PODCAST | Myeloma Patient Expert Q&A: Dr. Ola Landgren

 

START HERE bridges the gap between expert and patient voices, empowering myeloma patients to feel comfortable asking precise questions of their healthcare team.

In this webinar, Dr. Ola Landgren delves into the emerging and exciting therapies and clinical trials for myeloma, discusses the latest options for relapsed disease, and explores the current landscape of managing and monitoring multiple myeloma. Watch as Dr. Landgren answers patient-submitted questions and discusses another hot topic: the utilization of artificial intelligence in multiple myeloma.

Download Guide | Descargar Guía

See More from START HERE Myeloma

Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

Hello, and welcome. My name is Lisa Hatfield, your host for this Patient Empowerment Network START HERE program where we bridge the expert and patient voice to enable you and me to feel comfortable asking questions of our healthcare teams. The world is complicated, but understanding your multiple myeloma doesn’t have to be. The goal of this program is to create actionable pathways for getting the most out of myeloma treatment and survivorship.

Today I am honored and really excited to be joined by Dr. Ola Landgren. Dr. Landgren is chief in the Division of Myeloma and the Department of Medicine, and also serves as director of the Sylvester Myeloma Institute at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine. Dr. Landgren, it’s such a pleasure having you today.

Dr. Ola Landgren:

Thank you very much for having me. It’s really a great pleasure to be here today.

Lisa Hatfield:

So in this program, first, we’ll get a high level update from Dr. Landgren on what the latest myeloma news means for you and your family. And then we will launch into some questions that we’ve received from you. Dr. Landgren. We’re at a pivotal moment in the history of multiple myeloma. We’re experiencing an unprecedented wave of progress marked by significant increase in new treatment options and ongoing research. We are very honored to have your expertise to guide us in understanding these advancements and providing clarity around all the evolving landscape of myeloma care.

So before we get started, to you at home, would you please remember to download the program resource guide via the QR code. This is where you’ll find useful information to follow before the program and after. So we are ready to START HERE. Dr. Landgren, can you speak to the emerging and exciting myeloma therapies and trials right now?

Dr. Ola Landgren:

I’ll do my best. There are so many things to talk about, and I don’t think we have 10 hours, so I will have to shorten it. But I would say that the past 12 to 18 months, we have had three new drugs approved in the field of myeloma. These are the bispecific antibodies. The first out of those three was the BCMA-CD3 targeted drug teclistamab-cqyv (Tecvayli). And in the middle of 2023, we had both talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey), and elranatamab-bcmm (Elrexfio) approved. Talquetamab has another target is GPRC5D with CD3. And elranatamab is similar to teclistamab with the BCMA-CD3 targeted bispecific antibody. These are amazing drugs. They have been found in patients that have been heavily pretreated to result in about 60 percent or more percent of patients responding.

So overall response rates ranging from 60 percent to 80 percent in various trials. We have now these drugs approved, they’re still only approved as single drug and there are new trials going, combinations of two of these or these drugs with other drugs such as daratumumab (Darzalex) or IMiDs, such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) or pomalidomide (Pomalyst). So a lot of drug development is ongoing as we speak. We also have the CAR T cells that are reasonably new drugs. We, you think about everything new every week there’s a new drug, but they are very new CAR T cells.

We have had them for about three or so years, three-and-a-half years. And, the two drugs that are approved in that setting is, ide-cel (idecabtagene vicleucel) [Abecma]. That was the first and then cilta-cel (ciltacabtagene autoleucel) [Carvykti], that was the second. They both go after BCMA similar to the two antibodies I mentioned, teclistamab and elranatamab because they are CAR T cells, that indicates that they are cells.

They come from the same person who’s going to receive them back as treatment. So you collect the cells from the blood and you manufacture them into to CAR cells. So chimeric antigen receptor T cells, and then you give them back. There are several new CAR T-cells in development. There are other targets in development, GPRC5D, for example. There are additional other targets and there are also dual targeted cell therapies in development.

There are also allogeneic CAR T cells in development and that means that you could have a product off the shelf. So someone could donate cells, they could be manufactured into CAR T cells, and then you could give them to technically any person, so it doesn’t have to be the same person collecting and then manufacturing, giving them back. So that would shorten the time window for production.

And there are a lot of other details also that are important in this context. The whole manufacturing process that’s currently four to six weeks is being improved. There are some technologies that can make the CAR T cells in 48 hours, but the turnaround time is maybe one to two weeks with all the control steps, but that’s still a huge improvement. And then you have the antibody drug conjugate if you want.

So then you have the belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep). That actually was the first BCMA targeted therapy we had in myeloma. And then the drug was approved on an accelerated approval study. But when the randomized study was completed, it turned out that it was not better than the control arm. The company took it off the market. And now what’s happening is that there are two new trials, and one of them was just reported in the beginning of February of 2024.

The other one was around the ASH meeting in 2023. These two trials show that if you combine it with other drugs, the most recent one was with bortezomib-dexamethasone (Velcade-Decadron), that was superior with the belantamab mafodotin with bortezomib-dexamethasone versus daratumumab with bortezomib-dexamethasone. So I think we will probably see this drug coming back to the myeloma field. It is currently available as compassionate use, so physicians can prescribe it, but these trials will most likely, I would think, lead to FDA approvals with these combinations.

And lastly, I would say that other exciting trials, there are so many trials going on, but another thing that I think is interesting and exciting is also the use of antigens. And you can use mRNA and things like that. So these are like the vaccines. You can either, take a patients’ myeloma cells and look what they have on the surface, you can make more traditional vaccines or you can use more sophisticated newer technologies just like how the COVID vaccines were developed. And you can inject these sequences and then they will translate into spike proteins where the immune system could go after myeloma cells.

We don’t yet have a product like that in the myeloma field, but there are a lot of biotech and groups that are working to see. Moderna, was actually initially a cancer vaccine company and then COVID came and they turned into a COVID company, and now they’re be back again in the cancer field. So that’s a little bit of a summary of a lot of the exciting news that’s out there.

Lisa Hatfield:

Thank you. And do you have any comments about the sequencing of some of these? So with both CAR T and some of the bispecifics approved, obviously if a patient comes in and they need something right away, they’ll take whatever is first available. But all things being equal, if a patient says, well, I can, I have both CAR T accessible and bispecifics accessible. There are some patients out there, I’ve spoken with some who are wondering, is there a benefit to sequencing one before the other, or are there any trials looking into that?

Dr. Ola Landgren:

There are studies that have allowed patients to go on treatment with one of these modalities. For example, the bispecific antibodies with the prior exposure to a CAR T-cell therapy. There are also trials with CAR T-cell therapy that has allowed patients who have been exposed to prior antibodies, either bispecifics or the conjugated antibody drug conjugates, Belantamab mafodotin. So if you look at those studies and see how the numbers compare, if you are not exposed or you are exposed, I think the data is not entirely clear-cut.

There is no definitive study. Some data suggests that maybe it’s not that different, but then there are some studies that suggest that if you go to the antibody first that maybe that would lower the efficacy of the CAR T cell. So some people have for that reason said the CAR T cell should be done first. To make it even more complicated, there are some studies that have then taken time into the equation. So that means that you could have the patient treated with the antibodies for BCMA and CD3, and the antibody is given successfully for a long time, for many years. And eventually, unfortunately, the antibody may stop working.

Now, if you switch back to back to a CAR T-cell therapy without any other therapy in between, some studies indicate that that’s less likely to be beneficial. But if you instead do another target, say you did GPRC5D/CD3, or you did a completely different therapy with small molecules or you did carfilzomib (Kyprolis), or you did venetoclax (Venclexta), or IMiDs, or different types of combinations that are out there, been around for a long time, and you get good mileage out of those combinations.

Now, if that stops working, if you now go to this other therapy, you go back to the CAR T cell, that will suggest that the results are not that different. So I think that there are aspects that we don’t fully understand. I personally believe, based on what I’ve seen, based on what I know from treating thousands of patients with myeloma for almost 30 years I’ve been a doctor, I think time is probably very, very important. So if you go back to back from one therapy to the other, that’s less likely to be beneficial. If you go from one therapy, and it stops working and go to the other drug with the same target.

But I would say it’s not that different from how we think about IMiDs or proteasome inhibitors. If you were to go single drug with a proteasome inhibitor and you switch to single drug with another proteasome inhibitor, or the same thing with an IMiD, that’s less likely to work versus if you went to something else in between. So we just need to generate more data and learn. Lastly, I want to say that in my experience, from all I see in my clinic at the current time, I think the choice that patients make is based on personal preference and to some degree also the situation of the patient. I saw a patient yesterday, 50 years old, who came from another country and has relocated to us here in Miami and asked, what are the options?

And we talked about CAR T cells, we talked about bispecifics. And considering all the different factors that CAR T cell would imply that we had to give some other combination therapy for two or three cycles while we harvest the CAR T cells and manufacture the CAR T cells and then plan for the admission and give it, and also that the patient was not really very happy about the side effects in the hospital with CAR T cell. That patient shows the bispecific, but I’ve also seen other patients in the same situation saying, I’d rather do these different steps for two or three months, I stay in the hospital, and then I enjoy being off therapy.

Actually, I saw another patient just a few days ago, a gentleman in his upper 70s who we had the same conversation, and he had picked the CAR T cells. And I saw him with his wife and he has been off treatment for two years doing excellent. So different patients make different decisions. And I think that is just how the field is evolving. So I think we should be open to individual patient’s priorities and what they want, and we should just offer everything. And of course, we can guide if a patient wants us to give direction, but I think presenting it and let patients be part of the decision-making, that’s the future of how medicine should be practiced.

Lisa Hatfield:

Thank you so much for that explanation. I’m going to segue into a comment that I always make to myeloma patients. As Dr. Landgren was explaining all of these treatment options, he is on top of all the latest and greatest news and therapies. I always recommend to myeloma patients newly diagnosed or otherwise to seek out at least one consult from a specialist. If you have difficulty accessing care, then a lot of places can do video conferencing, but even that one consult to see a myeloma specialist is so important in your care and treatment options. So I’ll just throw that out there, Dr. Landgren, as a myeloma specialist that you are, we appreciate your expertise in explaining that so well.

Dr. Ola Landgren:

I agree 100 percent with what you said, and I would like to add to that and say, going to a specialist center and it doesn’t have to be here, can really really help. It can be a lot of small things. There is data indicating that survival is longer for patients who have access to specialists. That has been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The Mayo Clinic has published that, I think it was more than one year longer survival.

That by itself is, of course, very strong, but I also think that there are a lot of the small things like the different types of pre-medications, the drugs that are given around myeloma drugs. Could you decrease the dose of some of these drugs like the dexamethasone? Could you get rid of Benadryl if you give the antibodies? These may look as small things, but they can make a huge difference for quality of life.

We have a lot of people coming for second opinions, and we always say if you live closer to someone that you trust, you should go back and be treated there. You can always reach out to us. We are happy to be involved. You have us as a backup. We can be your quarterback if you ever need us. I think that is absolutely the best advice for every patient. Go and get feedback and if you’re not sure about the feedback you get, you could always have two different quarterbacks and you could ask them. I don’t think having 10 or 20 is going to help, but having one or two second opinions, I think is a good decision.

Lisa Hatfield:

That’s really helpful information, thank you, Dr. Landgren. So I think we’re going to shift a little bit to managing and monitoring multiple myeloma. Once you’ve had a patient go through the induction therapy, what kind of monitoring do you complete for your myeloma patients and in particular those who have reached a certain level response and are maybe on maintenance or continuous therapy, what type of tests do you do and how often regarding labs, imaging, bone marrow biopsies?

Dr. Ola Landgren:

There are a lot of different ways, obviously, of practicing medicine. So every center has developed models that they feel very comfortable doing. So I like details. I like to know things. I like to check things. I’m not excessive in ordering invasive tests, but I like to know. Also, I like to make sure the patient not only has good long-term clinical outcomes, but also good quality of life. And to me, I try to minimize the intrusiveness of what we do. So, for example, if I give a combination therapy where there is an injection or infusion, say week one, week two, week three, and then there is a week off. I recognize that if you do labs during that week off, you will have a better yield and understanding of how these three different injections or infusions actually have moved the disease forward and suppressed the disease.

But in my mind, I think that week off is a very important week off for the patient. So I would rather do testing the third day of the treatment at the treatment unit. So if it’s week one, week two, week three, I would draw the myeloma labs that same day. And that would give the patient six more days off from injection, infusion that third week and the whole fourth week off. So I would give the patient 13 days off.

Again, these are small things. These are things I’ve thought about a lot. I’ve practiced medicine for many years and I recognize that having time off like that, many patients travel, they go on vacation, they do different things. So I don’t want to just randomly put a blood test in the fourth week just because I want to check after week one, two, three, and then have the assessment.

I sort of underestimate the benefit of the therapy and then I start the next cycle, say back to back cycle two and cycle three and so forth. I would typically do blood tests once a month following these principles. I do baseline and I would do the last day of injection or infusion. For a newly diagnosed patient, you ask me, I would for baseline always do bone marrow biopsy and an aspirate. I would always do a PET-CT for every patient as my default. Sometimes we end up doing MRI. So that could be other things that are happening, but that is what we do for the majority of our patients.

After we have completed four to six cycles of treatment for patients that are candidates for consideration of transplant with chemotherapy with melphalan (Alkeran), we would usually do a biopsy after four to six cycles and we would use that to determine what’s the optimal mobilization protocol for stem cells. When we do that, we would run a MRD test.

We would run our in-house flow cytometry test that we developed when I used to work at Sloan Kettering and we have developed that here in Miami as well. We work closely with Sloan Kettering, and we have set up this assay in collaboration in the new 2.0 version. We will also send the aspirate for the clonoSEQ at Adaptive Biotech, which is the DNA-based sequencing for MRD. We would send the patient for collection of stem cells.

When the patient is back, we will continue treating. So if you say we do it after four cycles, we would collect, if we do it after five or six, then we collect. After that, we would typically resume therapy and for the majority of our patients, we actually give around eight cycles of therapy, and we have seen that you can deepen the response. You don’t increase the toxicity, but you deepen the response for the vast, vast majority of our patients. When we have used our best therapies, we have done it that way…

We have even published on this, over 70 percent of our patients are MRD negative, and many of those patients, when they come to cycle eight, they ask, do I have to do the transplant? And that is a controversial topic. But I think there are two large randomized trials that have shown the same thing, that there is no survival benefit with transplant. But you can also say that there is, in those two trials, a progression free survival benefit, meaning that the disease would stay way longer with transplant.

But many patients say, if I reach MRD-negative, both those two trials show that if you’re MRD-negative without transplant, or you’re MRD-negative with the transplant, PFS was actually the same. And given that there is no survival, overall survival benefit, why would I subject myself to go to that? Why don’t I keep the cells in the freezer and go right to maintenance? And we will have a conversation with every patient, they would meet our transplant team, they would meet our myeloma expert team.

And the individual patient will make decisions. I think over time, more and more patients have chosen to keep the cells in the freezer. For patients that are MRD-positive, we would counsel towards transplant, but there are patients that don’t want to do that, and we are not forcing any patients to do that. We would give patient maintenance, and on some of our trials, we use the standard of care, which is lenalidomide maintenance.

And we are also developing new approaches where we have done daratumumab added once a month with lenalidomide. We have gone one year, and we have started to do two years of that. And after that, we would stop daratumumab and just do lenalidomide maintenance. Lastly, to answer your question fully here, we would do a PET-CT in the bone marrow after the eight cycles as a repeat, and we would offer a patient to check on maintenance on an annual basis, and this is in accord with the NCCN guidelines. So a lot of details here, but you asked me how we do testing.

Lisa Hatfield:

Yes. And one of the questions that comes up, too, regarding bone marrow biopsy, so you talked about patients kind of through the process of myeloma treatment, perhaps they’ve reached a point where they’re going to be for a while. Do you see a need for continued bone marrow biopsy, say, annually, or is there some benefit to using the newer tests that are being investigated, like mass spec testing and some of the newer ones, I think the EuroFlow? Do you think that that can be used to test for bone marrow biopsy? And how will that be used to monitor the myeloma if a patient is doing relatively well, or do you still like to do bone marrow biopsies on a regular basis? And I know every specialist is different in how they’ll answer that question.

Dr. Ola Landgren:

So what’s known in the literature is that there is no study that definitively has compared annual biopsies with these blood-based tests that you mentioned, showing that they can replace the bone marrow. Those tests or those studies have not yet been published and shown in a convincing way that we have done. This is how it is. It’s still an open question. We don’t know the answer for sure. So our take has been to offer patients to repeat it on an annual basis for maybe two or three and sometimes up to five years. I don’t think we would do biopsies every year for five, 10, 15 or more years. At some point, you have to ask yourself, what are we trying to chase here?

But I think the data we’re looking at that we have published on this and others have also show that if you are MRD-negative after completion of the eight cycles with or without the transplant, the patient that are MRD-negative one year later, they are more likely to be free from progression 10 years later, compared to the ones where you only check once and you don’t know what happened one year later. And that is frankly because there is a small group of patients where MRD-negative could bounce back into positive.

So to check after completion after eight cycles and to check after one more year on maintenance, I think gives us more confidence in thinking about if we eventually could step down and maybe even stop the maintenance at the long term. There is no study that definitively has proven that, but the data suggests that being negative after eight and do another year and even if you do two years out, those are very strong indicators that the disease will stay away long term.

So that’s our justification for offering it, but we would never force any patient. And I also want to say that we have thought about for a long time, how we can contribute to the field and how we can advance the field for blood-based tests. So we are here in Miami, developing a lot of these technologies, and I have made a promise that we will make all these available for all patients that come here to Miami as part of our standard workup. Because they are not clinically validated tests, they will have to be reported for now as research tests, but we will share the information with individual patients.

So we have three different platforms for now. And we are working on the fourth one. So one of them is the mass spec with MALDI, where we can screen the blood with lasers. And we can increase the sensitivity by maybe hundred times compared to existing immunofixation assays. The second is something called clonotypic peptides, which is a more sophisticated way to run mass spec, which is probably up to thousand times more sensitive than immunofixation. And the third technology we are doing or setting up right now is circulating cells that we sequence.

And this is the Menarini technology that is approved for certain other solid tumors. I think for GI malignancies, it’s FDA cleared, but we are doing it in myeloma. We are also looking for free circulating DNA. We’re working with New York Genome Center to set those types of assays up. So my thinking is, if we can offer every patient that come here to do it, and many of those patients will do an annual biopsy, we actually will have the database that can answer the question you asked me, if it can replace. There is no other way that this can ever be answered.

But having a large database, we actually can compare on a patient level, how the bone marrow biopsy with flow cytometry and sequencing, how that behaves in relation to the blood base. How does it perform? Is any of these better? Can they replace each other? So I think if we do this for one or two years, we will have the answer to the question. That’s why I want to do it.

Lisa Hatifeld:

So that kind of leads to the next question that is really an exciting area. I know it’s not necessarily new, but newer is artificial intelligence.  And I know I was reading an article about one of, that you and your colleagues have worked on a newer project and I don’t know if you pronounce it IRMMa or not, but using these large databases to help predict I think, it’s the response of treatment in some patients. So can you talk about that a little bit and tell us about that development and what developments are exciting with artificial intelligence in cancer, in particular myeloma?

Dr. Ola Landgren:

Yeah. So you mentioned the study we just published. We published a model that we call IRMMa and that stands for individual risk prediction for patients with multiple myeloma. So what we were thinking was at the current time, all the existing models are pretty much providing the average patient’s predicted outcome. So think about it is like it’s a probability measure. So you say, if I take this about therapy, what’s the predicted average outcome for patients that take this therapy, say, five years later? So on average, say 70 percent of patients are free from progression. That sounds pretty good. The problem is that you don’t know if you are in the group, 70 percent group that didn’t progress or if you’re in the 30 percent that did progress.

So where are you as an individual? So it’s almost like looking at the weather app on your phone. If it says it’s a 70 percent probability of sunshine and then you go outside and it’s raining, it’s because it didn’t say that it’s 100 percent probability of sunshine. So if you think about another situation would be, say, in a GYN clinic, if a woman were to come and ask the doctor, am I pregnant? Yes or no? You couldn’t say it’s 70 percent probability. You would say, yes, you’re pregnant or not pregnant.

So for myeloma, we have for a long time been living in these weather report systems where we say 70 percent or 30 percent. And we want to go in the other direction of the pregnancy test, where we actually can say for someone with this particular disease profile, with this treatment, this is where this is going to take us. We worked on this project for almost four years and we worked with a lot of other groups around the world that have a lot of data. And they have graciously agreed to collaborate with us and share their data sets. The beauty with this collaboration, there are many beauties of it, but one of them is that people don’t treat patients the same way.

And that actually has allowed us to say for patients that have a particular biological or genomic makeup, if you’re treated this way or that way or the other way or a fourth way and so forth, which of these different treatments would make patients have the longest progression and overall survival? So if you have a large database, you can actually ask those questions. So you can say that you profile individual patients in full detail and you put them in detailed buckets instead of grouping everybody together.

And now if you add a new case, if a new patient is being added and you say, which bucket would this individual fit? Well, this is the right biological bucket. You can then use this database to say out of all the different treatment options, which treatment option would last the longest, which would give the best overall survival? Other questions you could ask is also, for example, you have a patient with a certain biological workup or makeup. And you say, if I treat with these drugs, will the addition of, say, transplant, will that prolong progression for his survival?

And you can go into the database and the computer will then say, I have these many patients that have this genomic makeup and these many people that were treated with this treatment with transplant versus the same treatment without transplant. There was no difference in their progression or overall survival. So then the computer would say, it doesn’t add any clinical benefit, but there could be another makeup where the answer is opposite, but transplant actually would provide longer progression for his survival. I think the whole field of medicine is probably going to go more and more in this direction. So what we want to do is to expand the number of cases.

So we are asking other groups around the world, if they have data sets with thousands of patients, they could be added to this database and we could then have more and more detailed information on sub types of disease and more and more treatment. So it will be better as we train it with larger data sets. The model is built as an open interface so we can import new data. And that’s also important because the treatments will continue to change. So we, for example, say I have a patient that has this genetic makeup. I was thinking of using a bispecific antibody for the newly diagnosed setting.

How is that going to work? The computer will say, I don’t know, because we don’t have any patients like that in the database because that’s not the data, type of data that currently exists from larger studies. But let’s say in the future, if there were datasets like that, you could ask the computer and the computer will tell you what the database finds as the answer. But if you go for another combination, if that’s in the database, it would answer that too. That is where I think the field is going.

And lastly, I would say we are also using these types of technologies to evaluate the biopsies, the material. We work with the HealthTree Foundation on a large project where we are trying to use computational models to get out a lot of the biological data out of the biopsies and also to predict outcomes. So I think artificial intelligence is going to come in so many different areas in the myeloma field and probably in many, many other fields in medicine.

Lisa Hatfield:

Thank you so much, Dr. Landgren, for that broad overview of myeloma, especially relapsed and refractory myeloma. So it’s that time now where we answer questions we’ve received from you. Please remember that this is not a substitute for medical care. Always consult with your medical team. And we’re going to jump right into some questions that we’ve received from patients, Dr. Landgren, if you have a little bit of time to answer these questions for us.

Dr. Ola Landgren:

Of course.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay. So broad questions. We try to make them broad so they apply to most people, but this patient is asking Dr. Landgren, what are the key biological processes driving disease, progression and evolution of multiple myeloma, and how can we target these processes to prevent disease relapse and improve long-term outcome?

Dr. Ola Landgren:

So that’s a very good question. So I think in a nutshell if you use genomics, which refers to the genetic changes that you can see in the plasma cells, there are certain features that the myeloma cells have. They have the copy number changes, that’s the gains and losses of chromosomes. You can find these if you do FISH and cytogenetics could be, for example, gain of chromosome 5 or gain of chromosome 7 or gain of chromosome 11. That would be part of the Hyperdiploidy disease, or you have loss of chromosome 13 or 13q deletions. We also refer to 17p deletion. These are copy number changes, they’re extra or loss of these chromosomes. But then you have also the structural variance where you have the translocations of chromosome 14, chromosome 14 harbors the IGH locus, which regulates the making of immunoglobulins.

Plasma cells make immunoglobulins. For reasons that are not entirely clear. The translocations in myeloma that include IgH, they are partnering up with oncogenes. There is a list of oncogenes, there’s MATH, there’s three MATHs, A, B, C. There’s FGFR3, MMSET, and there’s also Cyclin D1 that are on the list. So these are the different types of structural variants that you can see with FISH probes.

What people have understood less about are something called mutational signatures. And myeloma is made up by eight distinct mutational signatures that you can see in every single patient. And what that means is that you can, if you conduct whole genome sequencing and you look at all the base pairs, you can see there are certain number of combinations. C can be swapped for A and C can be swapped for G or C can be swapped for T, T can be A and T can be C and T can also be G.

Those are the combinations. So there are four different base pairs, but if you, because the DNA is double stranded, these are the only possibilities that mathematically that you can see. Now if you look for every base pair and you look on one base pair on the left and one on the right, we call that 5 and 3 prime, you look through triplicates, every of these base pairs can have these different swaps I mentioned. Mathematically, there are 96 different combinations that you can come up with. That’s it.

If you don’t go through the entire genome from left to right, you see that there are these recurrent eight signatures that are there in every patient. So although we don’t understand why they are and exactly how they function, the fact that you see them in every patient tells us that this has to have something to do with the biology of the disease. It must have a role in the control of the disease. We are starting to see that there is one signature that’s called APOBEC. That signature seems to be very important for resistance to treatments. And you can see that APOBEC can be more or less expressed.

And if APOBEC is very expressed, we see that there are lot of mutations in the cells. We have seen in patients with the chemotherapy that APOBEC can be very expressed. When we treat with four drug combinations, it can be very expressed. And what I’m saying, when I say it can be expressed, these are in the patients that relapse out of these therapies. We have also seen that in CAR T cells and bispecifics. So that makes me believe and our group believe that the cells use some form of what we call tumor intrinsic defense mechanism to protect themselves from whatever therapy we use.

It doesn’t matter if it’s immunotherapy, chemotherapy or small molecule therapy, there are some fundamental programs the cells can turn on. We need to understand that better and we are spending a lot of time trying to drill into this.

Lastly, I also want to say there was a fourth class of genomic events called complex events that you can see in myeloma, something called chromothripsis. That’s a very severe genomic lesion, is a ripple effect through the genome. There are a lot of havoc going on. And the first time we saw that, we thought this has to be something wrong with this sample. But when we look through more and more samples, we see that about a quarter of the patients actually have this chromothripsis.

So the bottom line is, it’s time to stop doing FISH, it’s time to do more advanced sequencing, ideally whole genome sequencing, but a step towards a whole genome could be to do whole exome sequencing. But there are companies saying that you can do whole genome sequencing for $1 in the future. So that’s really what needs to happen. We need to have better tools to better understand and then we can use this to better understand how to differentiate the therapy and have an individualized treatment. That’s what I talked about with the IRMA model.

Lisa Hatfield:

All right, well, thank you so much for that explanation. Dr. Landgren, can you speak to the advantages that bispecific antibodies offer over traditional therapies and how do you see their role in overcoming treatment resistance?

Dr. Ola Landgren:

Well, the bispecific antibodies is a novel way of engaging the immune system to go after the myeloma. So if you think about the other antibodies we have, we have three other antibodies. We have daratumumab, we have isatuximab (Sarclisa), we have elotuzumab (Empliciti), they are naked antibodies. They bind to the myeloma and on the backend of these antibodies, there is something called the FC receptor that attracts cells, NK cells, for example, also T cells, and they also attract, some of these antibodies also attract complement and they also by themselves send what’s called a death signal into the myeloma cell.

The bispecific antibodies are very different. They bind and they don’t send death signals, they don’t engage with the complement. What they do is that they have another arm sticking out that binds to the T cells. That’s a CD3 arm and there’s an open pocket. So when a T cell passes by, it grabs the T cell. And now you have a T cell linked to the antibody sitting next to the myeloma cell and the T cell will kill the myeloma. T cells can be very aggressive and kill the myeloma. You just hold them together, it’s like a matchmaker.

And if you think about how CAR T-cell therapy is designed, you take out the T cells, you manufacture them to have a special antenna receptor on their surface, and then you give them back again. And then they bind, this receptor binds to myeloma cells. So in the setting of a CAR T-cell therapy, the T-cell sits next to the myeloma cell, but that’s because the T cells were taken out of the body, manufactured to have this receptor that then finds the myeloma cell. But the bispecific antibody, that they don’t require the T cells to be taken out, to be modified this way.

You just use your existing T-cells in your body and these antibody just binds to the T cells and the myeloma cells in the body. So it’s sort of a little bit mimics what the CAR T cells do, but it does it in its own way within the cell, within the tissue in the body. You asked me for resistance mechanism and how they are better. Well, I think the best answer I can give you is to say that the overall response rate for the bispecific antibodies are very high. They are 60 to 80 percent single drug compared to the current trials. And if you look and see the trials that have led to approval for the other existing drugs, they were 20 or 30 percent.

So the overall response rate is much higher for the bispecifics than they were for the other existing drugs. We don’t really know exactly how to use them, I would say. What’s the optimal dosing schedule? We give them weekly, it may be every other week, and maybe monthly, eventually, I would think. And should they be combined with which drugs? That’s ongoing investigation. Other questions are, can they be stopped? Can you monitor patients off therapy for a long time? Will some patients never have the disease coming back? We hope so, but we don’t know. Or would it be patients could be off therapy for a long time, like with CAR T cell? Could that happen with the bispecifics? It’s possible.

And if you were to monitor with blood-based tests and you see that there is reappearing disease, would you then put patients back on the therapy? These are questions we…there are a lot of questions, we don’t have answers to all these, but that’s where I think the field is going. A lot of people, including us, are trying to investigate this.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay, thank you. And we have a number of questions about MRD testing, so I’m going to try to combine those all together. Basically, what the questions are asking is how do you interpret MRD testing with regard to prognosis, treatment response, and maybe even like treatment, ongoing treatment? How do you use those results in your clinic or any comments you might have on the MRD test?

Dr. Ola Landgren:

So MRD tests have been around for quite some time. We have been pioneers pushing it. We have worked on it for over 15 years. We worked with the FDA to see if MRD could eventually become an endpoint for drug approval, that’s work in progress. The FDA will make those decisions. There are a lot of trials that use MRD as a secondary endpoint to see how it correlates with progression-free survival. And there actually are some trials that have been using it as a cool primary or primary endpoint in the absence of FDA’s decision to accept it. But that is probably going to change in the future. We will see.  What have we done in the clinic? Well, we have used it in the same way as we have done with PET-CTs and the regular blood work. So if you use SPEP IFE light chains and you see there is residual disease after you have delivered your planned treatment, people have used what’s called consolidation therapy.

So we have done the same with the MRD test. If there is someone who has a little bit of disease left, we have tried to see if we could make that patient MRD-negative. We have also used it as a tool to build more reassurance. I mentioned before for patients who get this new combination therapies, if they are not very keen on jumping right to chemotherapy with Melphalan and transplant, if they want to collect the cells and keep them in the freezer, using the MRD as a tool to guide for reassurance.

Looking at the randomized trial showing that MRD negativity with or without transplant seems to have the same progression-free survival and in the absence of overall survival, either way, that has been published. But we would always say to patients, there are no definitive studies that have shown that this is how it is. It’s still an area of investigation. So if a patient wants to sort of do everything by the traditional book, we would give every step in the therapy and not pay attention. But a lot of patients say, I would rather monitor, and if I have to do these more toxic therapies, I wouldn’t do it. But I will use MRD to build confidence in myself.

Lisa Hatfield:

Well, thank you so much, Dr. Landgren, these have been great questions, and I actually have another half sheet of questions that we don’t have time for, because that’s all the time that we have. Dr. Landgren, thank you so much, it’s been a pleasure talking with you today. So thank you for joining our Patient Empowerment Network START HERE program. This has been an excellent discussion. Thanks to all of you, for your questions and tuning in. My name is Lisa Hatfield. I’ll see you next time.

Dr. Ola Landgren:

Thank you very much for having me. Thank you.

PODCAST | Evolving Myeloma Treatment Options: How You Can Access Cutting-Edge Care

 

 

With the quickly evolving landscape of myeloma treatment and care, it’s important to work with your healthcare team to determine a care plan. In this program, Dr. Omar Nadeem discusses the latest updates in research and clinical trials, the role of new and emerging therapies– including bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy–and shares advice for accessing quality myeloma care.

Dr. Omar Nadeem is the Clinical Director of the Myeloma Immune Effector Cell Therapy Program and Associate Director of the Multiple Myeloma Clinical Research Program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Nadeem.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Evolve Myeloma

Transcript:

Katherine:

Hello, and welcome. I’m your host, Katherine Banwell. As patients collaborate on treatment decisions with their healthcare team, it’s important that they understand all of their options and how these options may be impacted by research developments. That’s why the Patient Empowerment Network created the Evolve series, to arm you with the latest information and help you feel empowered and confident during conversations about your myeloma care.  

In today’s program, we’re going to hear from an expert in the field about the evolving treatment landscape and discuss how you can play an active role in your care. Before we get into the discussion, please remember that this program is not a substitute for seeking medical advice. Please refer to your healthcare team about what may be best for you. Well, let’s meet our guest today. Joining us is Dr. Omar Nadeem. Dr. Nadeem, welcome. Would you please introduce yourself.  

Dr. Nadeem:

Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Omar Nadeem from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. It’s my pleasure to be here.  

Katherine:

Thank you so much for joining us today. Before we get into our discussion, would you share with the audience how the field of myeloma care has changed over the course of your career?   

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, and things are changing so rapidly. My career started after my training in 2015 and at that time, daratumumab (Darzalex) just had its approval in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. That, along with several other monoclonal antibodies a few immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors.  

At that time, it felt like myeloma was at the forefront of significant advances and change in practice, which it was. Little did we know that we were right around the corner with the next renaissance of myeloma therapy, which is these immunotherapies that have been approved over the last three to four years now. So, safe to say things are changing so, so fast and it’s leading to excellent outcomes for patients.  

Katherine:

Yeah, it’s great news. So positive. I’d like to start with the importance of a patient’s healthcare team. What are the benefits to seeking care with a myeloma specialist, even if it’s just for a second opinion or a consult? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, so, myeloma is a little less than 2 percent of all cancers, and it’s the second most common blood cancer, so certainly not rare. With that being said, if you go to a general community practice, they don’t typically see too, too many patients with this disease. So, alongside that, we have so many different treatment options and combinations and these, as I mentioned, immune therapies.  

And other therapies that are only actually carried out at academic centers for now, such as stem cell transplants, and CAR T-cell therapy. I think it’s important to kind of meet with an academic provider just to get a sense of what the patient may be facing, both in that immediate time, but also in the future, because a lot of myeloma therapy is lifelong. And in that case, you do have to come up with a plan for your whole treatment in a way early. So, it’s important to kind of one: hear it from another person, and then two: really sort of figure out what the outlook would look like for the individual patient.  

With that being said, many of our myeloma regimens that are approved can very easily be given at the local provider, and that’s usually our preference, for patients to be treated closer to home. So, ultimately, this is another way for patients to get input about their treatment program, but also talk about the future.   

Katherine:

That makes sense. Specialists at academic medical centers are typically more involved in research and clinical trials. 

And patient participation is essential to advancing medicine. So, how do clinical trials impact myeloma care? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Well, everything that we have available today for myeloma therapy was once in a clinical trial. So, all these promising therapies usually start in early phase studies and move on to Phase II and Phase III studies, and then those are the ones that the FDA uses to approve a particular combination.  

So, it all depends on kind of where someone is in their disease course. It also kind of depends on what their preferences may be in terms of taking on something that is beyond standard of care. So, as part of any clinical trial in whatever phase it may be, whether its newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even smoldering myeloma, which is one step before that, relapsed/refractory myeloma.

At each step of the way, there are clinical trials that are there trying to improve upon what’s already out here, right? So, we are, despite all these amazing advances, unfortunately, the disease is still not curable for a vast majority of patients.  

In that case, how do we move to that cure, or how do we kind of advance the disease even beyond this? And a clinical trial is a way to do that.  

Katherine:

What type of patient is most appropriate for a clinical trial? 

Dr. Nadeem:

So, there are criteria that each clinical trial uses in terms of eligibility. Some of that has to do with the disease characteristic itself, kind of where somebody is in their disease course, but many times it’s also patients’ fitness, organ status in terms of kidney function, their blood count to some extent, heart function, etcetera. There are some sort of minimal prerequisite guidelines that we have to enroll patients in trials. So, it really, again, depends on where somebody is in their disease course and what they may be willing to take on beyond what may be offered to them as part of standard of care.  

Katherine:

What questions should patients be asking if they’re entrusted in participating in a clinical trial? 

Dr. Nadeem:

I think the important thing is to sort of first recognize what’s available to them as part of standard of care and then what the clinical trial is trying to answer.  

So, for example, if it’s newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, we now have quadruplet regimens that we give to patients at the time of their diagnosis, and then the next natural question for eligible patients that now comes up is whether they should do a stem cell transplant or not.  

And alongside that goes with all these advances in immune therapies, such as CAR T-cell therapies and bispecific antibodies. And there are now trials looking at those therapies and comparing them, for example, to stem cell transplant to try to answer the question “Can we get even beyond something like a stem cell transplant?” 

So, that’s one example of a trial where a patient may be interested in saying “Okay, well, a transplant may be my standard path, but what if I try to enroll in this study and get randomized, for example, to the CAR-T arm? Then, perhaps, I’m getting access to some of these therapies early and maybe that’s going to improve my outcomes.” 

Katherine:

Well, I’d like to talk about some new and emerging therapies in myeloma, starting with CAR T-cell therapy. Can you talk about who this treatment option might be appropriate for? 

Dr. Nadeem:

So, yeah, just to kind of give folks background, CAR T-cell therapy is a form of immunotherapy, where we take out an individual’s T-cells and then re-program them, essentially, to recognize myeloma cells. Right now there’s two approved CAR-T products for multiple myeloma, both in the relapse refractory setting. It’s really for patients that have had four or more lines of therapy.  

So, that’s a lot of different combinations that we currently have available. Those therapies stop working before patients are actually eligible for CAR-T cells at the moment. Both of these CAR T-cell products have been gamechangers in terms of improving prognosis for patients.  

The good thing about CAR-T cells is that it is a one-and-done treatment. So, patients, when they go through that initial phase of therapy, they are then off therapy, although we are now starting to study certain therapies that we may administer after CAR-T cells to get them to last even longer than they currently do, but that’s still in, for example, that’s one of the clinical trials or many of the clinical trials that are currently ongoing now, to try to answer that question.   

So, a lot of patients can be eligible for CAR-T cells. They have to have the prerequisite amount of therapies. Again, there are some sort of baseline fitness characteristics that we look at for patient’s ability to tolerate it. But as a whole, I consider CAR T-cell therapy more broadly applicable to myeloma patients than compared to, let’s say, a stem cell transplant.   

Katherine:

How has this therapy revolutionized myeloma care? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, before the first approval, now a few years ago, in this space we didn’t really have anything like this to offer patients. So, many of the combinations and other compounds that were in clinical trials would have a response rate somewhere around, let’s say, 30 percent. So, 30 percent of patients may respond to that therapy in that space, and that may only last a few months, and that was considered successful not that long ago. Now, with CAR T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies, these therapies are highly efficacious.  

You see response rates of 70 to 100 percent in some of these immunotherapies, and what that’s translating into is patient’s disease staying away for a year or two years, even three years in some of these clinical trials. And again, this is completely unprecedented compared to what we had before.   

Katherine:

I understand that there are a number of clinical trials for different types of CAR T, or even using it earlier in the disease. Can you share updates in CAR T-cell therapy research? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, so, exactly as you pointed out, there have been trials already, actually, that have been completed, Phase III studies looking at CAR T-cell therapies in earlier relapses.  So, patients that have had either one of two lines of therapy. 

Both our CAR-T therapies have been compared to standard of care in that space and have shown superiority, and this is something that we all have been kind of waiting for to see if you deploy it earlier, perhaps you’re going to see even greater benefit, and that seems to be the case in some of these trials, and now we’re awaiting, hopefully, approval of some of these CAR T-cell therapies to be administered earlier because in fifth line, it’s very different than treating patients in second or third line, which I think will really vastly improve our ability to deliver this therapy to many patients, as it can be quite challenging for patients that are in fifth line, to allow them to go through the process of CAR-T cells and then having them be administered.  

I was looking at it head-to-head with stem cell transplant, as I mentioned before, and this is in the context of quadruplet and induction therapy followed by either CAR-T cells or stem cell transplant, and then followed by maintenance therapy. So, really trying to see if I can overcome what we typically have achieved with stem cell transplantation. 

We also are doing some studies even before that. So, patients, again, in high-risk smoldering myeloma, which we know have an increased risk of developing newly diagnosed disease in the next few years, perhaps that could be the time where we can give some of these immunotherapies, and that’s some work that we have going on at our center. 

Katherine:

Well, another therapy that has emerged in myeloma is bispecific antibodies. What patient type is this therapy right for? 

Dr. Nadeem:

So, bispecific antibodies are great because they’re off the shelf. What that means is that CAR-T cells, we first have to collect the T cells and we then have to send them off to be manufactured, and that manufacturing process can take up to a month, sometimes even longer, for some of the current available CAR-T products. And then, after the cells are returned to the facility, we then give usually three days of chemotherapy to try to suppress some of the immune systems of the patients. So, that way, when the cells are administered, they can expand robustly and do essentially what they need to do. 

So, that whole logistical process can take a couple of months by the time you identify somebody for CAR-T cells and then, from that moment until they can actually be treated. With bispecific antibodies, if we think somebody’s ready to go, you can basically get it as soon as we can have somebody ready to go either in our clinic or on the in-patient facility. So, they’re much easier. They also utilize T cells to attack myeloma cells. We now have three approved bispecific antibodies. Two of them are targeting BCMA, the same exact target that we have in CAR-T cells, and one of them is now targeting a new target called GPRC5D, which is also highly expressed on myeloma cells.  

So, having all these bispecific antibodies available is excellent because patients can have access to them a lot faster and now we’re trying to answer the question of sequencing. Can you give bispecific antibodies after CAR-T cells for example? Can you give one bispecific antibody after another, especially if there’s a different target that we now have available? 

As a whole, though, bispecific antibodies tend to have lower response rates than CAR-T cells, particularly Cilta-cel (Carvykti), which is cilta-cel that has a very high response rate of close to 100 percent.  

Most bispecific antibodies have response rates somewhere around 70 or so percent, so about two-thirds of patients respond to these therapies, again, in that fifth line or four or more lines of therapy. So, in that space, that’s the response rate. And across the board, generally speaking, patients benefit from these bispecific antibodies approximately a year on average. Some of the studies have shown longer benefit, and it also depends somewhat on response to therapy.  

Patients that have a really deep response can go even way longer than that. So, it is quite mixed in terms of how somebody may do on these bispecific antibodies, but those are the numbers.  

Katherine:

Well, it sounds like bispecific antibodies have really transformed myeloma treatment options.  

Dr. Nadeem:

Absolutely, and what goes hand in hand in this.  

I mentioned the logistics of CAR T, but then there’s also the supply and availability of CAR-T cells. Since the approval, the demand for CAR-T cells has been very high because of all these excellent results, but the supply really hasn’t been there. So, even at a center as busy as ours, we can only treat a handful of patients with CAR T-cell therapies compared to bispecific antibodies, where that is essentially an injection similar to many other approved myeloma agents that you can just readily treat patients with. So, CAR-T cells, while I think, again, have higher efficacy, with that comes slightly higher toxicity as well. It’s a very different kind of treatment program.  

And then, patients get a treatment-free interval, which you don’t see yet with bispecific antibodies. On the other hand, bispecific antibodies are readily available, slightly lower response rates, slightly lower toxicity when it comes to at least the traditional T-cell directing toxicities. And then you have, again, the readily available nature of it, which I think is hugely beneficial for patients.  

Katherine:

You talked about some specifics regarding bispecific antibodies, but are there updates in bispecific antibody research that you’d like to share? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, so, again, kind of following the theme of what we just said about CAR-T cells, can you bring these antibody therapies earlier? And there’s ongoing trials now looking at it in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and early relapses, and then we presented our data at ASH this previous year looking at it in high-risk smoldering myeloma. We treated patients with teclistimab (Tecvayli), which is a BCMA bispecific antibody that is approved for relapse refractory patients. And what we demonstrated in that study is that people that got Teclistimab had a 100 percent response rate with an MRD-negative rate. So, kind of as deep of a response as we can measure, also at 100 percent.  

So, this is something that we had not seen before. When their immune systems are a lot healthier, they may benefit more. So, hopefully we’ll see confirmation of these results in other trials.  

Particularly in the newly diagnosed space because we do think that these antibody therapies have such huge potential to treat patients, and then hopefully we’ll have durable responses. So, I do think that some of this paradigm may shift over the next few years, and then there’s also combinations that are currently being studied: combinations with traditional myeloma therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies, other immunomodulatory agents, or proteasome inhibitors. All these combination trials are now ongoing to see can you improve upon some of those numbers that I highlighted before with single-agent bispecific antibody therapy. 

Katherine:

Oh, I was just going to ask you the next question, which is are there other emerging myeloma therapies that are showing promise? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yes. So, I think over the last few years, most of the buzz has been with these immunotherapies. And, again, more work to be done there to see whether combinations, different schedules, different targets, different types, will show more and more benefit in each of these myeloma disease settings.  

But we also have simultaneous development of other agents that are not in this sort of immunotherapy T-cell redirecting therapy realm. We have newer versions of our classic immunomodulatory drugs, such as lenalidomide (Revlimid) or pomalidomide (Pomalyst).  

We now have their next generation agents, called CELMoD drugs and there’s two of them in development. One of them is called iberdomide; one is called mezigdomide.  

These are, again, kind of building up on the success of some of these previous therapies that are kind of cornerstone therapies for myeloma patients and because these are essentially better agents, they’re more targeted, and they also have greater response rates as single agents and as combinations.  

We’re hoping that these would be approved in the not-so-distant future and then perhaps will replace some of these immunomodulatory drugs that we have currently utilized in newly diagnosed and relapsed myeloma. Essentially what this means is things are just getting better and better and better as we get newer versions of some of these therapies. So, those are, I would say, kind of next in line in terms of hopeful approvals.  

And then we’ll add to some of the options that we have for myeloma patients.  

Katherine:

How can patients and care partners stay informed about the latest myeloma research? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, it’s a lot of moving parts all the time. From one six-month interval to the next, you tend to have nowadays perhaps some drug approvals, which is amazing, but if not updates of all these sort of combination trials, etcetera, of where these things are going. I think kind of talking to your physician, obviously, about some of these updates is really critical. As I mentioned before, having a roadmap in your mind about what the myeloma therapy for you might look like going forward, wherever you are in your disease state, is always important because it gives you time to sort of think about it, learn about it, prepare for it.  

Some of these therapies really require an effort from the patient and their caregivers because, for example, for CAR-T cells. If you’re not near a center, you may have to relocate for a month.  

And it’s very difficult, and we fully understand that and try to help as much as we can, but that’s the kind of commitment that it takes. So, talking to your physician, obviously content like this, reviewing this as much as you can. Online patient support groups are great because you learn from the other patients’ experiences. So, the good news now is we have so many channels of communication, but you have to in a way, in the end, discuss with your physician and verify things you may find on your own.   

Katherine:

Exactly, yeah. You want to make sure you’re getting facts rather than fiction.  

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah. That’s right.  

Katherine:

Well, Dr. Nadeem, we’ve been hearing the term personalized medicine more frequently in recent years. How would you define personalized medicine for myeloma, and how can patients access this type of care? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, personalized medicine or precision medicine is a term that we’ve really sort of used for many oncologic conditions over the last decade or so. I would say, for multiple myeloma, in terms of identifying a target within the myeloma cell that’s unique to the patient.  

And then deploying a certain therapy to that patient because of that target is still lacking. We do have one example where patients have, for example, an 11;14 translocation, which we see in about 15 percent of myeloma patients.  

There’s an agent called venetoclax (Venclexta) that is very active against that particular cohort of patients, although that is still not approved to be used, but that’s one example where that agent specifically benefits that type of myeloma. Other than that, most of the therapies that we have benefit essentially everybody with myeloma, which is great, but it’s not so personalized.  

Where I would say there’s the most personalization happening now, at least in my practice, is looking at which types of therapies an individual patient may receive. What I mean by that is if somebody’s in an excellent response, with quadruplet-based induction therapy, I have a very real discussion with them about the pros and cons of stem cell transplant. We make those decisions in real time depending on how the patient doing, depending on how their response is.  

And then kind of deciding a whole kind of what are the kind of risks and benefits and what makes sense for that individual patient. Similarly, when you go on to maintenance therapy, maintenance therapy means that after you’ve gone through the initial phase of your myeloma therapy and the disease is under control, what type of therapy can we keep you on to keep it under control for as long as possible? Historically, that has been lenalidomide or Revlimid. Now we’re adding drugs such as daratumamab and other agents to Revlimid to see if that can further prolong the response to that initial therapy.  

So, all those decisions are so individualized that you have to discuss with your provider what makes sense for you and what are the pros and cons of doing one approach versus the other.  

Katherine:

Well, if we’re talking about in-depth testing, how do the results of that testing affect treatment options? 

Dr. Nadeem:

So, right now we use conventional blood tests to get a sense of response in the vast majority of patients. That includes the serum protein electrophoresis and the serum free light chain assay.  

Most patients have detectable levels of these proteins, abnormal proteins in the blood at diagnosis and then you can follow them using a blood test. There’s a subset of patients that have disease only that shows up on scans. So, we then kind of incorporate some of those scans and then, also, utilize the bone marrow results both in the beginning and in subsequent analyses to kind of give a big-picture composite response assessment for that particular patient. Nowadays, there are also other tools that we’re using, such as MRD, or minimal residual disease.  

That is a test that is done on a bone marrow biopsy to determine, if you don’t have detectable protein in the blood, do you have myeloma cells present at the deepest level possible? And if you do versus if you don’t, trials have shown that there is a difference in terms of prognosis. Now, while that hasn’t fully been utilized yet to make treatment decisions in patients that are not on clinical trials, we do get prognostic information out of it, and nowadays, more and more of those trials are using these MRD tests to determine what to do with treatment.   

And I think that’s how it’s going to be in the future. So, having those extra tests available but, again, important to discuss with your provider what is the utility of this test. How are we going to use this information for your individual case to make some decisions? 

Katherine:

What questions should patients be asking their provider about a proposed treatment plan?  

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah. I think because myeloma therapy’s so nuanced and much of this is still in clinical trials or under investigation about what to do with some of these results, I would say, as a whole, it’s important to know which tests the physician looks at to determine how you’re doing, and kind of what their assessment of that result is. So, for example, if somebody’s had a 50 percent reduction in the amount of abnormal protein in the blood, is that sufficient, or should we be aiming for a number that’s much higher than that? 

Some of that depends on kind of where they are in their treatment course, but that’s a very sort of reasonable question to ask your physician is that where do you see my response now, let’s say six months into therapy, and is this adequate, and what is now, after we have all this information, what is my roadmap going forward to try to keep this disease in check? 

Katherine:

Yeah. Well, that’s great advice, Dr. Nadeem. Thank you. PEN has also created a downloadable office visit planner to help you organize your thoughts and communicate effectively with your healthcare team. You can find these at Powerfulpatients.org/myeloma.  

I’d like to turn to self-advocacy, Dr. Nadeem. Why is it so important that patients engage in their care treatment decisions? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah. As I mentioned, myeloma therapy is so individualized now and we can sit here, look at the trial data, get very into the weeds and technical about this therapy with this approach as X or Y higher response rate.   

Or MRD-negative rate, but in reality, we’re dealing with people and we’re dealing with people that have lives. They have all their priorities, and until you share that with us, it’s very difficult for us to know exactly what’s important to you. So, what I may consider to be kind of the “best therapy” for you may not make sense for you because of all the priorities that you may have, and I think it’s so important to advocate for yourself and not be afraid to bring that up to your physician because I think many patients kind of hold that stuff in for a long time because they don’t want it to impact their care. But I would argue the other way around.  

Tell us. Tell us exactly what you prioritize. Tell us if you can’t be out of commission for work for X amount of time because of a stem cell transplant. We now have options. We now have options for patients because of all these amazing new therapies for myeloma and we can come up with a very individualized treatment plan for you based on your priorities.  

Katherine:

If a patient is feeling like they’re not getting the best care or they’re uncomfortable with the care they’re receiving, what steps should they take to change that?  

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah, I think that’s very difficult because this is a complex system. Medical systems are getting even more and more complex. They’re busy. Everybody’s busy: busy offices, labs, radiology. We’re all feeling that. It doesn’t matter where you are. So, I think it’s important to raise those concerns, number one, to your practice that you’re being seen at because they would like to see that feedback, right? So, kind of see what is something that they can perhaps improve upon. I think it’s always important, like we just said, to advocate for yourself and raise some of these issues and not be afraid of that.  

We’re all in this together, right, so I think ultimately, we’re all trying to take the best care of you and we would need to know which part of that may or may not be working so well.  

Katherine:

Let’s get to a few audience questions that we received prior to the program. This one is from Rita. “Is there an age limit on CAR T-cell therapy?” 

Dr. Nadeem:

So, no, there isn’t. A lot of age-related cutoffs that we’ve historically used for transplants or even the CAR T originally don’t really apply because we all know there’s patients that are in their late 70s that may be more fit and robust than somebody in their 50s. We see this all the time. So, frailty is something that we assess quite a bit in patients in determining whether they can handle some of the toxicities that may come from these therapies. So, there’s no age cutoff.  

Again, we look at certain other medical problems you may have, how fit you are, your organ function and things like that, but ultimately the goal is can you tolerate the chemotherapy you get before CAR-T cells and then can you tolerate some of the acute toxicities of CAR-T cells, such as the cytokine release syndrome, some risk of neurological toxicity, things like that. All of those are usually short-term, and if you feel confident that we can get you through that, then you’re eligible.  

Katherine:

Yeah. Laura sent in this question: “I’m considering bispecific antibody therapy. I know some of the side effects are similar to CAR T-cell therapy. Can you share the pros and cons of bispecifics and how it compares to CAR T?” 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah. I think we mentioned earlier that as a whole, they’re very similar. They’re both T-cell re-directing therapies, in many circumstances, with the same exact target of the myeloma cell, but because this isn’t a cell infusion – this is a cell injection – that you receive that redirects your T cells to the myeloma cells, you tend to see a little bit of a lower toxicity signal when it comes to the cytokine release syndrome incidents and severity. You see lower neurological toxicity, usually, than you do with CAR  T-cell products as a whole.  

With that comes slightly lower efficacy than you see with at least some of our CAR-T products, but if you respond to therapy, then the durability of response can be as good as you can achieve with CAR-T cells. One thing to note about the bispecifics, though, is that it is continuous therapy, so you are getting it on some regular schedule. Right now the approval is for it to be given weekly and then go to every two weeks after six months of therapy if you’re basically in a good response.  

A lot of that is to try to mitigate the risk of infection. So, that is one of the biggest things that we have seen with bispecifics more so than CAR-T cells. Because it is continuous administration of these therapies, that really suppresses your immune system significantly, and infection rates are quite high. So, we typically give other ways to try to mitigate that using immunoglobulin infusions to try to boost up your immune system. Typically, we do that once a month for patients, making sure you’re on the right prophylactic medications and then really adjusting the therapy and the schedule to you depending on your tolerability.  

So, as we said before, it’s an excellent option. I think bispecific antibodies are going to be the mainstay of myeloma therapy going forward because CAR-T cells, again, we can’t really treat everybody with CAR-T cells just simply because of the dynamics of how the process is. So, having the bispecific antibodies available for patients is excellent.  

Katherine:

Thank you for this information, Dr. Nadeem. And please continue to send in your questions to questions@powerfulpatients.org and we’ll work to get them answered on future programs.  

We’ve definitely learned today that the field of myeloma care is advancing quickly. As we close out the program, what would you like to leave the audience with? Why are you hopeful? 

Dr. Nadeem:

Yeah. I think you all can see the tremendous progress that’s been made and, again, I still think it’s sort of the tip of the iceberg. These immunotherapies that are really showing this kind of activity, we’re just learning about them, and we’re going to improve them, not just the way we administer them. We’re going to make them even better and better and better and our hope is that a cure is not so far in the future. And perhaps even now we can cure a subset of patients if we deploy some of these therapies in the right person at the right time. So, I think that is really what I am hopeful for, that we have all these options available.  

Now it’s up to us to figure out which one fits in where and then, as we do that, hopefully we’ll see even better and better outcomes. And my hope is, over time, that this is a disease that we can cure at least in a subset of patients, which means that they get fixed duration therapy with whatever that we have.  

And then they’re done, and then hopefully never have to have therapy for this disease because it’ll be gone, and then, in patients that develop a disease relapse, we then treat them with some of these other agents. So, this is starting to hopefully mirror what we see in other blood cancers, such as lymphoma, for example, where you give the initial therapy and cure a subset of patients. Hopefully we can get there with myeloma in the not-so-distant future.  

Katherine:

It’s a very promising outlook to leave our audience with. Dr. Nadeem, thank you so much for joining us today. 

Dr. Nadeem:

Thank you so much for having me.   

Katherine:

And thank you to all of our collaborators. To learn more about myeloma and to access tools to help you become a proactive patient, visit powerfulpatients.org. I’m Katherine Banwell. Thanks for joining us today.  

PODCAST: HCP Roundtable: Critical Clinical Trial Conversations in the Expanding Myeloma Landscape



 

Treatment options for multiple myeloma have increased substantially, mainly attributed to advancements in clinical trials. More than ever, HCPs having conversations about trials is critical. Given that underrepresented communities bear a disproportionate burden of multiple myeloma, it becomes imperative to shift this paradigm.

What are the optimal approaches to initiate these conversations early in the patient journey? How should HCPs effectively communicate information about clinical trials to patients and their families, including care partners? Myeloma experts Dr. Craig Cole and Charise Gleason lend their expertise, offering insights into best practices and guidance on the next steps to be taken.

Download Resource Guide  |  Descargar guía de recursos

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients Program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester, founder and CEO of Your GPS Doc. EPEP is a patient empowerment network program that serves as a secure space for healthcare providers to learn techniques for improving patient-physician communication and overcome practice barriers. In this

Myeloma roundtable, we are tackling critical clinical trial conversations in the expanding myeloma landscape. Some of the things we’ll discuss during this program include, how to explain the sequence of myeloma treatment and how clinical trials fit in. Healthcare provider to healthcare provider, recommended strategies for initiating clinical trial conversations early in the myeloma patient journey, and how to effectively mitigate and manage concerns regarding clinical trials through education, and continuously encourage patients and their care partners to ask questions.

It is my honor and privilege to be joined by Charise Gleason, vice President and Chief Advanced Practice Officer for Emory Healthcare, and adjunct faculty at the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University. Ms. Gleason leads the physician assistants and nurse practitioners across Emory Healthcare, overseeing clinical practice, quality, safety, and education. Thank you so much for joining us today, Ms. Gleason.

Charise Gleason:

Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

We’re also joined by Dr. Craig Cole, a board certified hematologist. Dr. Cole leads multiple clinical trials in multiple myeloma, and has worked extensively with patient advocacy groups to empower, educate, and bring equitable care to everyone. Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Cole.

Dr. Craig Cole:

Yeah, and thank you for the invitation.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

While this conversation can be broadly beneficial, in this program, we are speaking to the unique needs of myeloma patients and families. So let’s get started with how to explain the sequence of myeloma treatment, and how available clinical trials fit in. So I’m going to start with you, Dr. Cole. We know that there has been rapid advancement in the myeloma sphere. Can you speak to how the introduction of novel drugs, treatment combinations and therapeutic modalities may pose some challenges for healthcare providers as they attempt to explain the sequence of treatment in relation to available clinical trials?

Dr. Craig Cole:

Yeah, that’s a really good question, especially because so many things have been changing in myeloma, and such a rapid secession. It really, it’s been kind of not only an incredible transformative past 20 years in myeloma as we’ve moved away from using chemotherapy to using really targeted therapy, but really in the past five to 10 years, and us using immunotherapy and now T-cell directed therapy, it’s been transformative.

And it’s been very, very difficult for myeloma experts to kind of configure how these treatments are sequenced, and how the clinical trials are conducted. But basically, we have gone from using single drug therapies to using combination therapies for refractory patients to using multiple modalities and as upfront therapy for myeloma. Up until today, us using four-drug induction therapies with IMiDs proteasome inhibitors and now immunotherapy with anti-CD38 therapy being used upfront.

Now, we have…we’re on the fact we are past the horizon of using T-cell directed therapy for relapsed/refractory myeloma. Those are now being put in combinations. And at the last meetings, we saw data in combining talquetamab with the bispecific antibody with pomalidomide (Pomalyst) having incredible response rates to 99 percent to a 100 percent. The combination of using daratumumab (Darzalex)with teclistamab (Tecvidli) at ASCO a couple of years ago having very, very, very high response rates for relapsed/refractory patients.

And, of course, the combination of using two bispecific antibodies talquetamab (Talvey) and teclistamab together having, again, in these incredible response rates and for relapse refractory myeloma. So in very quick orders, we’re going to see those therapies moving further and further upfront, which is a huge benefit to patients.

But it can be kind of difficult to keep up with all the changes in myeloma, especially as we move from using these drugs as single agents, to using them in combination. And not only to speak to using some of the newer drugs like Mezigdomide in combination with daratumumab, having one of the CELMoDs having very, very high response rates.

And so it’s exciting, but it does, it’s a challenge to discuss clinical trials with patients, because so many things have changed. We now have clinical trials across the spectrum of myeloma, using bispecifics as upfront and smoldering myeloma, which was at the last ASH meeting to using again, more novel therapies upfront and relapsed/refractory space and in the maintenance therapy space.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Well, that’s all very exciting, and I appreciate you sharing that because as you’ve said, there’s been a really kind of an explosion for lack of a better word, in the numbers of treatments that are available as well as increasing improvements and results. But as you shared, having all of these different modalities available can definitely cause some confusion even among those who do this every day. Do you have anything to add to that, Ms. Gleason?

Charise Gleason:

No, I think, well, I think Dr. Cole described that perfectly. It’s an exciting time, and also a challenging time, which just really brings you back to that team care approach to your patient, and how all of us need to work hard to keep up to date on the latest information. Dr. Cole mentioned quadruplet therapy, and we’ve got two clinical trials that have essentially told us. if you add that quadruple therapy and add that antibody upfront, you drive that deeper response.

So we change our practice probably sooner in the academic settings. And it’s really how do we get this out to other healthcare providers in our referral basis that send patients to us? And then also, how do we do maintenance? And I think Dr. Cole would agree most of us risk-stratify for that maintenance setting too, whether it’s one drug or multi-drug, depending on our patient’s disease.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:  

Wonderful. So certainly, this conversation alludes to the fact that the clinical trials regarding these medications are also increasingly complex. And so I’m going to go to you, Ms. Gleason, because we know that nurses and advanced practice providers provide understanding of these trials, including potential benefits and risks, and all of the things that are required as they consider participating in a trial. And then, as you all have both shared, there is some tailoring around the treatment with regard to the disease state, whether it’s relapsing, whether it’s refractory. So with that in mind, do you have any best practices around tailoring the trial conversation with regard to specific patient needs and situations?

Charise Gleason:

Well, I’ll start with, we bring that discussion with all of our patients about the potential of a clinical trial from the start. And so we’re all versed on that, we all look to what clinical trial could be available for this patient. So we’re used to having that conversation. So our teams all need to be educated, participate in our research meetings, so we are ready to discuss a trial on that. We sometimes get to spend more time with patients, and we get to know our patients. These are patients we see frequently, and so we can have those conversations.

You might have somebody who’s starting to have a biochemical progression. It’s not time to change their therapy yet, but we’re already thinking about what’s that next line of therapy. And so as we start to approach that with clinical trials and standard of care, and opening that dialogue, so it’s really that communication and that rapport and relationship you have with your patient, and that care partner. So an ongoing conversation about the different treatments that are available to them.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

So we know that patients with myeloma are living longer lives based on everything that you all have shared, and with that comes a different set of options and challenges.  And you also have alluded to this team-based approach, Ms. Gleason, and we know that there’s a critical role that advanced practice providers play in the myeloma clinical trial setting. So I’d love for you to speak to that..the role that advanced practice providers play in myeloma clinical trials.

Charise Gleason:

Yeah, the advanced practice providers have started specializing like our physicians do, and we have that collaborative relationship, and we are part of that team approach to take care of our patients. So we’re identifying patients for potential clinical trials. Our scope of practice does vary a little bit from state to state. So in some cases, we can also enroll patients. If we’re not able to do that, though, we can already have discussed the trial, discussed side effects, presented them with the consent. So when they do meet with the physician, they’ve already seen a lot of that information, and then they can ask further questions with the physician.

I think the other big role that we play in the clinic setting is we see these patients, we see these patients for follow-up. So we’re doing a lot of management of the side effects, supportive care through the trials. We might be a little more available during the week, so if a patient’s here on another day, and they’ve got something going on, we’re answering those portal questions, and calling patients back and just really collaborating with our physicians and also the research team.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Dr. Cole, I’m going to turn the conversation back to you. As a physician, I know that often, there are some barriers just as part of our everyday practice that can hinder our work. And so I’d love for you to speak to any unforeseen or outdated practice related barriers that you feel may hinder your work, and the work of your colleagues specifically as it relates to myeloma trials. And then if you could also share some potential solutions to those barriers.

Dr. Craig Cole: 

Yes, super good question. I love this question. There are a lot that are out there that I…barriers that I hear providers talk about at other academic centers and in the community. One is that patients don’t want to go on clinical trials that they…and some of that is subconscious bias. Sometimes those are true, true bias. We know the FDA knows all the drug companies all, and I think every myeloma provider knows that there have been horrific disparities in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials based on race and age and ethnicity that the FDA looked at some of the data of trials that were going for FDA approval, and found that over the past 10 years, and that in those trials, that only 4 percent of the population of the trials were Black.

While in the United States, the number of Black myeloma patients is about 20 percent, over 20 percent of the myeloma population. So that’s a huge disparity. And what I hear is that while older patients and Black and Hispanic and Asian patients don’t want to go on clinical trials, and that’s not true. That’s been shown in multiple clinical trials that actually, the patients of different ethnicities and races actually are more likely to go on clinical trials than other racial groups. And so I think that it’s really important to keep that in mind that patients really…that really the ownership of getting a patient on a clinical trial is really on us to present the clinical trial option to them with every single conversation that we have.

 Some of the other barriers to clinical trials is, and Ms. Gleason had mentioned this, what they do at through the Emory system is that, well, the nurses and the other staff in the cancer center aren’t aware of the clinical trials, that when a patient goes through the clinic, they talk to more than just the provider. They talk to the treatment nurses, they talk to the intake people, they talked to the MAs, they talked to the scheduling people.

And there was a study that was done a few years ago in looking at patients who were given consent forms and declined clinical trials. And they found that a lot of patients declined clinical trials, well, because they said that, well, their doctor didn’t want them on the trial. And when they looked further into that, they saw that, well, the doctor offered them a clinical trial, but when they discussed the clinical trial with a nurse practitioner, when they discussed that trial with a treatment nurse or the MA or any of the other staff, when they didn’t know about the clinical trial, that was considered well, if you don’t know about the clinical trial, it must not be good for me. And then they withdrew from the trial.

So just like what they do, what Ms. Gleason had said, we have an all-in approach. We make sure that the treatment nurses, the MAs, the intake people know what we’re doing, know about our clinical trials, because that’s the fun part about what we do. The fun part is when we say, look, my goodness, this four-drug therapy had a 100 percent response rate. That shouldn’t be left in the physician compartment. It really shouldn’t be left in the provider compartment. That excitement should be clinic-wide. And when you have that all-in approach where everybody’s involved, everyone’s excited about clinical trials, it produces a culture of clinical trials that everybody wants to be part of, and the patients then can jump on that bus and feel comfortable participating in the trial.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wow. Thank you for elucidating that. Both the issue of the health disparities that we see in clinical trials and the need to diversify that clinical trial patient population, some of those biases that exist, as well as really lifting up this idea of creating a culture of clinical trials. I love the language that you use for that and the idea that everyone throughout the entire clinical encounter needs to be both aware of, and excited about the clinical trials that are underway. So I appreciate that.

That leads us nicely into our next segment, which is really focusing on strategies for fellow healthcare providers for initiating clinical trial conversations early in the myeloma patient journey. So I’m going to go back to you, Ms. Gleason. We’ve been talking about this team-based approach. We know that nurses serve as key coordinators of care in the myeloma trial setting, as well as other members of the healthcare team. So from your perspective, what are some recommended strategies that you can share to encourage advanced practice providers, specifically how to initiate the clinical trial conversation at the outset of care?

Charise Gleason:  

First, we need to educate our advanced practice providers. So for new APPs coming into our system, part of their onboarding is the research mission, exposing them to the clinical trials, exposing them to what we have available. We have a weekly research meeting, I’m sure Dr. Cole has similar practices. And then our group has a separate meeting once a week, where we meet for two hours. The myeloma team, we have APPs who are off that day who call in for this meeting, because we go over our patients, we talk about what’s, clinical trials are available, that’s just how we practice and we think about that.

I would like to add to that, referring to a center early is so essential as well, and for us to start having that conversation. And I’ll talk a little bit to build on something Dr. Cole said with our patient population.  In Atlanta, in our database, 40 percent of our data is based on Black patients. And we enroll about 32% to 33% of Black patients on clinical trials. And what our work on trials has showed us too, if you give the same access to every patient, you have good outcomes and good outcomes for Black patients, if not better, than white patients. So we all need to be versed on that, whether you’re the research nurse, the clinic nurse, the physician, the advanced practice. And so we really do bring that approach to taking care of our patients.

And then, managing those side effects and having that open dialogue. So patients aren’t surprised by things. And I’ll use talquetamab for instance. We have a patient who is still on the original trial, who relapsed on a BCMA targeted therapy. Early on, these side effects were new to everybody. And she wanted to come off the trial month end. And it was that education piece and working with her, holding the drug, that now almost two years later, she’s still in remission, tolerating the drug. And so those are the stories and these are the experiences we have. We’re giving really good drugs on clinical trials and patients are responding well.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

That’s an amazing success story. Thank you for sharing that. What about you, Dr. Cole, with regard to potential strategies for healthcare providers, what are some things that they can implement for initiating these clinical trial conversations early in the journey, particularly in the current environment?

Dr. Craig Cole: 

Yeah. And Ms. Gleason had mentioned this at kind of the top of our talk about having those conversations on day one. On day one of our patients coming in either as a second opinion, as a new diagnosis, as in whatever setting, we talk about…we have a list that we go through with the patient that talks about their stage or the disease, how we’re going to follow up. And there’s a line that I have to address, which is, clinical trials. So I mentioned our clinical trials, I mentioned on day one. And I think one strategy that other healthcare providers can take is that, even if you don’t have a clinical trial at that time, so right at this moment, we don’t have an upfront clinical trial.

We have one for maintenance therapy, post-transplant, but we don’t have an upfront trial. I mention that. I say that there are clinical trials that are available for your myeloma. Right now we don’t have a clinical trial for upfront myeloma, but we can refer you for a second opinion for an upfront trial if you’re interested or…and we have a clinical trial in maintenance. So that sets the groundwork that we’re going to talk about clinical trials on every visit. And that it doesn’t come as a surprise. Because the last thing you want to do is that someone is having a relapse and you say, “Oh, we’re going to talk about clinical trials today.”  Because then it’s like, “Oh my goodness, this is a desperation.” This is a desperation move, and it puts a lot of anxiety when you frame it, and we need to do this now as opposed to having on day one.

The second thing that I think really helps is getting patients involved in the myeloma community, especially with the support groups having not only the patients, but their care providers and families involved in the myeloma community. Because the myeloma communities through a lot of the support agencies like the IMF, the MMRF, the HealthTree, they have a very strong clinical trial culture. And when patients get involved, not only is that empowering to see other myeloma patients doing well, but to hear other myeloma patients talk about their experiences in clinical trials really, really helps. And I think the last thing that we use to help patients, go through clinical trials, is a couple of other things, is one, every time we talk about treatment options, if that is maintenance, if that is smoldering, if that is a relapsed/refractory therapy, we always put clinical trials in that conversation.

 Again, even if we don’t have that clinical trial at our institution, we talk about this as an option that we could refer you out to. And, and then we always talk about…I think one other little thing is that every visit that patients have, I somehow include some of the new things that are happening in myeloma. Now, my patients kind of expect it. They expect. They know when December and June is because when I see them after ASH and ASCO and sometimes they’re like asking, “So what’s new?” And once we get into that groove, they see, gosh. There are response rates that are off the charts with some of these new things. These patients are involved in clinical trials and the myeloma and multiple myeloma research is progressing at such a rate and things are getting better that patients want to be involved in it.

So we’re always talking about new things. Do I go into depth of detail with talquetamab and pomalidomide. I don’t go into depth of detail. And I say, where I was this clinical trials at our last ASH meeting that combined these two drugs for a relapsed/refractory myeloma, even patients who were refractory to some of the drugs you’re on now. And response rate was like 100 percent. And then when I talk about those clinical trials in the future, they’ll remember, man, that guy was talking, he’s all upset about these clinical trials. Maybe I want to be involved in them. So that’s kind of my few strategies that I use. 

Dr. Nicole Rochester:  

I love that. And what I really hear both of you saying is this idea of normalizing conversations about clinical trials and not introducing them as like a Hail Mary, so to speak, but really from the very beginning, letting patients and care partners know that this is a viable treatment option. So I think that is wonderful. And I can say like, your excitement is contagious for me, so I can only imagine how excited the patients that you work with feel.

So let’s move on to our final topic. How do we mitigate and manage concerns despite all these wonderful things that both of you have shared? I’m sure that patients and family members have concerns about myeloma clinical trials. And so I’ll start with you, Ms. Gleason. And as you hear concerns from patients and families over the years possibly related to fear of randomization, fear of getting the placebo, you all have mentioned some uneasiness about adverse effects. How do you effectively mitigate and manage these concerns with patients and their family members and care partners?

Charise Gleason:

Yeah, you just have to continue to have open communication. And if you’re, if a patient is accustomed to you mentioning clinical trials, then when you present one to them, right? They’re a little more open to it. But not everybody starts with us. And we get referrals in midway and different parts and different paths along the way. But patients we do hear, “I don’t want to get a placebo.” Or you’ll mention a clinical trial and somebody will say, “Am I ready for hospice?”

And it’s, you have to go back and start that education again that, no, you’re getting good treatment on this, a registry trial, for instance, you’re going to get standard of care treatment plus or minus something else, right? And so we really have to go back and educate that you are getting treatment. You’re going to be watched closer than any of our other patients actually.

You’ve got a whole team around you that’s talking about your trial and our patients every week. And so I think that our excitement and our being positive, we can get those patients to enroll on trials. I think something that makes me really happy is, we keep a list of every treatment line, and when you go through and it’s like standard of care, clinical trial, clinical trial, standard…it’s we’ve done the right thing then, right? Our patient has had full advantage of what’s available to them when we do that. 

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

What about you, Dr. Cole? Do you have anything to add with regard to managing the concerns that come up?

Dr. Craig Cole:

Yeah. The one thing that I tell patients, and I tell patients one-to-one, and when I do talks for some of the efficacy groups that I tell lots of patients that. That in 2024, myeloma trials are incredibly competitive. And the only, the best, best drugs, now float to the top as part of our clinical trial portfolio. There were days I remember begging companies for clinical trials saying, “Please, please think about myeloma.” And we were struggling.

Now, it is incredibly competitive, and that competition does a fantastic thing for patients because what we see in the clinical trial portfolio are drugs that are safer and safer and safer, and drugs that are more effective and more effective. When you go to these meetings and the expectation is that our response rate needs to be over 60%, then you know that the clinical trial mail you, that we work with them, is of a super high quality, which you really can’t say for a lot of other types of cancer.

So I tell patients that their fears that they have are absolutely justified. And one thing we teach the fellows, the residents and the medical students, is that you validate those concerns and you listen to those concerns and you don’t ignore it or blow through it. That you absolutely…those are the most important parts of that conversation. And if you don’t validate it, the patient says, “Well, I have a fear of randomization.” And you go, “Hmm, there’s no such thing.” Then that’s not validating. And that’s not even listening. That’s just moving on because you don’t have that concern, but you’re not bringing that, you’re not validating the patient’s concern. And so you have to be very, very careful in doing that because there are multiple studies that have shown those are the big concerns.

Also, bringing up the things that are facilitators for clinical trials, that if there is an opportunity for reimbursement for travel or reimbursement for hotel stays or reimbursement that we say that this trial has a reimbursement program, or if we say that use other things that help facilitate clinical trials like speaking to the family, not just speaking to a patient, but speaking to the caregiver and speaking to the extended family that that patient will have a conversation with are really important conversation because the more people that you can talk to, that’s part of that patient’s decision-making group, which can be very different from patient to patient based on their culture, the more likely you are to get a consensus among that decision-making group for the patient to go on a clinical trial.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Those are great tips. Thank you both so much. It’s time to wrap up our roundtable. I must say I have truly enjoyed this conversation as always. I have learned a lot. I’m sure that our audience has learned a lot. In closing, I’m going to go to each of you just to share maybe one takeaway that you’d like to leave with the audience. So I’ll start with you Dr. Cole, one takeaway.

Dr. Craig Cole: 

One takeaway. I actually thought about this, but I think that the biggest takeaway is, if I can squeeze two in.

Is that, is to remember that basically they’re all patients want to be involved in clinical trials and the ownership of having patients on clinical trials is really on us to really talk to them over a longitudinal period, to talk about clinical trials, to have them involved. To not look at a patient saying, “No, they don’t want to be on clinical trial.” That you really engage that patient to tell them about really the incredible progress that we’ve made, how competitive clinical trials are and how exciting it is to be part of that research environment. And that would be my one, my two sort of closing thoughts.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you. And what about you, Ms. Gleason?

Charise Gleason:

Dr. Cole said it well. Please discuss this with your patient. Listen to them. Listen to their concerns. Don’t make decisions for them based on bias that maybe you’re bringing in. Don’t make decisions based on maybe it’s too far. Patients drive hours to go on clinical trials, and let’s give them the information and have that conversation.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Well, thanks again to both of you, and thank you all for tuning in to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester. Have an amazing day.

PODCAST | HCP Roundtable: Best Practices for Talking About Clinical Trials With Myeloma Patients

 

Clinical trials represent tomorrow’s medicine today, yet not every patient confronting a myeloma diagnosis is informed about all available care options. Surprisingly, some patients and their care partners are never introduced to the possibility of participating in clinical trials. How can we alter the course? What strategies can healthcare professionals (HCPs) employ to effectively communicate information about clinical trials and guide patients through next steps?

Experts Dr. Beth Faiman and RuthAnn Gordon share important insights into understanding the critical role of clinical trial nurses and how they educate and mentor nursing professionals around best practices for broaching clinical trial conversations.

Download Resource Guide|Descargar guía de recursos

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Welcome to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester, pediatrician and CEO of Your GPS Doc. EPEP is a Patient Empowerment Network program that serves as a secure space for healthcare providers to learn techniques for improving physician-patient communication and overcoming practice barriers. Today we are tackling best practices for talking about clinical trials with myeloma patients. One significant challenge for some providers is initiating conversations about clinical trials and determining the appropriate timing of those conversations.

While clinical trials are often described as embodying tomorrow’s medicine today, not every patient facing a myeloma diagnosis is well-informed about all available care options. Astonishingly, some patients and their care partners are never even introduced to the possibility of participating in clinical trials. How can we shift this trend? How do we make these conversations a standard part of healthcare discussions at the outset of care?

What strategies can we as healthcare professionals employ to effectively convey information about clinical trials and guide patients and families through the next steps? We are joined today by RuthAnn Gordon, Director of Clinical Trial Nursing at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Ms. Gordon oversees clinical trial nurses, and develops and implements policies, procedures, standards, and systems to improve quality and compliance in the conduct of clinical research. We are also joined by Dr. Beth Faiman, a nurse practitioner and research oncology professional at the Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Faiman is an active author, presenter, and educator on the topic of multiple myeloma. Thank you both for joining me for this very important conversation.

Dr. Beth Faiman:

Thank you for having us.

Dr. Nicole Rochester: So we have a lot to discuss as it relates to best practices for talking about clinical trials with myeloma patients and their families. And I think this is always a topic that deserves so much conversation, likely more than we will be able to dedicate today. And while it can be a broadly beneficial conversation to have, in the program today we are speaking to the unique needs of myeloma patients and their families.

Some of the topics we’ll tackle today are understanding the critical role of clinical trial nurses, healthcare provider to healthcare provider recommended strategies to effectively communicate about pretrial eligibility determination and the consenting process, and how to educate and mentor nursing professionals in community hospital settings and beyond, guiding them to assist patients and families through the subsequent steps of participating in a clinical trial.

So let’s get started by talking about the role of clinical trial nurses. And, Ms. Gordon, I’m going to start with you. We know that research nurses are at the front line of treating patients. Can you speak to your role, and how you believe it has changed over time?

RuthAnn Gordon:

Absolutely. First, I can tell you that I’ve been doing research nursing for over 20 years and really love the work. I think it’s important for patients to have that support when they’re going through a clinical trial. And so we’ve done a lot of work to make sure that they have that support. So our role is to really be able to guide the patient through the journey, making sure that they’re educated on what they can expect on the clinical trial, and not only in terms of what maybe the drug might be doing them in terms of side effects, but what is their schedule going to look like? When are they going to have to come in? How long are they going to be here? What does that mean? And how do we support them with their quality of life while they go through all the responsibilities that they as patients have on a clinical trial, and what do they need to do to get ready for that experience?

And so we’re guiding them, we’re educating them, we’re ensuring that they do understand the potential side effects, but do understand also what their role is in the clinical trial and what they can expect. And I think that in terms of what has changed is that we have really put more value on the fact that having that nurse that has the expertise in the clinical trial and really can gate keep all of the patient care coordination that that involves from a clinician experience and from a clinician perspective, has really helped to ensure that our patients are ready, that we can do our very complex trials. Because trials have changed so much in the last decade.

There’s so many more expectations. There’s so many more things that need to happen while they’re on the trial that really having that clinician doing that with the patient has improved our ability to do those kinds of complex trials. And so I think that really recognizing that having that clinician perspective at the partner, at the bedside with the patient has really helped us to expand the kind of trials that we can do.  

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you. And as a physician who acknowledges that the time that we are allotted with our patients is often very little, it really makes a lot of sense that you all are able to bridge those gaps in the patient education, and are critically important to this work. So thank you for the work that you do. Dr. Faiman, we know that patients with myeloma are living longer, and they’re dealing with a different set of challenges than perhaps they previously encountered. So can you speak to the critical role of nurses specifically in the myeloma trial setting today?

Dr. Beth Faiman:

Yeah, absolutely. You know, I must first start by saying that the successes in the treatment of multiple myeloma can be owed to the brave participation of the patients and the caregivers. So let’s not forget about the caregivers to support the patients with clinical trials. And I started as a clinical trials nurse in the 1990s managing these patients, and a nurse practitioner in 2002. And now my role is different also as a researcher. And so I have seen firsthand all these drug developments. And so the difference from before when we had very few available therapies to now we have an armamentarium of drugs, and so deciding whether or not to participate in a clinical trial is super important. And how can we support our patients who are now living a longer lifespan with all these cumulative physical and financial issues? How can the nurses support the patients to get the access to the drugs and access to the financial resources they need so that they continue living a good quality of life? I know we have a very robust program to talk about later on, but I think nurses can fill that critical gap of finding resources for patients to allow them to participate in clinical trials to live a better life.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you. And thank you for acknowledging the role of the patients and their caregivers in all of the growth that we’ve seen in this field, in the research. Ms. Gordon, we know that diversity in clinical trials is lacking. Certainly there have been lots of reports about that. It’s gotten increasing attention over the last few years. There’s now regulations related to that. And while things are changing, we have a long way to go. And it’s also important that we celebrate the wins that we’ve achieved along the way. So my question for you is, do research nurses play a role in increasing diversity in clinical trials and also in trial innovation?

RuthAnn Gordon:  

Absolutely. Absolutely. I think that one of the things that is important is community outreach, right? And so we have a lot of opportunities for research nurses. Well, as in large academic settings, a focus needs to be on exploring ways to have partnerships with our community organizations. And once those connections are established, the research nurses can play an extremely pivotal role in ensuring that we’re not only at point-of-consent educating, but way before that, getting involved in pre-screening activities in order to ensure that we’re looking at a diverse population.

And also to help with providers that are in the community that may have more advanced questions, and having the nurse being partners with those clinicians in order to help them get through the questions that they might have in a more timely manner. And so the research nurses that are attached to those academic centers have a pivotal role in ensuring that the community centers have support.

And in doing the pre-screening, I think is an important feature of having the research nurse also be involved in that process. And so I think that…we know that the community has needs, and we know that we need to increase that access. So looking at opportunities to partner with those settings, to me, with the research nurse, is really critical, and I think is an important way that we can do that.

Educating is, I’ll keep going back to that, when you get hands on that patient, making sure that they understand what they can expect. And any misconceptions. Clearing up misconceptions about being on clinical trials is really important so that when you have a patient that is eligible, that they feel comfortable and confident in joining that study.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Dr. Faiman, I’m going to come back to you. And my question for you is, can you speak to unforeseen or outdated practice-related barriers that may actually hinder the work of research nurses?

Dr. Beth Faiman:

Absolutely. So I wanna preface this by saying in my mind. I think that both oncology nurses and advanced practice providers are highly trained professionals that should function within a multidisciplinary team. So that team, just as you mentioned before, Dr. Rochester, was the physician has limited time, maybe even the advanced practice provider has limited time. How can we harness all of our resources to provide the best care to that patient? And clinical trials are one of them. Clinical trials will offer support so that the patient can have access to a pharmacist, a social worker, a dedicated nurse, a dedicated line to call if they’re having a symptom. But to speak to some of the outdated procedures, again, it goes to scope of the practice. No matter how highly trained they are experientially or with credentialing, there are practice barriers within the hospital organization within state laws.

The nice thing about clinical trials though, is that nurses in most institutions are very able to watch that clinical protocol. They’ll look for who needs to hold a medication because of toxicity, consult with the provider, and then they’ll say, “Okay, hold your dose. And when your toxicity resolves, reduce it one dose level, and come back for labs,” or whatever that would entail. So while there are outdated practices historically, I think that within clinical trials nursing it provides some more autonomy for oncology nurses, again, as a part of that multidisciplinary team to enhance patient care.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

That’s wonderful. Are there any additional solutions that you think are necessary as we continue to see advancements in myeloma?

Dr. Beth Faiman:

Continuing education for these highly trained providers. And so those kind of…the education though, I’ll tell you, I think should focus a lot on the disparities in clinical research. One of the things I’m passionate about is highlighting the implicit and explicit biases that are in clinical research. Many of us will say, “Oh, that person won’t be a good clinical trial candidate because they live too far away or they don’t have a caregiver.” And so I’m really…I tell all of my nurses, nurse practitioners, even physicians, just ask a patient. Don’t think that because they live an hour away, they’re not going to want to participate in a well-designed clinical trial without even asking them. That doesn’t even allow them the opportunity to provide feedback.

And then not to mention all of the resources that are available to patients that provide, that participate in clinical trials. Many of the research studies will provide transportation or an overnight stay or some nominal, again, not trying to coerce the patients, but some nominal reimbursement for expenses to allow them to have access to that drug. So I can talk on and on, because I’m so passionate about this topic. But being aware that biases exist, through continuing education will hopefully enhance the diversity of clinical trials so that patients will be able to have access to care, and then that the clinical trial results are representative of the actual population of who we’re treating.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you. I can definitely feel they’re both of your passion, and that’s why it’s so important that we have you here with us today for this conversation. So let’s shift focus a little bit and begin to talk about communication between healthcare providers to effectively communicate about pretrial eligibility determination and the consent process. So I’m going to go right back to you, Dr. Faiman. What do you think are the unique barriers that providers face when they’re speaking about myeloma trials to patients and their families?

Dr. Beth Faiman:

Right. So I think multiple myeloma is unique in that there are such an explosion of new therapies within the last decade. There hasn’t been such momentum in any other cancer such as multiple myeloma. But, unfortunately, there are challenges such as language barriers and communication problems that overarching with all the different specialties. The geographic I had already mentioned in a previous discussion about the geographic barriers to participate in clinical trials, not meeting inclusion criteria, I think it takes an astute nurse or advanced practice provider or physician to now sequence the therapy.

So for example, they have new therapies such as BCMA-targeted drugs that are available through cellular therapy trials or bispecific antibody trials. And without getting too specific into the drugs, you need a specialist to be able to say, “Okay, if I give you this drug today, that will exclude you from a clinical trial that might be very innovative and promising in the future.”

So those are unique barriers to accessing clinical trials or standard therapies for that matter because of the plethora of therapies that are available. So getting in, having patients get in with a myeloma specialist, they might not see them on a regular basis, maybe employ telehealth techniques, see them once and then virtually connect, share information about what might be available. Those are ways that you can provide access to patients, caregivers, and others throughout their disease trajectory because they’re living longer than ever.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Which is a wonderful thing.

Dr. Beth Faiman:

Yes. 

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Ms. Gordon, you’ve been doing this for a long time. In your experience, what are tried and true strategies that healthcare providers can implement to effectively communicate with their patients about clinical trials when speaking to pretrial eligibility determination and the consent process specifically?

RuthAnn Gordon:

Yeah. Thanks for the question. I think that an important thing whenever we’re talking to our patients is to really understand where they are with understanding and how they learn. So it’s important for us to know what their health literacy is so that we’re making sure that we’re talking in a language that they can understand and using words that are appropriate. And so that’s key. Clinical trials have a lot of comprehensive and complex assessments that are needed for pretrial eligibility, right?

So I think it’s really important to make sure that we are being transparent as to what they can expect. We don’t want them to have surprises later on and then not feel like they want to continue with that process. So I do recommend to my providers and my research nurses, sometimes get out the hard stuff up front. Know if they’re going to be there for 12-hour PKs. Let them know. It shouldn’t be a surprise. And I think that that really helps patients. First, they get involved in the process, they know what to expect, and you can really have more confidence in their adherence.

The other thing is to allow time for the conversations, right? We need to allow time for our patients to ask questions. And the consent process can be lengthy. There’s a lot on the document. Sometimes it’s quite long. So you wanna make sure that they’re in a state of mind to have the conversation, that you allow time for questions, and that you make it an exchange between the two of you. It’s a dialogue. It should be. And you should come with understanding where they’re at; understanding a little bit about what’s going on behind the scenes, right? What’s happening at home is important as you’re talking about pretrial eligibility, as you’re talking about what they can expect on trial, just to get a full picture of them.

So I think that those to me are very helpful. Providing take-home information to the patient so they have something to reflect on later is also really important, because they’re not going to grasp everything in that one session. And consenting is like an ongoing process, right? You have one conversation, you probably have 10 more.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

That is wonderful. Thank you so much for sharing that. And I really appreciate that both of you have highlighted the importance of health literacy, and meeting our patients and families where they are and making sure that they understand, and this idea that it’s a continuum: That there may be multiple conversations that will be necessary. Dr. Faiman, as the myeloma treatment landscape continues to expand thanks to clinical trials, how are clinical trial conversations evolving, and what do you feel should be top of mind?

Dr. Beth Faiman:

That’s an excellent question. Over 20 different drugs are available in various combinations. And so we talked about sequencing very briefly about having patients that have access to clinical trials, making sure they’re not exposed to this class, or maybe they needed to be exposed to this class of drug before they can get drug B, for example. And so sharing mutual information through shared decision-making, again, the patients sharing information and goals of care, the provider and healthcare team mutually sharing information, bring in your social worker or pharmacist, etcetera, and then you can mutually agree on a treatment for the patient. And so that is something we did not have 20 years ago. There were very few effective agents.

I like to remind patients when we provide clinical trial consent forms, that the language is written by lawyers, but it’s intended to protect you. I overemphasize that this is voluntary, and you can withdraw your consent at any time. But I try to go back and highlight why there’s stringent, plus or minus one day, maybe you can’t take off three days to go on a holiday weekend, because we really need to dose this drug on that day and obtain this blood information. So again, having the patients understand what’s involved in the clinical trials and then being able to provide information.

I like to also offer handouts. So the International Myeloma Foundation has clinical trials and diversity handouts. And then another one that I really like is by the FDA that describes the importance of clinical trials. I give that to everybody. So at diagnosis, if you’re on a standard care treatment, you’re not receiving a clinical trial. Everybody that comes into my office that I see for myeloma amyloidosis and related disorders, I would say, “You are a candidate for clinical trial now, but if I or somebody else does not involve you or ask you to participate, then ask us. Just ask us about clinical trials.” I even have a pen that says “Ask me about clinical trials” so that everybody can see it.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

I love the idea of a pen. Wonderful. Well, let’s move on to how to educate and mentor nursing professionals. Both of you are nursing professionals, and you’ve clearly highlighted in this program so far the importance of the role of nurses in this clinical trial process. So, Ms. Gordon, I’m going to go to you. We know that one significant challenge for some providers is actually initiating conversations about clinical trials and also determining the appropriate timing. Can you speak to whether care variation may pose challenges in community hospital settings, perhaps compared to academic hospitals?

RuthAnn Gordon:

Yeah, absolutely. I think one of the most important things about when to talk to the patient is every time, anytime, right? I think that we should be asking them if they’re interested in clinical trials. If they haven’t been engaged in that, we should be talking to them about, “You know, there’s maybe a chance at some time in our partnership together that we will be talking about clinical trials.” And introducing that up front I think is really important so that we don’t leave clinical trials sort of as a last thought and the patient have that feeling.

And I think that for the community setting, that’s one of the things that may be a challenge, is because it is hard to put a patient on a clinical trial and run it from a community setting. So it’s, how do we give them the support and resources so that it’s not so hard and that they do offer it and talk to their patients as much as possible about it? And I feel like that’s what we need to do more with these partnerships with academic settings, is that we have to give them support so that it’s not so hard, and that that clinical trials first of mind to them when they’re planning care for their patients.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

I see a theme here: Partnership, collaboration. Dr. Faiman, as we continue on this topic, and as someone who has been a consistent figure in the continuum of care, how do you guide other nursing professionals when it comes to clinical trial communication? Do you have specific tips or tricks or things that you can share with the audience?

Dr. Beth Faiman:

Yeah, absolutely. So I think I have a unique perspective having been a clinical trials nurse, nurse practitioner, and now I conduct, independently, clinical trials. And so I, throughout that whole journey, so I share my experiences and some of the key tips that I like to share with other nurses and healthcare providers is just coming to the patient level. And as Ruthie had said a moment ago, at each encounter you have that opportunity to educate that patient about their labs, what’s their remission status, their disease status, what drugs are they on, what worked, what didn’t work? And the ones that are in remission for a while, one, two, three, five years, we have discussions about next therapy. So I say to them, “Okay, now, we have a great clinical trial. I think everything’s going very well with your disease remission status, but let’s make sure that you know what might be the next best thing for you.”

And I start planting that seed, giving them information about next therapy so that it’s not that, “Oh my gosh, I thought I was never going to relapse and now I need another treatment.” It’s okay, we have a game plan, we’re here in this together, let’s get some information. So disseminating this at this critical information to nurses at national conferences about the different drugs that are available, the toxicities, and how to offer them to our patients, I think is really important. But really just cheering in that partnership, as we just talked about, is really key to success, I think.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Great. Well, it’s time to wrap up our roundtable. And I have truly enjoyed this conversation. I have personally learned a lot. I’m sure that our audience will learn a lot as well. So I’d like to get closing thoughts from each of you. So I’ll start with you, Ms. Gordon. What is the most important takeaway message that you wanna leave with other healthcare professionals who may be watching?

RuthAnn Gordon:

Thank you. First, thank you for having me at this. This has been an amazing experience, and I want the providers out there to not be afraid of clinical trials, to look at opportunities to work with nurses to help support you in those clinical trials, to have the conversations with your patients early and often, and to work with your community partners.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

And thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gordon. What about you, Dr. Faiman?

Dr. Beth Faiman:

Well, I guess I would say never underestimate for the nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, social workers, physicians, anyone on the healthcare team. Never underestimate the unique role that you enact in the care of patients with myeloma or other disorders. Use your voice to speak up. If you think a patient is a candidate for a clinical trial but that physician or other provider hasn’t recommended it to them, then tell them why. You can refer them yourself as well. Ask patients about barriers to participation. Is it physical, financial, social? You can’t take time off of work. And then provide that assistance in counseling. It takes a big effort to support our patients, but we would’ve never gotten to where we are with treatment of multiple myeloma in 2024 without patient participation in clinical trials. So whatever we can do to enhance diversity, minimize bias, and support our patients, please try to do the best to do your part.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Well, thank you both, Ms. Gordon, Dr. Faiman, for this awesome conversation. We have learned a lot about how we got to where we are with myeloma. And thank you again for pointing out early on, it’s the patients and their caregivers and their participation in clinical trials that has led to the landscape where we are now with so many drugs available. And that really highlights the importance of clinical trials. We talked about diversity of clinical trials. 

We talked about the implicit and explicit biases that all of us have, and that sometimes may preclude us from recommending trials for patients that can benefit from this therapy. And we’ve talked about the importance of having these conversations, not once, not twice, but every time that you are in the presence of a patient and their family. And also just the partnership and the collaboration that has already taken place, and that we hope to continue to foster as we move forward. So thank you both again, and thank you all for tuning in to this Empowering Providers to Empower Patients Program. I’m Dr. Nicole Rochester. 

Co-pay Assistance Programs & Concerns – Myeloma

This video was originally published by Myeloma.org on Mar 31, 2017, here.

Recently, the International Myeloma Foundation’s InfoLine has been flooded with calls from patients and caregivers facing insurmountable financial challenges due to the high cost of drugs and increases in insurance copays. In the past, several services have been available to provide financial assistance to patients. We understand that funds for co-pay assistance are difficult to come by, and available funding will likely dry up quickly.

DOWNLOAD SLIDES