ArticleScientific reports2025
VRd vs. VPd as induction therapy in high risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The efficacy of new drug regimens in treating newly diagnosed high-risk cytogenetic multiple myeloma patients: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in multiple myeloma patients.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In high-risk newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (HRNDMM), two different induction regimens were evaluated for safety and efficacy: Bortezomib-Pomalidomide-Dexamethasone (VPd) and Bortezomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (VRd). Newly diagnosed high-risk MM patients(age > 18) were included in this retrospective study, who received VRd and VPd induction therapy between January 2021 and November 2023. All methods of this experiment were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent has been obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardians. The Ethics Association of Anqing City Hospital has approved the study on pomadomide in this experiment (Medical Review (2021) No. 27). The evaluation of OS (overall survival), PFS (progression free survival), AE (adverse event) was the secondary endpoints, while the primary endpoint of the study was the overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles of VRd and VPd. Ultimately, 25 patients with VRd and 21 patients with VPd were enrolled. After four cycles of induction, stringent complete, complete, very good partial, partial and overall response rates were 16%/24%/12%/40%/92% with VRd, and 23.81%/33.33%/33.33%/9.52%/100% with VPd. VGPR or better was achieved in 52% of patients receiving VRd compared to 90.47% in those receiving VPd, with a p-value of 0.003. VPd was linked to more cases of skin rash (p = 0.02). For VRd and VPd, the average overall survival time was 27-months and 21-months, respectively (p = 0.801). The PFS was 27-months for VRd and 20-months for VPd (p = 0.116). Median OS and PFS were not defined in both groups. According to our research, the induction of VPd has been found to elicit more profound and superior responses in HRNDMM compared to VRd, thereby establishing its safety. Our results underscore the potential clinical advantage of pomalidomide as first-line therapy and offer more proof of the beneficial efficacy of VPd in the treating of HRNDMM patients.
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.