The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological cancer of plasma cells that mainly affects older populations, with a median age at diagnosis of 69 years. The introduction of novel therapies over the past couple of decades has improved patient outcomes and overall survival, but MM remains incurable.
In 2015, four new therapies were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of relapsed MM: panobinostat, ixazomib, elotuzumab, and daratumumab. Although there have been numerous systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and review papers that assess the efficacy and safety, including the side effects of these therapies based on the data from their randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) , the safety profiles of these treatments in real-world settings is lacking. Eric P. Borrelli and Conor G. McGladrigan published in Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice a comparison of safety profiles of the four new agents in the real-world settings versus RCTs.1
The dataset was largely from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and included data from the randomized clinical trials that led to the approval of the four therapies. Any reports of adverse events (AE) were collected and a categorized into the ten most frequently reported events. This analysis included all reactions reported from October 2015–December 2017, regardless of grade and severity, and excluded any non-specific reporting.
There were only a few adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among the ten most frequent AEs that were reported in both randomized controlled trials and FAERS for each agent (Table 1). These were as follows:
Table 1. Comparison of the ten most frequent AEs reported in clinical trials versus data extrapolated from the FAERS 1
AE, adverse event; FAERS, U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System; RCT, randomized controlled trial Adverse drug reactions reported in both RCT and FAERS are shown in bold. |
|||
Daratumumab
Reactions, n |
RCTs (n = 196) |
Fatigue, 96 Nasal pharyngitis, 67 Anemia, 55 Nausea, 54 Cough, 50 |
Pyrexia, 50 Back pain, 49 Upper respiratory tract infection, 43 Thrombocytopenia, 41 Diarrhea, 41 |
---|---|---|---|
FAERS (n = 935) |
Infusion site reaction, 78 Death, 54 Dyspnea, 44 Cough, 29 Chills, 25 |
Back pain, 24 Disease progression, 22 Chest pain, 22 Neutrophil count decreased, 19 Bronchospasm, 12 |
|
Elotuzumab
Reactions, n |
RCT (n = 318) |
Lymphocytopenia, 316 Anemia, 306 Thrombocytopenia, 266 Neutropenia, 260 Fatigue, 149 |
Diarrhea, 149 Pyrexia, 119 Constipation, 113 Cough, 100 Muscle spasms, 95 |
FAERS (n = 311) |
Death, 42 Infusion site reaction, 12 Malignant neoplasm progression, 10 Pneumonia, 8 Chills, 7 |
Diarrhea, 7 Deep vein thrombosis, 6 Anemia, 5 Atrial fibrillation, 5 Rash, 5 |
|
Ixazomib
Reactions, n |
RCT (n = 361) |
Rash, 203 Diarrhea, 164 Constipation, 126 Neutropenia, 118 Thrombocytopenia, 112 |
Fatigue, 106 Anemia, 103 Nausea, 104 Peripheral edema, 101 Peripheral neuropathy, 97 |
FAERS (n = 1,712) |
Death, 332 Diarrhea, 97 Fatigue, 78 Pneumonia, 46 Nausea, 43 |
Plasma cell myeloma, 40 Constipation, 35 Abdominal pain, 27 Malaise, 25 Peripheral neuropathy, 22 |
|
Panobinostat
Reactions, n |
RCT (n = 381) |
Diarrhea, 260 Peripheral neuropathy, 231 Fatigue, 217 Nausea, 138 Peripheral edema, 109 |
Decreased appetite, 107 Constipation, 102 Pyrexia, 99 Vomiting, 98 Cough, 81 |
FAERS (n = 318) |
Diarrhea, 56 Death, 37 Fatigue, 20 Malignant neoplasm progression, 10 Anemia, 9 |
Platelet count decreased, 6 Constipation, 6 State of confusion, 6 Blood creatinine increased, 6 Nausea, 5 |
Table 2. Most frequently reported AEs from the FAERS with a statistically significant higher ROR1
AE, adverse event; ROR, reporting odds ratios |
|||||||
Daratumumab |
Elotuzumab |
Ixazomib |
Panobinostat |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reaction |
ROR, 95% CI |
Reaction |
ROR, 95% CI |
Reaction |
ROR, 95% CI |
Reaction |
ROR, 95% CI |
Infusion site reaction |
88.07, |
Infusion site reaction |
37.62, |
Plasma cell myeloma |
20.71, |
Malignant neoplasm progression |
27.63, |
69.57–111.50 |
21.10–67.10 |
15.10–28.41 |
14.70–51.93 |
||||
Bronchospasm |
35.07, |
Malignant neoplasm progression |
22.93, |
Peripheral neuropathy |
11.24, |
Platelet count decreased |
22.65, |
19.75–62.27 |
12.20–43.10 |
7.37–17.15 |
10.09–50.88 |
||||
Chills |
10.16, |
Deep vein thrombosis |
11.1, |
Death |
6.04, |
Diarrhea |
15.32, |
6.83–15.14 |
4.94–24.91 |
5.36–6.81 |
11.48–20.45 |
||||
Disease progression |
9.09, |
Chills |
8.49, |
Pneumonia |
5.62, |
Blood creatinine increased |
10.03, |
5.95–13.88 |
4.01–17.97 |
4.19–7.54 |
4.47–22.51 |
||||
Neutropenia |
8.5, |
Atrial fibrillation |
6.72, |
Constipation |
4.28, |
State of confusion |
5.85, |
4.81–15.05 |
2.78–16.28 |
3.06–5.99 |
2.61–13.12 |
||||
Dyspnea |
6.45, |
Pneumonia |
5.36, |
Nausea |
4.18, |
Anemia |
5.02, |
4.76–8.74 |
2.66–10.81 |
3.09–5.66 |
2.59–9.74 |
||||
Cough |
4.73, |
Death |
3.91, |
Diarrhea |
4.01, |
Constipation |
4.08, |
3.27–6.86 |
2.82–5.41 |
3.27–4.93 |
1.82–9.16 |
||||
Back pain |
4, |
Anemia |
3.1, |
Fatigue |
1.99, |
Death |
3.48, |
2.67–6.01 |
1.28–7.51 |
1.59–2.50 |
2.47–4.91 |
||||
Chest pain |
3.85, |
— |
— |
Malaise |
1.99, |
Fatigue |
2.8, |
2.52–5.86 |
1.34–2.96 |
1.78–4.41 |
|||||
Death |
1.53, |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Nausea |
2.59, |
1.16–2.02 |
1.07–6.28 |
Elotuzumab was associated with the development of deep vein thrombosis; this finding is reinforced by other publications.1 However, as elotuzumab was only approved as part of a triplet combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, during this study, the deep vein thrombosis reaction could be from lenalidomide, which carries a black box warning for this AE.
Although death was reported frequently and was a statically significant ADR for all four therapies, it may be a consequence of the disease itself or related to the high-risk patient population that failed up to three lines of therapy, the indication setting for these treatments.
This study outlined the differences in safety of panobinostat, ixazomib, elotuzumab, and daratumumab in real-world settings versus RCTs. The findings show a difference in risk estimates between the two settings and highlight the importance of monitoring pharmacovigilance and assessing for any additional safety signals over time. Ideally, these should be performed within 2 years of the FDA approval because beyond this there is a significant decrease in ADR reporting.
It is important to note that panobinostat has a black box warning for severe diarrhea and cardiac ischemic events. The proven increase in the FAERS reporting for ADRs in relation to a black box warning might explain the higher incidence of diarrhea with panobinostat.
A limitation of the study was the reporting in the FAERS database of events such as ‘adverse event’, ‘adverse reaction’, and ‘hospitalization’, which were included in the ROR calculations and may bias results as the causality of the ADR and the treatment were not clear. Additionally, it is impossible to know the real incidence of the reported ADRs since the total number of patients taking each medication is unknown.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content