SynthesisPharmacology research & perspectives2021
Daratumumab provides a survival benefit in relapsed and refractory Multiple Myeloma, independent of baseline clinical characteristics: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infection risks associated with daratumumab-containing regimens in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Addition of daratumumab to multiple myeloma backbone regimens significantly improves clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Daratumumab provides a survival benefit in relapsed and refractory Multiple Myeloma, independent of baseline clinical characteristics: A meta-analysis.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2021Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Daratumumab was approved in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) who previously received proteasome inhibitors or immunomodulatory drugs. However, the efficacy and safety of the addition of daratumumab in subpopulations of patients with relapsed or refractory MM is still unknown. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (inception to September 2020). All phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory MM and compared the efficacy or safety with the addition of daratumumab versus control were adopted. Three studies including 1497 patients met our criteria. The addition of daratumumab increased the rates of overall response (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.28, p < .001), complete response or better (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.00-2.96, p < .001), very good partial response or better (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.48-1.80, p < .001) compared with those with control. No clear evidence of heterogeneity was found in comparisons of progression-free survival obtained from subsets of studies grouped by the age of participant, ISS disease stage, type of measurable MM, the level of baseline renal function, cytogenetic profile. The results showed progression-free survival benefit was consistent between the treatment groups regarding previous clinical therapy information. Patients receiving daratumumab had higher risks of lymphopenia and infusion-related reactions of any grade and grade 3 or 4. In conclusions, this study provides a clear proof of beneficial effects of daratumumab-based therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory MM with an acceptable safety profile. The progression-free survival benefit was consistent regardless of patient's baseline characteristics or previous therapy agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.