1. Introduction
Immunomodulatory (IMiD ® ) agents including thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide have become part of the backbone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), leading to improved response and survival rates [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. In MM, treatment with an IMiD agent forms part of the preferred standard of care as a component of triplet and quadruplet regimens, with agents such as pomalidomide increasingly being used [ 1 ]. This has resulted in improvements in survival while also benefiting patient quality of life (QOL) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Although these agents are associated with relatively lower toxicity than chemotherapy, treatment with IMiD agents nonetheless results in a range of adverse events (AEs) that require special attention and management to enable patients to adhere to their treatments. Although thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide are structurally similar, they are associated with differing safety profiles ( Table 1 ). Thalidomide is particularly associated with sedation, constipation, peripheral neuropathy, and muscle weakness [ 1 , 10 ]. Lenalidomide is associated with an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPMs; particularly hematological malignancies), rash, diarrhea, constipation, hematological toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism, and stroke [ 3 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Of note, the risk of thromboembolism leading to heart attacks or stroke is increased when lenalidomide is combined with dexamethasone [ 3 ]. There is also evidence that lenalidomide promotes the development of TP53-mutated myeloid neoplasms [ 14 ].
Pomalidomide, an IMiD agent and the focus of this review, was approved in 2013 for the treatment of patients with relapsed and/or refractory MM (RRMM) who had received ≥2 prior regimens including lenalidomide and bortezomib [ 4 ]. Pomalidomide is associated with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal side effects and is less dependent on renal function than thalidomide and lenalidomide. As with lenalidomide, pomalidomide is associated with an increased risk of VTE, myocardial infarction, and stroke (for which antithrombotic prophylaxis is recommended in patients with known risk factors), especially when combined with dexamethasone [ 4 ]. In patients treated with pomalidomide monotherapy, the hematologic toxicities neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia occur in approximately 53%, 38%, and 26% of patients, respectively; grade 3/4 events occur in approximately 48%, 23%, and 22% [ 2 ]. When combined with low-dose dexamethasone, the most frequent nonhematologic AEs associated with pomalidomide include fatigue and asthenia (47–63%) and infections such as upper respiratory tract infections (29–31%) and pneumonia (19–34%) [ 4 ]. The overall risk of SPMs in patients with MM is low, and although additional risk with pomalidomide treatment appears to be minimal, some cases of acute myelogenous leukemia have been reported in patients receiving pomalidomide in non-MM studies [ 4 , 5 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Although routine screening for SPMs is not recommended by the International Myeloma Working Group, they instead suggest bone marrow examination with cytogenetic analyses at baseline and in the event of unexplained blood count abnormalities. Further, they advise that SPMs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine the role of treatment on SPM development to prevent false inflation of reported SPM rates [ 15 ]. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of RRMM revealed that, of 10 treatment regimens analyzed (including mono-, doublet-, and triplet-regimens), pomalidomide–dexamethasone regimens had the highest rate of infections [ 18 ]. Pomalidomide-associated AEs leading to death have also been reported, most commonly pneumonia, sepsis, and anemia [ 19 ]. Different pomalidomide-based combination regimens have demonstrated differing incidences of common AEs in clinical studies ( Table 2 ), and effective management is important not only for patient QOL but also for treatment adherence and therefore overall treatment efficacy ( Table 3 ).
1.1. Real-World Pomalidomide Data
Real-world data are consistent with clinical studies regarding the most frequently observed hematologic and nonhematologic AEs [ 33 , 34 ]. A recent pharmacovigilance analysis of >55,000 pomalidomide-related AEs between 2013 and 2021 based on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) has provided further insights into real-world post-marketing safety of IMiD agents ( Table 4 ) [ 19 ]. The study concluded that IMiD agents showed differences in safety profiles and emphasized the importance of awareness amongst clinicians. The risk of VTE is high in MM and is increased by the use of IMiDs [ 35 , 36 ] and further still when IMiDs are combined with dexamethasone or chemotherapy drugs [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. When compared with thalidomide (14%) or lenalidomide (15%), pomalidomide had the lowest risk of VTE (7%), possibly due to routine use of thromboprophylaxis in the treatment regimen [ 19 , 40 ]. Four significant system organ class safety signals were identified for pomalidomide: “respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders” (occurring in 4.9% of patients); “skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders” (occurring in 4.5% of patients); “musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” (occurring in 4.2% of patients); and “metabolism and nutrition disorders” (occurring in 2.8% of patients). The most frequently reported preferred terms for pomalidomide-associated AEs were pneumonia (occurring in 3.6% of patients), fatigue (occurring in 3.2% of patients), and decreased white blood cell count (occurring in 1.9% of patients) [ 19 ]. Of note, given that it is the most frequently observed AE in patients with RRMM treated with pomalidomide, neutropenia occurred in 1% of patients. These data should be caveated as the FAERS database is a spontaneous reporting system that likely leads to underreporting and incomplete or inaccurate reporting, resulting in bias in the results. In other real-world studies of pomalidomide, rates of neutropenia are more in keeping with those seen in clinical trials [ 41 , 42 ].
1.2. AE Management Guidelines
A consensus statement by the European Myeloma Network (EMN) recommends that patients treated with pomalidomide are monitored for hematologic events, thromboembolic complications, skin rash, infections, peripheral neuropathic pain, diarrhea, secondary malignancies, allergic reactions, dizziness, and confusion [ 28 ]. Further, pomalidomide dose modifications are indicated for grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia and for grade 2/3 skin rash [ 28 ].
A panel of myeloma experts’ consensus statement also provided guidance for the management of individual AEs of interest, covering neutropenia, infection, VTE, and peripheral neuropathy. It included recommendations regarding dose modifications to manage neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, rash, peripheral sensory neuropathy, and constipation, among other AEs, that can be used to improve treatment tolerability and reduce side effects [ 24 ]. However, dose modifications may have implications for efficacy, with previous studies of IMiD agents having shown significantly longer PFS in patients who remained on treatment for ≥12 months without dose reductions compared with those who had reductions within 12 months [ 43 ]. As a result, clinicians are sometimes reluctant to modify doses for fear of compromising efficacy. It should be noted, however, that in an analysis of lenalidomide-treated patients with RRMM who had received 1–2 prior lines of therapy, patients remained responsive to daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) when AEs were managed through dose modifications, which may have also prolonged the time to onset of AEs and improved outcomes [ 44 ]. Clinicians report that it can be challenging to manage pomalidomide-associated AEs appropriately in a real-world setting, especially in patients with high disease burden, comorbidities, a history of cytopenias, and when pomalidomide is combined with daratumumab or isatuximab. In general, with a starting pomalidomide dose of 4 mg, the dose should first be reduced to 3 mg and the AE burden reassessed. However, there remains a need for guidance around management using a scenario-driven case study approach. Here we present five hypothetical case studies of patients experiencing pomalidomide-associated AEs, with expert opinion regarding their management.
2. Case Studies
2.1. Case Study 1: Patient with Aggressive Relapse on Lenalidomide Maintenance Subsequently Treated with DPd
2.1.1. Patient Background and Disease Characteristics
Patient 1 is a 65-year-old Caucasian male diagnosed with MM in January 2018. At diagnosis, Patient 1 had high bone marrow involvement (bone marrow plasma cell percentage, 65%). He initially received bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in June 2018, followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy. He experienced an aggressive biochemical relapse in January 2023. Patient 1 has cardiac comorbidities; he was diagnosed with hypertension in 2009, which is managed with amlodipine, and in 2020, he presented with congestive heart failure (CHF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II, managed with carvedilol, furosemide, and valsartan/sacubitril. Further, due to the high disease burden in the bone marrow, Patient 1 has experienced thrombocytopenia (platelet nadir 40 × 10 9 /L) and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] nadir 0.7 × 10 9 /L).
Given the aggressive nature of Patient 1’s relapse, the most important consideration for treatment selection was disease control. Given the case history, a bone marrow biopsy to ascertain whether the cytopenias were due to heavy myeloma burden, residual toxicity from prior therapy, or a secondary marrow process was imperative to establish the potential reversibility. For patients experiencing their first relapse after ASCT, preferred regimens include an anti-CD38 antibody with dexamethasone combined with either carfilzomib or pomalidomide. Furthermore, existing comorbidities can play a role in treatment selection. Since this patient did not have high-risk cytogenetics (negative for del(17p), t(4;14), and t(14;14)) and data that suggested that DPd provided clinical benefit in patients with time to first relapse >2 years after ASCT [ 45 ], Patient 1 began treatment with DPd in 28-day cycles. Minimum recommended blood levels for starting pomalidomide at the full dose of 4 mg are ANC ≥1 × 10 9 /L and platelets ≥75/10 9 /L if <50% of bone marrow nucleated cells are plasma cells or ≥30/10 9 /L if ≥50% of bone marrow nucleated cells are plasma cells [ 24 ]. Although Patient 1 had experienced nadir below both these thresholds prior to starting therapy, given his aggressive disease, it was decided that a full starting dose of 4 mg should be used. With careful monitoring and support, Patient 1 subsequently achieved a very good partial response (VGPR) on DPd with cytopenias resolving with disease response. After approximately 1 year, Patient 1 continued to be in VGPR but cytopenias recurred. Once alternative causes were excluded, the pomalidomide dose was reduced to 2 mg, cytopenias again resolved, and Patient 1 remained in VGPR.
2.1.2. Pomalidomide-Associated AEs and Strategies for Management
Close, frequent hematologic monitoring, especially for neutropenia, was particularly important for Patient 1 given their pre-existing cytopenia and aggressive clinical biochemical progression. Monitoring is also recommended in all patients treated with pomalidomide regardless of other risk factors [ 46 ]. Neutropenia with pomalidomide is usually short-lived (as opposed to that associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy) [ 24 ], and dose modification and management strategies have been established [ 25 ]. Dose interruptions and adjustments are the primary strategy to manage AEs; however, these will depend on the severity of the AEs [ 25 ]. Management with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) and/or platelet transfusions may be used; given Patient 1’s ANC nadir of 0.7 × 10 9 /L, GCSF supportive care during the first 1–2 cycles may be of particular benefit until Patient 1 achieved disease control. Frequency can be adjusted based on laboratory values throughout the cycle, and GCSF treatment stopped once ANC is consistently >1.0 × 10 9 [ 24 ]. The goal should be to maintain intensity of therapy using supportive measures as appropriate, and doses may be increased if cytopenia resolves following treatment as expected following disease response.
Considering Patient 1’s history of cytopenia, he should be assessed for hypogammaglobulinemia and recurrent infections. Regardless of risk, grade 3/4 infections, especially pneumonia, are very common not only due to pomalidomide but also due to daratumumab and the disease itself [ 34 ]. It is recommended that patients receiving such triplet regimens are given antimicrobial prophylaxis including an antiviral drug such as acyclovir or valacyclovir, as well as an agent to prevent Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, such as sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim or dapsone [ 29 ]. In the event of infection, treatment should be interrupted until resolution, after which it may be restarted.
2.2. Case Study 2: Patient with Relapse on Lenalidomide Maintenance Subsequently Treated with DPd and Now in Remission
2.2.1. Patient Background and Disease Characteristics
Patient 2 is a 58-year-old Caucasian female diagnosed with MM in April 2016. As with Patient 1, Patient 2 was initially treated with VRd and received ASCT in December 2016 followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy. Patient 2 relapsed in October 2020 and started receiving DPd soon after. Patient 2 responded well to DPd therapy and experienced only mild AEs including nausea, constipation, and daratumumab injection-site reactions during the first two 28-day cycles. Following the first two cycles of DPd, Patient 2 complained of chronic fatigue, mental fog, and peripheral neuropathy (predominantly in the lower extremities) attributed by her physician to pomalidomide. By the end of the 16-week daratumumab administration phase, a significant reduction in disease burden was noted, and by the end of March 2021 Patient 2 had achieved a stringent complete response (sCR). Patient 2 continued the DPd regimen, with daratumumab now administered every 4 weeks, cycles of daily 4 mg pomalidomide for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off, and weekly dexamethasone.
2.2.2. Pomalidomide-Associated AEs and Strategies for Management including Dose Modification
Dose modifications are a frequent and effective method to manage a range of AEs, although achieving a balance between efficacy and AE management is paramount. Given that Patient 2’s disease was well controlled, dose modifications could be considered to address AEs while allowing the patient to remain on therapy.
Chronic fatigue : Patients should be screened for multiple fatigue symptoms that may vary according to treatment and stage of disease. A focused history and physical examination should be taken prior to initiation of therapy and throughout treatment. Central sleep apnea is a potential cause of chronic fatigue yet is grossly underreported and underdiagnosed [ 31 ]; therefore, physicians may wish to eliminate this as a potential cause of fatigue before initiating other management strategies. Initial management should focus on education, counseling, and pain management. Additional general strategies for fatigue management that should be employed throughout include encouraging exercise and good nutrition [ 30 ], energy conservation strategies (e.g., setting priorities/expectations, delegating or eliminating certain activities, pacing oneself, ensuring to take sufficient rest periods, and ensuring that high-energy activities occur at times of peak energy), self-monitoring of fatigue levels, and use of distraction techniques. Anemia should also be assessed up-front and treated throughout as necessary. Once these general strategies are exhausted, further nonpharmacologic interventions include cognitive behavioral therapy. If fatigue persists, pharmacologic interventions such as psychostimulants, treatment for pain, emotional distress, or optimization of treatment for sleep dysfunction, nutritional deficit/imbalance, and comorbidities may be considered as appropriate [ 30 ]. Any treatable contributing factors should be treated as appropriate [ 30 ].
Mental fog/sluggishness : Similar to fatigue, management of mental fogginess should initially focus on lifestyle-oriented options. Cognitive exercises have been shown to improve cognitive function, and stress reduction techniques such as meditation and mindfulness may also help. Depression and anxiety may both contribute to mental fogginess, and appropriate emotional support should be provided in these cases [ 47 ]. Counseling focused on improving quality of sleep should be provided and sleep apnea ruled out. Dosing of treatment regimen in the evening may also reduce symptoms so may be considered. Other potential factors that may be investigated are vitamin B12 deficiency side effects related to pain relief medications.
Neuropathy : Peripheral neuropathy due to pomalidomide should be managed in much the same way as for other IMiD agents. Regular assessment to allow prompt recognition and subsequent monitoring of the severity and progression of neuropathy are vital [ 27 ]. Risk factors should be minimized, such as correcting vitamin B12 deficiency and utilizing appropriate diabetes management as needed [ 27 ]. For mild cases, pain management through gentle massage, warm baths, and cold/heat packs can be used. Pain medication such as gabapentin and pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, carbamazepine, and opioid-type analgesics may be used depending on severity of pain [ 27 ]. Furthermore, physical activity and physical therapy can have benefit. Pomalidomide dose reductions may be considered based on the severity. For grade 3 peripheral neuropathy, dose should be interrupted until severity resolves to grade ≤1, after which it may be resumed at a lower dose. Grade 4 peripheral neuropathy necessitates discontinuation [ 24 , 27 ].
2.3. Case Study 3: Dosing Recommendations in a Patient with Renal Insufficiency
2.3.1. Patient Background and Disease Characteristics
Patient 3 is a 62-year-old African American male diagnosed with MM in February 2016. He initially received bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone, then ASCT in July 2016, after which he received lenalidomide maintenance therapy. Patient 3 experienced his first relapse in May 2019, after which he received bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone [ 48 , 49 ]; however, he experienced his second relapse in August 2020. Since his second relapse, Patient 3 has been receiving isatuximab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone and has experienced manageable AEs, including mild fatigue and constipation. Patient 3 suffers from renal insufficiency; his current estimated glomerular filtration rate is 35 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , corresponding to stage 3b chronic kidney disease (CKD; moderate to severe); however, this has fluctuated significantly.
2.3.2. Considerations for Treatment Selection
In individuals such as Patient 3, the extent and severity of renal insufficiency should be evaluated prior to selecting their next treatment and regimens associated with lower nephrotoxicity such as dexamethasone or bortezomib-based regimens considered. In patients with severe renal insufficiency, lenalidomide-based regimens can be used with caution with dose adjustments based on creatine clearance [ 48 ]. Reversal of renal failure in MM is achievable in approximately half of patients and results in improvements in long-term survival [ 50 ]. Pomalidomide undergoes extensive hepatic metabolism by CYP1A2 and CYP3A4 [ 51 ], so clearance does not rely on renal excretion, and studies have shown that 4 mg of pomalidomide daily plus low-dose dexamethasone is a viable treatment option in patients with RRMM and moderate or severe renal impairment, including those receiving hemodialysis [ 52 ]. Pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) has shown good rates of complete renal response in patients with MM with comparable efficacy in patients with moderate renal impairment [ 53 ], and the addition of isatuximab to Pd has been shown to improve PFS, ORR, and renal response rates without dose adjustments being required [ 54 ]. DPd may also be considered in this setting. In patients with severe MM requiring dialysis, the pomalidomide US label recommends reducing the dose to 3 mg to be taken after completion of hemodialysis on dialysis days [ 4 ], although data from a phase 2 study indicate an acceptable safety profile with 4 mg in patients with moderate or severe renal impairment, including those requiring hemodialysis [ 52 ]. A similar approach may be taken in patients with fluctuating renal function. It is important to note that the label dosing was established in patients on hemodialysis rather than peritoneal dialysis. Peritoneal dialysis can be highly patient dependent, and close collaboration with a nephrologist is essential in these cases.
2.3.3. Pomalidomide-Associated AEs and Strategies for Management
Management of AEs in Patient 3 should be considered in the context of his renal insufficiency. Infections are recognized as an important complication among patients with CKD, as such management of infections in these patients is important [ 55 ]. Additionally, MM and its treatment increase susceptibility to infection [ 24 ]. Thus, antimicrobial prophylaxis is of paramount importance [ 56 ]. Ensuring patients and household members are up-to-date with recommended vaccinations is also advised.
VTE: Randomized studies regarding the best thromboprophylaxis are lacking, with many centers continuing to use aspirin in low-risk patients; nonetheless, all patients with MM treated with pomalidomide should be on thromboprophylaxis [ 4 , 57 ]. Appropriate VTE prophylaxis will depend on a patient’s individual risk factors, comorbidities, and severity of renal insufficiency. In patients at high risk of VTE, a prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or an international normalized ratio 2–3 of vitamin K antagonist (e.g., warfarin) is advised [ 24 ], although aspirin is a frequently used option that is both convenient and effective [ 58 ]. Dose adjustments are generally required for anticoagulant medications. For example, a prophylactic rivaroxaban dose of 10 mg once daily is recommended in patients with creatinine clearance (CrCL) ≥15 mL/min, whereas dosing is not recommended in those with CrCl <15 mL/min [ 59 ]. The recommended prophylactic apixaban dose is 2.5 mg twice daily, while 5 mg twice daily is recommended for VTE treatment, reduced to 2.5 mg twice daily in patients with two or more of the following characteristics: (i) age ≥80 years, (ii) body weight ≤60 kg, or (iii) serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dL. Further, in patients on hemodialysis, apixaban doses of 2.5 mg twice a day result in comparable drug exposure to 5 mg twice a day in patients with preserved renal function; 5 mg twice a day results in supratherapeutic apixaban levels and should therefore be avoided [ 60 ].
Nausea and vomiting: Antiemetic agents may be used to manage treatment-related nausea and vomiting. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) classifies pomalidomide as having minimal emetic risk (<10%) and do not recommend routine antiemetic prophylaxis [ 61 ].
2.4. Case Study 4: Patient with a History of Intolerance to Lenalidomide (Rash, Diarrhea, etc.)
2.4.1. Key Patient Clinical Characteristics/History
Patient 4 is a 58-year-old Hispanic male diagnosed with MM 6 years ago. He initially received lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) and achieved a VGPR. Despite responding well to treatment, Patient 4 quickly developed an intolerance to lenalidomide characterized by severe rash and gastrointestinal symptoms. Patient 4’s rash presented as an erythemateous, pruritic skin eruption that covered a significant portion of his body, which manifested as raised, well-defined plaques. As the rash progressed, it became increasingly painful and started significantly impacting Patient 4’s QOL. After initial monitoring and efforts to manage Patient 4’s symptoms using conventional methods, his healthcare team took the decision to discontinue lenalidomide and to assign Patient 4 to a new treatment regimen.
Considering his encouraging response but severe intolerance to lenalidomide, his oncologist switched Patient 4 to carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (KPd). Rash and diarrhea are generally less severe with pomalidomide treatment compared with lenalidomide. Nonetheless, pomalidomide was started at a low dose with the intention to titrate doses up if tolerated. Patient 4 has now achieved a VGPR and has been able to titrate to a full dose.
2.4.2. Pomalidomide-Associated AEs and Strategies for Management
Rashes: In general, rashes are manageable. Limited, localized rash can be treated with antihistamines or topical steroids [ 32 ]. Mild-to-moderate rashes will tend to resolve with antihistamines and corticosteroids, although a temporary reduction in pomalidomide dose may be considered [ 32 ]. When rash is extensive, a short course of low-dose prednisone can also be used [ 62 ]. Pomalidomide dose modifications, interruptions, or discontinuation should be considered for grade 2/3 rashes if antihistamines and corticosteroids have proved insufficient, and permanent discontinuation should be considered for grade 4 events [ 4 , 28 , 32 ]. Once lesions clear, as for lenalidomide [ 32 ], pomalidomide treatment may be reinitiated, with a potential switch from dexamethasone to intermittent steroids. With appropriate management, severe recurrent rashes are extremely rare.
Diarrhea : Bile acid malabsorption can be a cause of persistent diarrhea in myeloma patients taking IMiDs [ 32 ] and bile acid sequestrants may therefore be considered to manage pomalidomide-induced diarrhea.
2.5. Case Study 5: Patient with Other Side Effects (Including Financial and Socioeconomic Factors)
2.5.1. Patient Background and Disease Characteristics
Patient 5 is a 62-year-old Caucasian female diagnosed with MM 8 years ago. After initial treatment with RVd, she achieved a partial response; however, she experienced multiple relapses over the years and her disease became refractory to standard therapies. Recently, her oncologist recommended a pomalidomide-based regimen to manage her RRMM and she was given KPd.
Patient 5 lives in a small rural town and has financial limitations, resulting in her often struggling to afford medications and travel expenses for her frequent medical appointments. To support her treatment, she enrolled in a patient assistance program to help cover the costs. Since starting KPd, Patient 5 has experienced some side effects, including fatigue, nausea, and neutropenia.
2.5.2. Financial Toxicity
Financial issues can affect patients with cancer, including those with RRMM, in several ways. Patients may miss appointments or may discontinue treatment due to the high cost of medications or financial constraints, resulting in suboptimal treatment outcomes [ 63 , 64 ]. Patients with lower socioeconomic status may also have reduced health literacy due to limited access to healthcare resources and education. This can lead to decreased understanding of the disease, treatment options, and potential side effects, resulting in poor treatment adherence, mismanagement of side effects, and reduced QOL [ 64 ]. Difficulties affording transportation to healthcare facilities for treatment and follow-up appointments are also a concern, and missed work can exacerbate financial burden problems, leading to suboptimal access to care and delays in treatment. Pomalidomide-based regimens are relatively expensive, with access for some patients being dependent on prescription benefit coverage or pharmaceutical company patient assistance programs. This means that, due to financial considerations, many patients may not receive optimal treatment or may experience treatment delays. Several organizations including the American Society of Hematology (High-Cost Hematologic Drug Access) and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (Susan Lang Pay-It-Forward Patient Travel Assistance Program [lls.org]) have developed supportive programs for patients with hematologic conditions who face significant financial needs. These resources can help clinicians and patients access high-cost hematologic drugs and cover the cost of treatment-related travel and lodging expenses.
3. Future Directions
Targeted protein degraders (TPDs), including novel cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD™) agents such as iberdomide (CC-220) and mezigdomide (CC-92480), are an emerging class of agents [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. Like pomalidomide, both iberdomide and mezigdomide target cereblon to induce ubiquitination and subsequent degradation of Ikaros and Aiolos; however, novel CELMoD agents have demonstrated enhanced tumoricidal activity and greater immunostimulatory activity compared with classic IMiD agents in preclinical models [ 65 , 66 , 67 ]. CELMoD agents have also shown promising efficacy in early-phase clinical studies ( Table 5 ) [ 71 , 72 ].
Safety data with novel CELMoD agents are also encouraging. In the dose expansion of a phase 1/2 study, iberdomide plus dexamethasone had a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated late-line RRMM, with 82.2% of patients experiencing grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs). The most common hematological grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (44.9%, 4.7% febrile neutropenia), anemia (28.0%), thrombocytopenia (21.5%), and leukopenia (20.6%). Infections were the most common nonhematological AEs, with 27.1% of patients having grade 3/4 infections including 8.4% with grade 3/4 pneumonia [ 71 ]. Grade 3/4 diarrhea occurred in 1% of patients, rash in 3%, and fatigue in 4% [ 71 ].
In the dose-expansion cohort of another phase 1/2 study, mezigdomide plus dexamethasone showed a manageable safety profile. The most frequent grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (75%, with 15% febrile neutropenia), anemia (36%), and thrombocytopenia (28%). Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 35% of patients. Grade 3/4 diarrhea occurred in 3% of patients, constipation in 0%, and fatigue in 5%. Overall, AEs resulted in dose reductions in 25% of patients, and 6% discontinued due to AEs [ 72 ].
Cemsidomide (CFT7455) is a non-CELMoD next-generation TPD targeting Ikaros/Aiolos that is currently being investigated in a phase 1 clinical trial [ 73 ]. In preclinical models, cemsidomide demonstrated sustained IKZF1/3 degradation and durable tumor regressions for a prolonged period after drug discontinuation [ 68 ]. Neutropenia (80%), thrombocytopenia (60%), anemia (20%), and leukopenia (20%) were observed in early clinical data, although the sample size was very small and in very heavily pretreated patients (N = 5) [ 68 ].
Work to date on these CELMoD agents has demonstrated promising efficacy, meaning they provide exciting potential future treatment options. Data suggest that novel CELMoD agents are associated with similar types of hematologic AEs as classic IMiD agents but with lower grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. However, these will need to be monitored as more data become available to allow effective management strategies to be developed, especially with potential longer-term use, as has been commonly observed with drugs in this class [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Further, these longer-term data will inform efficacy and safety comparisons of TPDs with other novel therapies in development for RRMM.
4. Conclusions
As outlined in this article, different IMiD agents exhibit distinct safety profiles. While general recommendations regarding treatment selection and AE management can be made, it is crucial to treat each patient individually. When selecting an appropriate treatment, healthcare practitioners should consider multiple factors covering patient-, disease-, and treatment-related factors [ 74 ].
Healthcare practitioners should also be mindful of when it may be appropriate to reduce or discontinue treatment in response to AEs. This decision depends on several factors, including the type and severity of the AE and the patient’s response to treatment. For nonhematologic AEs, grade 1/2 events can generally be managed using standard interventions, whereas grade 3/4 events may require dose modifications or treatment discontinuation [ 24 ]. Hematologic adverse events such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, as well as VTE, are all of particular interest in patients with RRMM treated with pomalidomide and require special attention, monitoring, and management, often including dose modifications [ 4 , 24 ].
In addition to dose reduction and temporary discontinuation of pomalidomide therapy in response to AEs, lower starting doses and modified dosing schedules are potential strategies for reducing toxicity while sustaining efficacy [ 75 ]. Data from a phase 2 nonrandomized trial ( NCT00558896 ) showed no efficacy advantage for 4 mg versus 2 mg dosing when combined with dexamethasone [ 75 ]. Furthermore, data may also suggest that pomalidomide doses lower than the currently approved standard of 4 mg may provide sufficient clinical efficacy while reducing the incidence and severity of adverse events [ 76 ]. Further clinical research may provide further insights into the effectiveness and safety of such approaches.
AEs are common in patients receiving pomalidomide; however, appropriate management can minimize their impact on dosing, patient health, and QOL. Thromboembolic events, peripheral neuropathy, and hematologic toxicities are all events of particular interest due to their frequency with pomalidomide treatment, but it is important to note that other AEs associated with pomalidomide use have not been addressed in this article [ 4 ]. Nonetheless, the underlying goals of selecting the appropriate regimens to minimize AEs, resolving AEs when they arise, and preventing further occurrences while maintaining treatment efficacy remain the same. Guidelines developed by expert panels from established organizations such as the International Myeloma Working Group and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network are valuable resources for healthcare practitioners and should be consulted [ 77 ]. Appropriate management, monitoring, and intervention strategies based on treatment guidelines, but adjusted on a case-by-case basis, could enable healthcare practitioners to optimize pomalidomide therapy for each patient.
With an increased number of treatments available, decision-making for patients with RRMM has become increasingly complex and should be based not only on efficacy but also on safety. Despite their very close structural and functional homology, pomalidomide and other IMiD agents have distinct safety profiles that in turn require unique management. Many common AEs associated with pomalidomide can be effectively managed in the real-world setting, maintaining QOL without reducing efficacy. The recent emergence of new therapies is expanding treatment options for patients with RRMM, but vigilance regarding AEs is required to optimize AE management, adherence to treatment, and in turn, long-term efficacy.
Acknowledgments
Professional medical writing support for this manuscript was provided by Nick Patterson, of Caudex, funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, design, data interpretation, and writing the manuscript: all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
O.N. reports consulting fees from GPCR Therapeutics; honoraria from Janssen and Pfizer; and advisory board participation for Bristol Myers Squibb, GPCR Therapeutics, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. S.A. reports research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellectar, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, and Xencor and consulting fees from Amgen, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, and Takeda. J.K. reports grants from Cleveland Clinic; consulting fees from Janssen; and honoraria from GPCR Therapeutics. L.W. reports grants from AbbVie; advisory board participation for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen; and travel support from Janssen. D.C. reports advisory board participation for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, and Sanofi; honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and Johnson & Johnson; and stock ownership of Bristol Myers Squibb. K.M. reports employment by Pfizer. J.B. reports grants (to institution) from 2seventy bio, AbbVie, Acetylon, Amgen, bluebird bio, C4 Therapeutics, CARsgen, Cartesian, Celgene, Celularity, CRISPR Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida, Sanofi, Takeda, and Teva and consulting fees from bluebird bio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CRISPR Therapeutics, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech, Roche, Secura Bio, and Takeda.
References
1. Holstein S.A. McCarthy P.L. Immunomodulatory Drugs in Multiple Myeloma: Mechanisms of Action and Clinical Experience Drugs 2017 77 505 520 10.1007/s40265-017-0689-1 28205024 PMC5705939
2. THALOMID ® (thalidomide). Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Thalidomide Prescribing Information 2023 Available online: https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_thalomid.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2024)
3. REVLIMID® (Lenalidomide) [Prescribing Information] Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Princeton, NJ, USA 2023
4. POMALYST ® (pomalidomide). Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Pomalidomide Prescribing Information 2023 Available online: https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_pomalyst.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2024)
5. San Miguel J. Weisel K. Moreau P. Lacy M. Song K. Delforge M. Karlin L. Goldschmidt H. Banos A. Oriol A. Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2013 14 1055 1066 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70380-2 24007748
6. Richardson P.G. Oriol A. Beksac M. Liberati A.M. Galli M. Schjesvold F. Lindsay J. Weisel K. White D. Facon T. Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide (OPTIMISMM): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 781 794 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30152-4 31097405
7. Siegel D.S. Schiller G.J. Samaras C. Sebag M. Berdeja J. Ganguly S. Matous J. Song K. Seet C.S. Talamo G. Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma after lenalidomide treatment Leukemia 2020 34 3286 3297 10.1038/s41375-020-0813-1 32376855 PMC7685974
8. Charlinski G. Vesole D.H. Jurczyszyn A. Rapid Progress in the Use of Immunomodulatory Drugs and Cereblon E3 Ligase Modulators in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma Cancers 2021 13 4666 10.3390/cancers13184666 34572892 PMC8468542
9. Weisel K. Dimopoulos M. Song K.W. Moreau P. Palumbo A. Belch A. Schey S. Sonneveld P. Sternas L. Yu X. Pomalidomide and Low-Dose Dexamethasone Improves Health-Related Quality of Life and Prolongs Time to Worsening in Relapsed/Refractory Patients With Multiple Myeloma Enrolled in the MM-003 Randomized Phase III Trial Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2015 15 519 530 10.1016/j.clml.2015.05.007 26149712
10. Terpos E. Kleber M. Engelhardt M. Zweegman S. Gay F. Kastritis E. van de Donk N.W. Bruno B. Sezer O. Broijl A. European Myeloma Network guidelines for the management of multiple myeloma-related complications Haematologica 2015 100 1254 1266 10.3324/haematol.2014.117176 26432383 PMC4591757
11. Weber D.M. Chen C. Niesvizky R. Wang M. Belch A. Stadtmauer E.A. Siegel D. Borrello I. Rajkumar S.V. Chanan-Khan A.A. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma in North America N. Engl. J. Med. 2007 357 2133 2142 10.1056/NEJMoa070596 18032763
12. Hou J. Du X. Jin J. Cai Z. Chen F. Zhou D.B. Yu L. Ke X. Li X. Wu D. A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in Chinese patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: The MM-021 trial J. Hematol. Oncol. 2013 6 41 10.1186/1756-8722-6-41 23782711 PMC3699390
13. Dimopoulos M. Spencer A. Attal M. Prince H.M. Harousseau J.L. Dmoszynska A. San Miguel J. Hellmann A. Facon T. Foa R. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2007 357 2123 2132 10.1056/NEJMoa070594 18032762
14. Sperling A.S. Guerra V.A. Kennedy J.A. Yan Y. Hsu J.I. Wang F. Nguyen A.T. Miller P.G. McConkey M.E. Quevedo Barrios V.A. Lenalidomide promotes the development of TP53-mutated therapy-related myeloid neoplasms Blood 2022 140 1753 1763 10.1182/blood.2021014956 35512188 PMC9837415
15. Musto P. Anderson K.C. Attal M. Richardson P.G. Badros A. Hou J. Comenzo R. Du J. Durie B.G.M. San Miguel J. Second primary malignancies in multiple myeloma: An overview and IMWG consensus Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2017 28 228 245 10.1093/annonc/mdw606 27864218
16. Richardson P.G. Siegel D.S. Vij R. Hofmeister C.C. Baz R. Jagannath S. Chen C. Lonial S. Jakubowiak A. Bahlis N. Pomalidomide alone or in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: A randomized phase 2 study Blood 2014 123 1826 1832 10.1182/blood-2013-11-538835 24421329 PMC3962162
17. Usmani S.Z. Zhang Q. Stratton K. Qu P. Yaccoby S. Hansen E. Steward D. Panozzo S. Petty N. Hoering A. Phase II study of pomalidomide in high-risk relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Leukemia 2014 28 2413 2415 10.1038/leu.2014.248 25151956
18. Balmaceda N. Aziz M. Chandrasekar V.T. McClune B. Kambhampati S. Shune L. Abdallah A.O. Anwer F. Majeed A. Qazilbash M. Infection risks in multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials from 2015 to 2019 BMC Cancer 2021 21 730 10.1186/s12885-021-08451-x 34172037 PMC8233183
19. Jiang T. Su H. Li Y. Wu Y. Ming Y. Li C. Fu R. Feng L. Li Z. Li L. Post-marketing safety of immunomodulatory drugs in multiple myeloma: A pharmacovigilance investigation based on the FDA adverse event reporting system Front Pharmacol 2022 13 989032 10.3389/fphar.2022.989032 36532784 PMC9751748
20. Dimopoulos M.A. Terpos E. Boccadoro M. Delimpasi S. Beksac M. Katodritou E. Moreau P. Baldini L. Symeonidis A. Bila J. Daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone in previously treated multiple myeloma (APOLLO): An open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol. 2021 22 801 812 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00128-5 34087126
21. Dimopoulos M.A. Dytfeld D. Grosicki S. Moreau P. Takezako N. Hori M. Leleu X. LeBlanc R. Suzuki K. Raab M.S. Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 379 1811 1822 10.1056/NEJMoa1805762 30403938
22. Richardson P.G. Perrot A. San-Miguel J. Beksac M. Spicka I. Leleu X. Schjesvold F. Moreau P. Dimopoulos M.A. Huang J.S. Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (ICARIA-MM): Follow-up analysis of a randomised, phase 3 study Lancet Oncol. 2022 23 416 427 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00019-5 35151415
23. Derman B.A. Zonder J. Reece D. Cole C. Berdeja J. Stefka A.T. Major A. Kin A. Griffith K. Jasielec J. Phase 1/2 study of carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone with and without daratumumab in relapsed multiple myeloma Blood Adv. 2023 7 5703 5712 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022008866 36763537 PMC10539870
24. Dimopoulos M.A. Leleu X. Palumbo A. Moreau P. Delforge M. Cavo M. Ludwig H. Morgan G.J. Davies F.E. Sonneveld P. Expert panel consensus statement on the optimal use of pomalidomide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Leukemia 2014 28 1573 1585 10.1038/leu.2014.60 24496300 PMC4131249
25. Bristol Myers Squibb Imnovid® (pomalidomide) Summary of Product Characteristics European Medicines Agency London, UK 2022
26. Kumar S. Nair S. Lin X. Marshall A. Slavcev M. Potluri R. Chari A. Treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Analysis of the Optum electronic health records and commercial claims database Proceedings of the 19th International Myeloma Society Annual Meeting Los Angeles, CA, USA 25–27 August 2022 265
27. Grammatico S. Cesini L. Petrucci M.T. Managing treatment-related peripheral neuropathy in patients with multiple myeloma Blood Lymphat. Cancer 2016 6 37 47 10.2147/BLCTT.S91251 31360079 PMC6467335
28. Ludwig H. Delforge M. Facon T. Einsele H. Gay F. Moreau P. Avet-Loiseau H. Boccadoro M. Hajek R. Mohty M. Prevention and management of adverse events of novel agents in multiple myeloma: A consensus of the European Myeloma Network Leukemia 2018 32 1542 1560 10.1038/s41375-018-0040-1 29720735 PMC6035147
29. Laubach J.P. van de Donk N. Davies F.E. Mikhael J. Practical Considerations for Antibodies in Myeloma Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2018 38 667 674 10.1200/EDBK_205443 30231321
30. Berger A.M. Mooney K. Alvarez-Perez A. Breitbart W.S. Carpenter K.M. Cella D. Cleeland C. Dotan E. Eisenberger M.A. Escalante C.P. Cancer-related fatigue, version 2.2015 J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2015 13 1012 1039 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0122 26285247 PMC5499710
31. Lancet Respiratory Medicine (Editorial) Time to wake the giant of obstructive sleep apnoea Lancet Respir. Med. 2020 8 1 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30449-7 31868602
32. Delforge M. Ludwig H. How I manage the toxicities of myeloma drugs Blood 2017 129 2359 2367 10.1182/blood-2017-01-725705 28275090
33. Del Giudice M.L. Gozzetti A. Antonioli E. Orciuolo E. Ghio F. Ciofini S. Candi V. Fontanelli G. Attucci I. Formica G. Real-Life Experience with Pomalidomide plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Retrospective and Prospective Study Medicina 2021 57 900 10.3390/medicina57090900 34577823 PMC8466559
34. Usami E. Kimura M. Takenaka S. Iwai M. Teramachi H. Yoshimura T. Tolerability and safety of real-world use of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2019 10 293 298 10.3892/mco.2018.1775 30680210 PMC6327207
35. Kristinsson S.Y. Pfeiffer R.M. Bjorkholm M. Goldin L.R. Schulman S. Blimark C. Mellqvist U.H. Wahlin A. Turesson I. Landgren O. Arterial and venous thrombosis in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and multiple myeloma: A population-based study Blood 2010 115 4991 4998 10.1182/blood-2009-11-252072 20299513 PMC2890150
36. Srkalovic G. Cameron M.G. Rybicki L. Deitcher S.R. Kattke-Marchant K. Hussein M.A. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and multiple myeloma are associated with an increased incidence of venothromboembolic disease Cancer 2004 101 558 566 10.1002/cncr.20405 15274069
37. Zangari M. Anaissie E. Barlogie B. Badros A. Desikan R. Gopal A.V. Morris C. Toor A. Siegel E. Fink L. Increased risk of deep-vein thrombosis in patients with multiple myeloma receiving thalidomide and chemotherapy Blood 2001 98 1614 1615 10.1182/blood.V98.5.1614 11520815
38. Musallam K.M. Dahdaleh F.S. Shamseddine A.I. Taher A.T. Incidence and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolic events in multiple myeloma patients receiving immunomodulatory therapy Thromb. Res. 2009 123 679 686 10.1016/j.thromres.2008.09.008 18992924
39. Baz R. Li L. Kottke-Marchant K. Srkalovic G. McGowan B. Yiannaki E. Karam M.A. Faiman B. Jawde R.A. Andresen S. The role of aspirin in the prevention of thrombotic complications of thalidomide and anthracycline-based chemotherapy for multiple myeloma Mayo Clin. Proc. 2005 80 1568 1574 10.4065/80.12.1568 16342649
40. Leclerc V. Karlin L. Herledan C. Marchal L. Baudouin A. Gouraud A. Caffin A.G. Larbre V. Lazareth A. Bachy E. Thromboembolic events and thromboprophylaxis associated with immunomodulators in multiple myeloma patients: A real-life study J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2022 148 975 984 10.1007/s00432-021-03693-5 34143239 PMC11800840
41. Abildgaard N. Vekemans M.-C. Gamberi B. Di Raimondo F. Payer A.R. Kyriakou C. Kentos A. Kueenburg E. Di Micco A. Rosettani B. Safety in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Pomalidomide in a Real-World Setting According to Last Prior Treatment: A European Post-Authorization Safety Study Blood 2018 132 3286 10.1182/blood-2018-99-111906
42. Sandecka V. Pour L. Spicka I. Minarik J. Radocha J. Jelinek T. Pavlicek P. Jungova A. Kessler P. Wrobel M. Real-world evidence of efficacy and safety of pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: Czech registry data Neoplasma 2022 69 1474 1479 10.4149/neo_2022_220813N827 36591805
43. Dimopoulos M.A. Hussein M. Swern A.S. Weber D. Impact of lenalidomide dose on progression-free survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Leukemia 2011 25 1620 1626 10.1038/leu.2011.126 21747400 PMC3194066
44. Bahlis N. Schiller G. Samaras C. Sebag M. Berdeja J. Ganguly S. Matous J. Song K. Seet C. Bar M. Adverse event patterns and management with pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A safety analysis of the phase 2 MM-014 study Proceedings of the 19th International Myeloma Society Annual Meeting Los Angeles, CA, USA 25–27 August 2022 232
45. Joseph N. Maples K.T. Hall K. Gupta V.A. Boise L.H. Heffner L.T. Dhodapkar M.V. Hofmeister C.C. Kaufman J.L. Lonial S. Daratumumab with Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone at First Relapse in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Patients Blood 2021 138 1616 10.1182/blood-2021-151161
46. Pomalidomide Aust. Prescr. 2015 38 31 32 10.18773/austprescr.2015.012 26648609 PMC4654042
47. Catamero D. Noonan K. Richards T. Faiman B. Manchulenko C. Devine H. Bertolotti P. Gleason C. Distress, Fatigue, and Sexuality: Understanding and Treating Concerns and Symptoms in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2017 21 7 18 10.1188/17.CJON.S5.7-18 28945731
48. Wanchoo R. Abudayyeh A. Doshi M. Edeani A. Glezerman I.G. Monga D. Rosner M. Jhaveri K.D. Renal Toxicities of Novel Agents Used for Treatment of Multiple Myeloma Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2017 12 176 189 10.2215/CJN.06100616 27654928 PMC5220662
49. Heher E.C. Rennke H.G. Laubach J.P. Richardson P.G. Kidney disease and multiple myeloma Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2013 8 2007 2017 10.2215/CJN.12231212 23868898 PMC3817918
50. Knudsen L.M. Hjorth M. Hippe E. Renal failure in multiple myeloma: Reversibility and impact on the prognosis. Nordic Myeloma Study Group Eur. J. Haematol. 2000 65 175 181 10.1034/j.1600-0609.2000.90221.x 11007053
51. Rossi A.C. Aneja E. Boyer A. Jayabalan D. Mark T.M. Pearse R. Pekle K. Perry A. Coleman M. Niesvizky R. Effect of renal and hepatic function on pomalidomide dose in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2014 124 4754 10.1182/blood.V124.21.4754.4754
52. Dimopoulos M. Weisel K. van de Donk N. Ramasamy K. Gamberi B. Streetly M. Offidani M. Bridoux F. de la Rubia J. Mateos M.V. Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma and Renal Impairment: Results From a Phase II Trial J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 2035 2043 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.1742 29394124
53. Weisel K.C. Dimopoulos M.A. Moreau P. Lacy M.Q. Song K.W. Delforge M. Karlin L. Goldschmidt H. Banos A. Oriol A. Analysis of renal impairment in MM-003, a phase III study of pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone in refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Haematologica 2016 101 872 878 10.3324/haematol.2015.137083 27081177 PMC5004467
54. Dimopoulos M.A. Leleu X. Moreau P. Richardson P.G. Liberati A.M. Harrison S.J. Miles Prince H. Ocio E.M. Assadourian S. Campana F. Isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients with renal impairment: ICARIA-MM subgroup analysis Leukemia 2021 35 562 572 10.1038/s41375-020-0868-z 32444867 PMC7862055
55. Ishigami J. Matsushita K. Clinical epidemiology of infectious disease among patients with chronic kidney disease Clin. Exp. Nephrol. 2019 23 437 447 10.1007/s10157-018-1641-8 30178234 PMC6435626
56. Taplitz R.A. Kennedy E.B. Bow E.J. Crews J. Gleason C. Hawley D.K. Langston A.A. Nastoupil L.J. Rajotte M. Rolston K.V. Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Adult Patients With Cancer-Related Immunosuppression: ASCO and IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline Update J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 3043 3054 10.1200/JCO.18.00374 30179565
57. Wattanakit K. Cushman M. Stehman-Breen C. Heckbert S.R. Folsom A.R. Chronic kidney disease increases risk for venous thromboembolism J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2008 19 135 140 10.1681/ASN.2007030308 18032796 PMC2391038
58. De Stefano V. Larocca A. Carpenedo M. Cavo M. Di Raimondo F. Falanga A. Offidani M. Petrucci M.T. Ruggeri M. Santi R.M. Thrombosis in multiple myeloma: Risk stratification, antithrombotic prophylaxis, and management of acute events. A consensus-based position paper from an ad hoc expert panel Haematologica 2022 107 2536 2547 10.3324/haematol.2022.280893 35861017 PMC9614522
59. XARELTO ® (rivaroxaban). Jenssen. Rivaroxaban Prescribing Information 2023 Available online: https://www.janssenlabels.com/package-insert/product-monograph/prescribing-information/XARELTO-pi.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2024)
60. Mavrakanas T.A. Samer C.F. Nessim S.J. Frisch G. Lipman M.L. Apixaban Pharmacokinetics at Steady State in Hemodialysis Patients J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2017 28 2241 2248 10.1681/ASN.2016090980 28302754 PMC5491286
61. Hesketh P.J. Kris M.G. Basch E. Bohlke K. Barbour S.Y. Clark-Snow R.A. Danso M.A. Dennis K. Dupuis L.L. Dusetzina S.B. Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2017 35 3240 3261 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.4789 28759346
62. Van de Donk N.W. Gorgun G. Groen R.W.J. Jakubikova J. Mitsiades C.S. Hideshima T. Laubach J. Nijhof I.S. Raymakers R.A. Lokhorst H.M. Lenalidomide for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Cancer Manag. Res. 2012 4 253 268 10.2147/CMAR.S27087 22956884 PMC3430086
63. Zafar S.Y. Peppercorn J.M. Schrag D. Taylor D.H. Goetzinger A.M. Zhong X. Abernethy A.P. The financial toxicity of cancer treatment: A pilot study assessing out-of-pocket expenses and the insured cancer patient’s experience Oncologist 2013 18 381 390 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0279 23442307 PMC3639525
64. Smith G.L. Lopez-Olivo M.A. Advani P.G. Ning M.S. Geng Y. Giordano S.H. Volk R.J. Financial Burdens of Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors and Outcomes J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2019 17 1184 1192 10.6004/jnccn.2019.7305 31590147 PMC7370695
65. Bjorklund C.C. Kang J. Amatangelo M. Polonskaia A. Katz M. Chiu H. Couto S. Wang M. Ren Y. Ortiz M. Iberdomide (CC-220) is a potent cereblon E3 ligase modulator with antitumor and immunostimulatory activities in lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-resistant multiple myeloma cells with dysregulated CRBN Leukemia 2020 34 1197 1201 10.1038/s41375-019-0620-8 31719682 PMC7214241
66. Carrancio S. Groocock L. Janardhanan P. Jankeel D. Galasso R. Guarinos C. Narla R.K. Groza M. Leisten J. Pierce D.W. CC-99282 is a Novel Cereblon (CRBN) E3 Ligase Modulator (CELMoD) Agent with Enhanced Tumoricidal Activity in Preclinical Models of Lymphoma Blood 2021 138 1200 10.1182/blood-2021-148068
67. Gaffney B. Shi Y. de Jong P. Sanchez M. Fontanillo C. Lopez-Girona A. Boss I.W. Kurtova A. Carrancio S. Wong L. Mezigdomide (CC-92480), a Novel Cereblon E3 Ligase Modulator, Induces Vulnerability of Multiple Myeloma Cells to T-Cell-Mediated Killing Blood 2022 140 7108 7109 10.1182/blood-2022-157939
68. Lonial S. Richard S. Matous J.V. Yee A.J. Shah U. Mehta-Shah N. Martin T. Muchtar E. Ailawadhi S. Richardson P.G. Abstract CT186: Pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of a novel IKZF1/3 degrader, CFT7455, enables significant potency advantage over other IKZF1/3 degraders in models of multiple myeloma (MM) and the results of the initial treatment cohort from a first-in-human (FIH) phase 1/2 study of CFT7455 in MM Cancer Res. 2022 82 CT186
69. Lopez-Girona A. Mendy D. Ito T. Miller K. Gandhi A.K. Kang J. Karasawa S. Carmel G. Jackson P. Abbasian M. Cereblon is a direct protein target for immunomodulatory and antiproliferative activities of lenalidomide and pomalidomide Leukemia 2012 26 2326 2335 10.1038/leu.2012.119 22552008 PMC3496085
70. Watson E.R. Novick S. Matyskiela M.E. Chamberlain P.P. de la Peña A.H. Zhu J. Tran E. Griffin P.R. Wertz I.E. Lander G.C. Molecular glue CELMoD compounds are regulators of cereblon conformation Science 2022 378 549 553 10.1126/science.add7574 36378961 PMC9714526
71. Lonial S. Popat R. Hulin C. Jagannath S. Oriol A. Richardson P.G. Facon T. Weisel K. Larsen J.T. Minnema M.C. Iberdomide plus dexamethasone in heavily pretreated late-line relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CC-220-MM-001): A multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 1/2 trial Lancet Haematol. 2022 9 e822 e832 10.1016/S2352-3026(22)00290-3 36209764
72. Richardson P.G. Trudel S. Popat R. Mateos M.V. Vangsted A.J. Ramasamy K. Martinez-Lopez J. Quach H. Orlowski R.Z. Arnao M. Mezigdomide plus Dexamethasone in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2023 389 1009 1022 10.1056/NEJMoa2303194 37646702
73. Berdeja J. Ailawadhi S. Horwitz S.M. Matous J.V. Mehta-Shah N. Martin T. Muchtar E. Richardson P.G. Richard S. Bhutani M. A phase 1 study of CFT7455, a novel degrader of IKZF1/3, in multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma Blood 2021 138 1675 10.1182/blood-2021-153575
74. Gengenbach L. Graziani G. Reinhardt H. Rösner A. Braun M. Möller M.-D. Greil C. Wäsch R. Engelhardt M. Choosing the Right Therapy for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) in Consideration of Patient-, Disease- and Treatment-Related Factors Cancers 2021 13 4320 10.3390/cancers13174320 34503130 PMC8430818
75. Lacy M.Q. Allred J.B. Gertz M.A. Hayman S.R. Short K.D. Buadi F. Dispenzieri A. Kumar S. Greipp P.R. Lust J.A. Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in myeloma refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide: Comparison of 2 dosing strategies in dual-refractory disease Blood 2011 118 2970 2975 10.1182/blood-2011-04-348896 21690557 PMC3291492
76. Zander T. Aebi S. Pabst T. Renner C. Driessen C. Spotlight on pomalidomide: Could less be more? Leukemia 2017 31 1987 1989 10.1038/leu.2017.156 28529311 PMC5596204
77. Ludwig H. Miguel J.S. Dimopoulos M.A. Palumbo A. Garcia Sanz R. Powles R. Lentzsch S. Ming Chen W. Hou J. Jurczyszyn A. International Myeloma Working Group recommendations for global myeloma care Leukemia 2014 28 981 992 10.1038/leu.2013.293 24177258