ArticleBlood neoplasia2024
Lenalidomide, ixazomib, or daratumumab maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma.
Article in Blood neoplasia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lenalidomide, ixazomib, and daratumumab have been proposed as maintenance therapies for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM; NDMM). There are, however, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing them. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs comparing these agents against placebo in NDMM. A Bayesian NMA model was used to assess the relative effects of competing treatments on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in 9 studies including 4115 patients with transplant-eligible MM (TEMM) and 1689 patients with non-transplant-eligible MM (NTEMM). Lenalidomide and daratumumab but not ixazomib were associated with improved PFS compared with placebo in patients with TEMM (lenalidomide [hazard ratio (HR), 0.46; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.36-0.56]; daratumumab [HR, 0.49; 95% Crl, 0.32-0.76]; and ixazomib [HR, 0.72; 95% CrI, 0.46-1.12]) and those with NTEMM (lenalidomide [HR, 0.46; 95% CrI, 0.29-0.75] and ixazomib [HR, 0.69; 95% CrI, 0.43-1.18]). The PFS benefit for daratumumab was present regardless of whether daratumumab-based induction therapy was received. None of the agents showed an OS benefit, and PFS benefits were not seen in patients with high-risk cytogenetics. Lenalidomide was associated with second malignancies, ixazomib with thrombocytopenia, and daratumumab with pneumonia. We propose that lenalidomide remains the maintenance therapy of choice for NDMM.
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.