Observational studyAnnals of hematology2024
A prospective, multicenter, observational study of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Japan.
Observational study in Annals of hematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03433001 (A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated With Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients Treated With Ixazomib Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic potential of chalcone-1,2,3-triazole hybrids as anti-tumour agents: a systematic review and SAR studies.Future medicinal chemistry · 2025Pooled it
- Real-world effectiveness of ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone in Asians with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.International journal of hematology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world studies permit inclusion of a more diverse patient population and provide more information on the effectiveness of treatments used in routine clinical practice. This prospective, multicenter, observational study investigated the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) in 295 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in routine clinical practice in Japan. Patients had a median age of 74 years, 80.0% were aged ≥ 65 years, 42.0% had received ≥ 3 lines of prior treatment, and 28.5% were "frail" according to the International Myeloma Working Group frailty score. After a median follow-up of 25.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 15.3 (95% CI 12.4-19.5) months, while median overall survival was not reached. The overall response rate was 53.9%, and 31.5% of patients had a very good partial response or better. In the subgroup analysis, median PFS was better in patients with 1 versus 2 or ≥ 3 lines of prior treatment (29.0 vs 19.2 or 6.9 months) and paraprotein versus clinical relapse (16.0 vs 7.9 months), but median PFS was not notably affected by frailty score or age group. Dose adjustment was more frequent among patients aged > 75 years, especially early after IRd treatment initiation. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade occurred in 84.4% of patients and 24.7% of patients discontinued treatment due to TEAEs; no new safety concerns were found. These findings suggest that oral IRd triplet regimen is an effective and tolerable treatment option for RRMM patients in real-world settings outside of clinical trials.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03433001; Date of registration: 14 February 2018.
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.