Mohyuddin, Ghulam Rehman

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment outcomes in developing countries may be impacted by resource constraints. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes of MM treatments across developing regions. Comprehensive searches in five major databases identified 37 eligible studies from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Newer novel agents including daratumumab, carfilzomib, and pomalidomide showed limited use across studies. For patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), the pooled overall survival rate at longest follow-up (2.5-12.5 years) was 62% (95% CI: 48-75%), with high heterogeneity (I²=92%), while the progression-free survival rate at longest follow-up (3-8 years) was 44% (95% CI: 23-67%). Comparative analyses demonstrated ASCT was associated with significantly superior 5-year survival compared to conventional chemotherapy (RR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.38-1.82). Bortezomib-based regimens showed better outcomes than thalidomide-based therapies (HR for overall survival (OS) at 4 years: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.53-1.0) and alkylating agent-based regimens (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28-0.83). Despite resource limitations, ASCT and certain novel agents are associated with improved survival outcomes for MM patients in developing countries. However, substantial heterogeneity in outcomes suggests variability in healthcare infrastructure, treatment accessibility, and clinical expertise across these regions.

Abstract Background Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), carries a variable risk of progression to MM. There is little consensus on the efficacy or optimal timing of treatment in SMM. We systematically reviewed the landscape of all clinical trials in SMM. We compared the efficacy of treatment regimens studied in SMM to results from these regimens when used in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), to determine whether the data suggest deeper responses in SMM versus NDMM. Methods All prospective interventional clinical trials for SMM, including published studies, meeting abstracts, and unpublished trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov up to April 1, 2023, were identified. Trial-related variables were captured, including treatment strategy and efficacy results. Relevant clinical endpoints were defined as overall survival (OS) and quality of life. Results Among 45 SMM trials identified, 38 (84.4%) assessed active myeloma drugs, while 7 (15.6%) studied bone-modifying agents alone. Of 18 randomized trials in SMM, only one (5.6%) had a primary endpoint of OS; the most common primary endpoint was progression-free survival (n = 7, 38.9%). Among 32 SMM trials with available results, 9 (28.1%) met their prespecified primary endpoint, of which 5 were single-arm studies. Six treatment regimens were tested in both SMM and NDMM; 5 regimens yielded a lower rate of very good partial response rate or better (≥VGPR) in SMM compared to the corresponding NDMM trial (32% vs 63%, 43% vs 53%, 40% vs 63%, 86% vs 89%, 92% vs 95%, and 94% vs 87%, respectively). Conclusion In this systematic review of all prospective interventional clinical trials in SMM, we found significant variability in trial design, including randomization status, primary endpoints, and types of intervention used. Despite the statistical limitations, comparison of treatment regimens revealed no compelling evidence that the treatment is more effective when introduced early in SMM compared to NDMM.

AbstractSurrogate endpoints are being used more frequently in randomized controlled trials, even though they do not consistently corelate with patient outcomes. We systemically evaluated the use of surrogate endpoints in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials over the past 15 years. We searched three databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane) for multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2005 to December 30, 2019. The primary outcome of our study was the proportion of randomized controlled trials that used overall survival as their primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included the use of surrogate endpoints, and trends over time, and whether they differed based on study sponsorship. We included 151 randomized controlled trials in our analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in 17 (11.3%) of studies, progression free survival (PFS) or event‐defined endpoints in 91 studies (60.3%) and response‐based endpoints in 44 studies (29.1%). Quality of life was a primary endpoint in only three studies (2%). The use of OS as a primary endpoint decreased from 28.5% of trials from 2005 to 2009 to 5.5% from 2015 to 2019. There has been a decrease in the clinically meaningful endpoint of OS over the past 15 years in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials. Use of quality of life as a primary endpoint remains exceedingly low. It remains paramount to recognize that the use of surrogate endpoints is imperfect, and care based upon them requires constant physician and patient re‐analysis.