Advertisement

The incidence of thromboembolism for lenalidomide versus thalidomide in older patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

  • Ang LiEmail author
  • Qian Wu
  • Greg Warnick
  • Shan Li
  • Edward N. Libby
  • David A. Garcia
  • Gary H. Lyman
Original Article

Abstract

It is uncertain if different immunomodulatory drugs (IMID) pose distinct thrombotic risk in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). Among 2397 MM patients from the SEER-Medicare database from 2007 to 2013, 78% received lenalidomide, and 22% received thalidomide. After inverse probability weighting to balance confounders, the 12-month incidences of venous thromboembolism (VTE 10%) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE 5%) were similarly high in both groups. Lenalidomide versus thalidomide had a subdistribution hazard ratio of 1.11 (0.59–2.02) for VTE and a subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.96 (0.45–1.98) for ATE. Overall survival was not significantly different with a hazard ratio of 0.88 (0.60–1.18) for lenalidomide versus thalidomide. Concurrent anticoagulant prophylaxis was infrequently prescribed in < 20% of both groups. Our study demonstrates that despite improvement in myeloma-directed therapy and supportive care, thrombosis remains an important consideration for all IMID-treated MM patients. Appropriate risk stratification and vigilant thromboprophylaxis remain essential to prevent this complication.

Keywords

Multiple myeloma Thromboembolism Venous thrombosis Arterial thrombosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

AL performed the research, designed the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. DAG and GHL performed the research, designed the study, and wrote the paper. QW and GW analyzed the data. SL and ENL contributed essential tools and wrote the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The current study itself was conducted without funding from industry. AL reports grant funding from the Conquer Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award, Hemostasis and Thrombosis Research Society Mentored Research Award supported by an independent medical educational grant from Shire, and National Hemophilia Foundation Shire Clinical Fellowship Award. Other authors report no relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, or affiliations.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement of informed consent

Informed consent was not obtained because this was a de-identified aggregate national claims database study where individual patient could not be identified and informed consent could not be obtained. The study was reviewed and considered exempt by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board.

References

  1. 1.
    Moreau P (2017) How I treat myeloma with new agents. Blood 130:1507–1513.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-05-743203 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrier M, Le Gal G, Tay J et al (2011) Rates of venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma patients undergoing immunomodulatory therapy with thalidomide or lenalidomide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 9:653–663.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04215.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    White RH, Garcia M, Sadeghi B, Tancredi DJ, Zrelak P, Cuny J, Sama P, Gammon H, Schmaltz S, Romano PS (2010) Evaluation of the predictive value of ICD-9-CM coded administrative data for venous thromboembolism in the United States. Thromb Res 126:61–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2010.03.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kiyota Y, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Cannuscio CC, Avorn J, Solomon DH (2004) Accuracy of Medicare claims-based diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: estimating positive predictive value on the basis of review of hospital records. Am Heart J 148:99–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.02.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones SA, Gottesman RF, Shahar E, Wruck L, Rosamond WD (2014) Validity of hospital discharge diagnosis codes for stroke: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Stroke 45:3219–3225.  https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.006316 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lyman GH, Eckert L, Wang Y, Wang H, Cohen A (2013) Venous thromboembolism risk in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy: a real-world analysis. Oncologist 18:1321–1329.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0226 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36:8–27.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chrischilles EA, Winiecki SK, Carnahan RM, et al. Mini-sentinel assessment protocol thromboembolic events after immunoglobulin administration. https://www.sentinelinitiative.org/vaccines-blood-biologics/assessments/thromboembolic-events-after-immunoglobulin-administration
  10. 10.
    Cancer Research Network Cancer Therapy Look-up Tables. https://crn.cancer.gov/resources/codes.html
  11. 11.
    Austin PC (2014) The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med 33:1242–1258.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5984 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Austin PC (2016) Variance estimation when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with survival analysis. Stat Med 35:5642–5655.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7084 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2018) Cancer-associated venous thromboembolic disease. VTE-A2Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gay F, Hayman SR, Lacy MQ, Buadi F, Gertz MA, Kumar S, Dispenzieri A, Mikhael JR, Bergsagel PL, Dingli D, Reeder CB, Lust JA, Russell SJ, Roy V, Zeldenrust SR, Witzig TE, Fonseca R, Kyle RA, Greipp PR, Stewart AK, Rajkumar SV (2010) Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus thalidomide plus dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a comparative analysis of 411 patients. Blood 115:1343–1350.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2009-08-239046 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luo J, Gagne JJ, Landon J, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS (2017) Comparative effectiveness and safety of thalidomide and lenalidomide in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Cancer 70:22–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.10.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson GH, Davies FE, Pawlyn C, Cairns DA, Striha A, Collett C, Hockaday A, Jones JR, Kishore B, Garg M, Williams CD, Karunanithi K, Lindsay J, Jenner MW, Cook G, Russell NH, Kaiser MF, Drayson MT, Owen RG, Gregory WM, Morgan GJ, UK NCRI Haemato-oncology Clinical Studies Group (2019) Lenalidomide maintenance versus observation for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (Myeloma XI): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 20:57–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30687-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of HematologyUniversity of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Clinical Research DivisionFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Public Health Sciences DivisionFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Hematology Oncology Clinical PharmacySeattle Cancer Care AllianceSeattleUSA
  5. 5.Division of Medical OncologyUniversity of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations