Detail
Článek
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

N. Raje, E. Terpos, W. Willenbacher, K. Shimizu, R. García-Sanz, B. Durie, W. Legieć, M. Krejčí, K. Laribi, L. Zhu, P. Cheng, D. Warner, GD. Roodman,

. 2018 ; 19 (3) : 370-381. [pub] 20180209

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu klinické zkoušky, fáze III, srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, randomizované kontrolované studie, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19012848

E-zdroje NLK Online Plný text

ProQuest Central od 2000-09-01 do Před 2 měsíci
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) od 2000-09-01 do Před 2 měsíci
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) od 2000-09-01 do Před 2 měsíci
Public Health Database (ProQuest) od 2000-09-01 do Před 2 měsíci

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019. FINDINGS: From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85-1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease. FUNDING: Amgen.

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19012848
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20231019132223.0
007      
ta
008      
190405s2018 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30072-X $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)29429912
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Raje, Noopur $u Center for Multiple Myeloma, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: NRAJE@mgh.harvard.edu.
245    10
$a Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study / $c N. Raje, E. Terpos, W. Willenbacher, K. Shimizu, R. García-Sanz, B. Durie, W. Legieć, M. Krejčí, K. Laribi, L. Zhu, P. Cheng, D. Warner, GD. Roodman,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019. FINDINGS: From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85-1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease. FUNDING: Amgen.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a antitumorózní látky $x škodlivé účinky $x terapeutické užití $7 D000970
650    _2
$a inhibitory kostní resorpce $x škodlivé účinky $x terapeutické užití $7 D050071
650    _2
$a nádory kostí $x komplikace $x mortalita $x prevence a kontrola $x sekundární $7 D001859
650    _2
$a denosumab $x škodlivé účinky $x terapeutické užití $7 D000069448
650    _2
$a dvojitá slepá metoda $7 D004311
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a fraktury spontánní $x etiologie $x mortalita $x patologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D005598
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a mnohočetný myelom $x komplikace $x farmakoterapie $x mortalita $x patologie $7 D009101
650    _2
$a doba přežití bez progrese choroby $7 D000077982
650    _2
$a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
650    _2
$a komprese míchy $x etiologie $x mortalita $x patologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D013117
650    _2
$a časové faktory $7 D013997
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a kyselina zoledronová $x škodlivé účinky $x terapeutické užití $7 D000077211
655    _2
$a klinické zkoušky, fáze III $7 D017428
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Terpos, Evangelos $u National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Alexandra General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
700    1_
$a Willenbacher, Wolfgang $u Innsbruck University Hospital & OncoTyrol, Center of Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria.
700    1_
$a Shimizu, Kazuyuki $u National Hospital Organization Higashi Nagoya National Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
700    1_
$a García-Sanz, Ramón $u Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
700    1_
$a Durie, Brian $u Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
700    1_
$a Legieć, Wojciech $u Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
700    1_
$a Krejčí, Marta $u University Hospital Brno, Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Laribi, Kamel $u Department of Hematology, Centre Hospitalier Le Mans, Le Mans, France.
700    1_
$a Zhu, Li, $u Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA $d 1949- $7 xx0308672
700    1_
$a Cheng, Paul $u Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
700    1_
$a Warner, Douglas $u Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
700    1_
$a Roodman, G David $u Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
773    0_
$w MED00011558 $t Lancet oncology $x 1474-5488 $g Roč. 19, č. 3 (2018), s. 370-381
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29429912 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20190405 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20231019132218 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1392158 $s 1051153
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2018 $b 19 $c 3 $d 370-381 $e 20180209 $i 1474-5488 $m Lancet oncology $n Lancet Oncol. $x MED00011558
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20190405

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat...