SynthesisHematological oncology2025
Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Hematological oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The safety profile of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, daratumumab, and bortezomib combinations in multiple myeloma: a retrospective analysis of the FAERS database.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are guideline-recommended preferred regimens for initial treatment of transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). This study aimed to systematically identify evidence on the clinical effectiveness of DRd and VRd as first-line treatments for patients with TIE NDMM and to conduct a meta-analysis. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2019 to June 2023, along with key congresses from January 2018 to June 2023. Bibliographies of relevant systematic literature reviews (SLR) were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials and appropriately adjusted non-randomized studies comparing DRd versus VRd as first-line treatment for TIE NDMM were included. Overall, five records from three unique studies were identified. The fixed-effects meta-analysis showed a lower risk of disease progression or death with DRd versus VRd using the naïve approach (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46, 0.77) as well as with the adjusted approach, which accounted for both double counting (i.e., two studies shared one comparison) and variance inflation due to studies with moderate and high risk of bias (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.82). In the absence of clinical trials with head-to-head comparison of these treatment regimens, these results could help inform the selection of optimal first-line treatment for TIE NDMM 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.