Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: In a phase 1b study, intravenous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone induced a very good partial response or better rate of 42% and was well tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate whether daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone would improve progression-free survival versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (APOLLO) done at 48 academic centres and hospitals across 12 European countries, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with measurable disease, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, had at least one previous line of therapy, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, had a partial response or better to one or more previous lines of antimyeloma therapy, and were refractory to lenalidomide if only one previous line of therapy was received. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system in a random block size of two or four to receive pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone or daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy and International Staging System disease stage. All patients received oral pomalidomide (4 mg, once daily on days 1–21) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg once daily on days 1, 8, 15, and 22; 20 mg for those aged 75 years or older) at each 28-day cycle. The daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group received daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously or 16 mg/kg intravenously) weekly during cycles 1 and 2, every 2 weeks during cycles 3–6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180736. Findings: Between June 22, 2017, and June 13, 2019, 304 patients (median age 67 years [IQR 60–72]; 161 [53%] men and 143 [47%] women) were randomly assigned to the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=151) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=153). At a median follow-up of 16·9 months (IQR 14·4–20·6), the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group showed improved progression-free survival compared with the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (median 12·4 months [95% CI 8·3–19·3] vs 6·9 months [5·5–9·3]; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·47–0·85], two-sided p=0·0018). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (101 [68%] of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 76 [51%] of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group), anaemia (25 [17%] vs 32 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [17%] vs 27 [18%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (50%) of 149 patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 59 (39%) of 150 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; pneumonia (23 [15%] vs 12 [8%] patients) and lower respiratory tract infection (18 [12%] vs 14 [9%]) were most common. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in 11 (7%) patients in the daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 11 (7%) patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Interpretation: Among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone reduced the risk of disease progression or death versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone and could be considered a new treatment option in this setting. Funding: European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development.European Myeloma Network and Janssen Research and Development

Health-related quality of life in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone ± subcutaneous daratumumab: Patient-reported outcomes from the APOLLO trial

In the phase 3 APOLLO trial, daratumumab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Pd) significantly reduced the rate of disease progression or death by 37% relative to Pd alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from APOLLO. Median treatment duration was 11.5 months with D-Pd and 6.6 months with Pd. PRO compliance rates were high and similar in both groups. No changes from baseline were observed for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores in either group, while physical and emotional functioning, disease symptoms, and adverse effects of treatment remained at baseline levels with D-Pd but worsened with Pd. Reductions (p < 0.05) in pain and fatigue were seen at several time points with D-Pd versus Pd. Overall, these results suggest patients' health-related quality of life remained stable when daratumumab was added to Pd, with several results favoring D-Pd versus Pd. These findings complement the significant clinical improvements observed with D-Pd and support its use in patients with RRMM.The APOLLO study was sponsored by the European Myeloma Network (EMN) in collaboration with Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Medical writing and editorial support were provided by Justine Lempart, PhD, and Linda V. Wychowski, PhD, of Eloquent Scientific Solutions and were funded by Janssen Global Services, LL

Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma: Three-year Follow-up of CASTOR

Background: In the phase III CASTOR study in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-Vd) demonstrated significant clinical benefit versus Vd alone. Outcomes after 40.0 months of median follow-up are discussed. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had received ≥ 1 line of treatment and were administered bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (20 mg) for 8 cycles with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg) until disease progression. Results: Of 498 patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (D-Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), 47% had 1 prior line of treatment (1PL; D-Vd, n = 122; Vd, n = 113). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd in the ITT population (16.7 vs. 7.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.40; P < .0001) and the 1PL subgroup (27.0 vs. 7.9 months; HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.15-0.32; P < .0001). In lenalidomide-refractory patients, the median PFS was 7.8 versus 4.9 months (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68; P = .0002) for D-Vd (n = 60) versus Vd (n = 81). Minimal residual disease (MRD)–negativity rates (10−5) were greater with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: 14% vs. 2%; 1PL: 20% vs. 3%; both P < .0001). PFS2 was significantly prolonged with D-Vd versus Vd (ITT: HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.61; 1PL: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51; P < .0001). No new safety concerns were observed. Conclusion: After 3 years, D-Vd maintained significant benefits in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with a consistent safety profile. D-Vd provided the greatest benefit at first relapse and increased MRD-negativity rates.CASTOR showed the significant clinical benefit of daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. With ∼3 years median follow-up, this regimen continues to demonstrate significantly improved progression-free survival with higher minimal residual dis

Hearing loss prevalence and years lived with disability, 1990–2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Hearing loss affects access to spoken language, which can affect cognition and development, and can negatively affect social wellbeing. We present updated estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study on the prevalence of hearing loss in 2019, as well as the condition's associated disability. Methods We did systematic reviews of population-representative surveys on hearing loss prevalence from 1990 to 2019. We fitted nested meta-regression models for severity-specific prevalence, accounting for hearing aid coverage, cause, and the presence of tinnitus. We also forecasted the prevalence of hearing loss until 2050. Findings An estimated 1·57 billion (95% uncertainty interval 1·51–1·64) people globally had hearing loss in 2019, accounting for one in five people (20·3% [19·5–21·1]). Of these, 403·3 million (357·3–449·5) people had hearing loss that was moderate or higher in severity after adjusting for hearing aid use, and 430·4 million (381·7–479·6) without adjustment. The largest number of people with moderate-to-complete hearing loss resided in the Western Pacific region (127·1 million people [112·3–142·6]). Of all people with a hearing impairment, 62·1% (60·2–63·9) were older than 50 years. The Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index explained 65·8% of the variation in national age-standardised rates of years lived with disability, because countries with a low HAQ Index had higher rates of years lived with disability. By 2050, a projected 2·45 billion (2·35–2·56) people will have hearing loss, a 56·1% (47·3–65·2) increase from 2019, despite stable age-standardised prevalence. Interpretation As populations age, the number of people with hearing loss will increase. Interventions such as childhood screening, hearing aids, effective management of otitis media and meningitis, and cochlear implants have the potential to ameliorate this burden. Because the burden of moderate-to-complete hearing loss is concentrated in countries with low health-care quality and access, stronger health-care provision mechanisms are needed to reduce the burden of unaddressed hearing loss in these settings

Spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns in prevalence of chewing tobacco use in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019 : a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Interpretation Chewing tobacco remains a substantial public health problem in several regions of the world, and predominantly in south Asia. We found little change in the prevalence of chewing tobacco use between 1990 and 2019, and that control efforts have had much larger effects on the prevalence of smoking tobacco use than on chewing tobacco use in some countries. Mitigating the health effects of chewing tobacco requires stronger regulations and policies that specifically target use of chewing tobacco, especially in countries with high prevalence. Findings In 2019, 273 center dot 9 million (95% uncertainty interval 258 center dot 5 to 290 center dot 9) people aged 15 years and older used chewing tobacco, and the global age-standardised prevalence of chewing tobacco use was 4 center dot 72% (4 center dot 46 to 5 center dot 01). 228 center dot 2 million (213 center dot 6 to 244 center dot 7; 83 center dot 29% [82 center dot 15 to 84 center dot 42]) chewing tobacco users lived in the south Asia region. Prevalence among young people aged 15-19 years was over 10% in seven locations in 2019. Although global agestandardised prevalence of smoking tobacco use decreased significantly between 1990 and 2019 (annualised rate of change: -1 center dot 21% [-1 center dot 26 to -1 center dot 16]), similar progress was not observed for chewing tobacco (0 center dot 46% [0 center dot 13 to 0 center dot 79]). Among the 12 highest prevalence countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Sri Lanka, and Yemen), only Yemen had a significant decrease in the prevalence of chewing tobacco use, which was among males between 1990 and 2019 (-0 center dot 94% [-1 center dot 72 to -0 center dot 14]), compared with nine of 12 countries that had significant decreases in the prevalence of smoking tobacco. Among females, none of these 12 countries had significant decreases in prevalence of chewing tobacco use, whereas seven of 12 countries had a significant decrease in the prevalence of tobacco smoking use for the period. Summary Background Chewing tobacco and other types of smokeless tobacco use have had less attention from the global health community than smoked tobacco use. However, the practice is popular in many parts of the world and has been linked to several adverse health outcomes. Understanding trends in prevalence with age, over time, and by location and sex is important for policy setting and in relation to monitoring and assessing commitment to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Methods We estimated prevalence of chewing tobacco use as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 using a modelling strategy that used information on multiple types of smokeless tobacco products. We generated a time series of prevalence of chewing tobacco use among individuals aged 15 years and older from 1990 to 2019 in 204 countries and territories, including age-sex specific estimates. We also compared these trends to those of smoked tobacco over the same time period. Findings In 2019, 273 & middot;9 million (95% uncertainty interval 258 & middot;5 to 290 & middot;9) people aged 15 years and older used chewing tobacco, and the global age-standardised prevalence of chewing tobacco use was 4 & middot;72% (4 & middot;46 to 5 & middot;01). 228 & middot;2 million (213 & middot;6 to 244 & middot;7; 83 & middot;29% [82 & middot;15 to 84 & middot;42]) chewing tobacco users lived in the south Asia region. Prevalence among young people aged 15-19 years was over 10% in seven locations in 2019. Although global age standardised prevalence of smoking tobacco use decreased significantly between 1990 and 2019 (annualised rate of change: -1 & middot;21% [-1 & middot;26 to -1 & middot;16]), similar progress was not observed for chewing tobacco (0 & middot;46% [0 & middot;13 to 0 & middot;79]). Among the 12 highest prevalence countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Sri Lanka, and Yemen), only Yemen had a significant decrease in the prevalence of chewing tobacco use, which was among males between 1990 and 2019 (-0 & middot;94% [-1 & middot;72 to -0 & middot;14]), compared with nine of 12 countries that had significant decreases in the prevalence of smoking tobacco. Among females, none of these 12 countries had significant decreases in prevalence of chewing tobacco use, whereas seven of 12 countries had a significant decrease in the prevalence of tobacco smoking use for the period. Interpretation Chewing tobacco remains a substantial public health problem in several regions of the world, and predominantly in south Asia. We found little change in the prevalence of chewing tobacco use between 1990 and 2019, and that control efforts have had much larger effects on the prevalence of smoking tobacco use than on chewing tobacco use in some countries. Mitigating the health effects of chewing tobacco requires stronger regulations and policies that specifically target use of chewing tobacco, especially in countries with high prevalence. Copyright (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

Spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns in prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019 : a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Ending the global tobacco epidemic is a defining challenge in global health. Timely and comprehensive estimates of the prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden are needed to guide tobacco control efforts nationally and globally. Methods We estimated the prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden for 204 countries and territories, by age and sex, from 1990 to 2019 as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study. We modelled multiple smoking-related indicators from 3625 nationally representative surveys. We completed systematic reviews and did Bayesian meta-regressions for 36 causally linked health outcomes to estimate non-linear dose-response risk curves for current and former smokers. We used a direct estimation approach to estimate attributable burden, providing more comprehensive estimates of the health effects of smoking than previously available. Findings Globally in 2019, 1.14 billion (95% uncertainty interval 1.13-1.16) individuals were current smokers, who consumed 7.41 trillion (7.11-7.74) cigarette-equivalents of tobacco in 2019. Although prevalence of smoking had decreased significantly since 1990 among both males (27.5% [26. 5-28.5] reduction) and females (37.7% [35.4-39.9] reduction) aged 15 years and older, population growth has led to a significant increase in the total number of smokers from 0.99 billion (0.98-1.00) in 1990. Globally in 2019, smoking tobacco use accounted for 7.69 million (7.16-8.20) deaths and 200 million (185-214) disability-adjusted life-years, and was the leading risk factor for death among males (20.2% [19.3-21.1] of male deaths). 6.68 million [86.9%] of 7.69 million deaths attributable to smoking tobacco use were among current smokers. Interpretation In the absence of intervention, the annual toll of 7.69 million deaths and 200 million disability-adjusted life-years attributable to smoking will increase over the coming decades. Substantial progress in reducing the prevalence of smoking tobacco use has been observed in countries from all regions and at all stages of development, but a large implementation gap remains for tobacco control. Countries have a dear and urgent opportunity to pass strong, evidence-based policies to accelerate reductions in the prevalence of smoking and reap massive health benefits for their citizens. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe