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

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 R...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of oncology pharmacy practice 2019-10, Vol.25 (7), p.1692-1698
Hauptverfasser: Schepers, Allison J, Jones, Alexis R, Reeves, Brandi N, Tuchman, Sascha A, Bates, Jill S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1698
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1692
container_title Journal of oncology pharmacy practice
container_volume 25
creator Schepers, Allison J
Jones, Alexis R
Reeves, Brandi N
Tuchman, Sascha A
Bates, Jill S
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1078155218815283
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2281054610</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1078155218815283</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2281054610</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-ac43e3186886d0461cc4b9f857e5949f5aec923c560f225917f2393a9c744d2a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LxDAQxYMo7rp69yQBr1vNR9Okx2XxCxa8KHgraTp1u7RNTVp0PfuHm3VXBcHTTGZ-7014CJ1SckGplJeUSEWFYFSFwhTfQ2MaSxmRlD3thz6so81-hI68XxFClGTqEI04EYRyxcboY4aNbTrtKm9bbEvswHe29YCrFvdLwF0YQGsAW4d1vmtLrHEBtV5vqKotBtNX9ot3ulvj16pf4ty6Ht5tU-VTXEOr66oIjwKmWLdFUL_pBvqlDmfhGB2UuvZwsqsT9Hh99TC_jRb3N3fz2SIyPBF9pE3MgVOVKJUUJE6oMXGelkpIEGmclkKDSRk3IiElYyKlsmQ85To1Mo4LpvkEnW99O2dfBvB9trKDC1_zGWOKEhE8SaDIljLOeu-gzDpXNdqtM0qyTezZ39iD5GxnPOQNFD-C75wDEG0Br5_h9-q_hp8fAYqF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2281054610</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of response in the presence or absence of a delay in induction therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Schepers, Allison J ; Jones, Alexis R ; Reeves, Brandi N ; Tuchman, Sascha A ; Bates, Jill S</creator><creatorcontrib>Schepers, Allison J ; Jones, Alexis R ; Reeves, Brandi N ; Tuchman, Sascha A ; Bates, Jill S</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1078-1552</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-092X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1078155218815283</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30501382</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Bortezomib ; Dexamethasone ; Females ; Health care facilities ; Immunotherapy ; Induction therapy ; Inhibitor drugs ; Multiple myeloma ; Patients ; Pharmacy ; Procurement ; Response rates ; Steroids ; Targeted cancer therapy ; Teratogenicity</subject><ispartof>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice, 2019-10, Vol.25 (7), p.1692-1698</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-ac43e3186886d0461cc4b9f857e5949f5aec923c560f225917f2393a9c744d2a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-ac43e3186886d0461cc4b9f857e5949f5aec923c560f225917f2393a9c744d2a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4570-846X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1078155218815283$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1078155218815283$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30501382$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schepers, Allison J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Alexis R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reeves, Brandi N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuchman, Sascha A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bates, Jill S</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of response in the presence or absence of a delay in induction therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone</title><title>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice</title><addtitle>J Oncol Pharm Pract</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Bortezomib</subject><subject>Dexamethasone</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Health care facilities</subject><subject>Immunotherapy</subject><subject>Induction therapy</subject><subject>Inhibitor drugs</subject><subject>Multiple myeloma</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharmacy</subject><subject>Procurement</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Steroids</subject><subject>Targeted cancer therapy</subject><subject>Teratogenicity</subject><issn>1078-1552</issn><issn>1477-092X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM1LxDAQxYMo7rp69yQBr1vNR9Okx2XxCxa8KHgraTp1u7RNTVp0PfuHm3VXBcHTTGZ-7014CJ1SckGplJeUSEWFYFSFwhTfQ2MaSxmRlD3thz6so81-hI68XxFClGTqEI04EYRyxcboY4aNbTrtKm9bbEvswHe29YCrFvdLwF0YQGsAW4d1vmtLrHEBtV5vqKotBtNX9ot3ulvj16pf4ty6Ht5tU-VTXEOr66oIjwKmWLdFUL_pBvqlDmfhGB2UuvZwsqsT9Hh99TC_jRb3N3fz2SIyPBF9pE3MgVOVKJUUJE6oMXGelkpIEGmclkKDSRk3IiElYyKlsmQ85To1Mo4LpvkEnW99O2dfBvB9trKDC1_zGWOKEhE8SaDIljLOeu-gzDpXNdqtM0qyTezZ39iD5GxnPOQNFD-C75wDEG0Br5_h9-q_hp8fAYqF</recordid><startdate>201910</startdate><enddate>201910</enddate><creator>Schepers, Allison J</creator><creator>Jones, Alexis R</creator><creator>Reeves, Brandi N</creator><creator>Tuchman, Sascha A</creator><creator>Bates, Jill S</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-846X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201910</creationdate><title>A comparison of response in the presence or absence of a delay in induction therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone</title><author>Schepers, Allison J ; Jones, Alexis R ; Reeves, Brandi N ; Tuchman, Sascha A ; Bates, Jill S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-ac43e3186886d0461cc4b9f857e5949f5aec923c560f225917f2393a9c744d2a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Bortezomib</topic><topic>Dexamethasone</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Health care facilities</topic><topic>Immunotherapy</topic><topic>Induction therapy</topic><topic>Inhibitor drugs</topic><topic>Multiple myeloma</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharmacy</topic><topic>Procurement</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Steroids</topic><topic>Targeted cancer therapy</topic><topic>Teratogenicity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schepers, Allison J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Alexis R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reeves, Brandi N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuchman, Sascha A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bates, Jill S</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schepers, Allison J</au><au>Jones, Alexis R</au><au>Reeves, Brandi N</au><au>Tuchman, Sascha A</au><au>Bates, Jill S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of response in the presence or absence of a delay in induction therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone</atitle><jtitle>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice</jtitle><addtitle>J Oncol Pharm Pract</addtitle><date>2019-10</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1692</spage><epage>1698</epage><pages>1692-1698</pages><issn>1078-1552</issn><eissn>1477-092X</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>30501382</pmid><doi>10.1177/1078155218815283</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-846X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1078-1552
ispartof Journal of oncology pharmacy practice, 2019-10, Vol.25 (7), p.1692-1698
issn 1078-1552
1477-092X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2281054610
source SAGE Complete
subjects Bortezomib
Dexamethasone
Females
Health care facilities
Immunotherapy
Induction therapy
Inhibitor drugs
Multiple myeloma
Patients
Pharmacy
Procurement
Response rates
Steroids
Targeted cancer therapy
Teratogenicity
title A comparison of response in the presence or absence of a delay in induction therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T13%3A56%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20response%20in%20the%20presence%20or%20absence%20of%20a%20delay%20in%20induction%20therapy%20with%20bortezomib,%20lenalidomide,%20and%20dexamethasone&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20oncology%20pharmacy%20practice&rft.au=Schepers,%20Allison%20J&rft.date=2019-10&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1692&rft.epage=1698&rft.pages=1692-1698&rft.issn=1078-1552&rft.eissn=1477-092X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1078155218815283&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2281054610%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2281054610&rft_id=info:pmid/30501382&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1078155218815283&rfr_iscdi=true