VRd [bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone]. And in the absence of a head-to-head trial comparison, these data tell us if you’re picking DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] over VRd [bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] for whatever reason in transplant-ineligible patients, it’s reasonable to do that.

We’re never going to—at least not in the immediate future—have a triplet-vs-triplet trial in the setting. But these may be the best data that we get.

Looking at DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] as an option for our given patient, it will not give you the same kind of neuropathy as you would get with VRd [bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone], especially in the patient with diabetes who already has early signs of neuropathy.

The important piece is the overall tolerability. If you look at the MAIA data, there were no safety signals that led to this continuation of a drug that was unique compared with the Rd [lenalidomide, dexamethasone]. There were higher incidents of infections in the DRd arm [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone], as well as neutropenia. But they did not result in discontinuation of treatments.

One of the key things I want to highlight is that older patients in general have an immunosuppressive state. It’s more important in older patients to watch for infections and do appropriate dose modifications of Revlimid [lenalidomide] specifically.

This is something we have observed in the clinic: Most patients require dose adjustments of lenalidomide, or even in the relapsed setting pomalidomide, when they’re combined with daratumumab. Our general practice is to start with the low dose of Revlimid [lenalidomide] in older patients along with daratumumab. Based on tolerability and response, we see if we can move the dose up. We generally don’t start with a 25-mg dose in our clinical practice.

Those are some of the clinically relevant points for when managing patients receiving DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone].

The MAIA & PEGASUS Trial and Managing Patients Receiving DRd

The MAIA trial was a randomized phase 3 trial in transplant-ineligible patients with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2. The randomization was the combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, compared with the standard-of-care arm of lenalidomide-dexamethasone treatment, which was continued until relapse progression or intolerance with primary end point being PFS [progression-free survival]. Secondary end points were TTP [time to progression], CR [complete response] and single CR rate, MRD [minimal residual disease] negativity rate, PFS, overall survival [OS], as well as overall response rate.

Risk stratification on the trial was done with ISS [insulin sliding scale] staging and the patient’s age. One key element of this clinical trial was that of all 737 patients who were enrolled in the study, 44% of the patients were 75 years or older. This goes in line with what we’re seeing in terms of choices for this particular patient.

The original study was presented and published after a median follow-up of 28 months. And at that time the median PFS for the DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone]had not been reached, but for the Rd [lenalidomide, dexamethasone] had been reset at about 32 months. The study had shown more than 3-fold MRD-negativity rates at that time.

The MAIA data were updated at a median follow-up of 48 months at ASH [American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting] recently. Even after 48 months of follow-up, the median PFS on the DRd arm [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] had not been reached, which is quite unprecedented for a newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible study at this point.

And Rd [lenalidomide, dexamethasone] arm showed an improvement in the PFS that was supported with 34½ months with a hazard ratio of 0.54.

The depth of response continued to get better over time. The overall response rate was 93%, with a higher percentage of patients achieving CR and stringent CR in the DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] arm compared with the Rd [lenalidomide, dexamethasone] arm. Looking at the MRD-negativity rates, those 2 continue to get better over time with a median follow-up of 48 months. Now MRD negativity rate on the DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] arm was 31%.

Taking all these data together, I feel that DRd [daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone] would the best choice for this patient.

Saad Usmani, MD, analyzes the efficacy and safety data results from the phase 3 MAIA study.

Saad Z. Usmani, MD | Authors

Articles

Current and Future Treatment Options for Multiple Myeloma Patients

The Impact of COVID-19 on Treating Patients With Multiple Myeloma

The MAIA & PEGASUS Trial and Managing Patients Receiving DRd

Data Analysis from the Phase 3 MAIA Study