ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Subcutaneous administration of isatuximab in patients with multiple myeloma by an on-body delivery system: results of a nurse survey.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Efficacy and safety of isatuximab subcutaneous plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results of the Phase 2 study IZALCO.Blood cancer journal · 2025Trial
- Article
- Review
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
Introduction: Subcutaneous (SC) administration of the anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab (Isa) by an on-body delivery system (OBDS), plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone, has demonstrated safety and efficacy comparable to intravenous (IV) administration, with no infusion reactions and excellent local tolerability in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We report here results of a nurse survey designed to evaluate convenience of treatment with SC Isa, via OBDS, for healthcare providers and MM patients. Methods: A newly developed, expert-vetted questionnaire was used to survey nurses with experience in SC administration to MM patients enrolled in clinical trials. Results on extent of agreement with pre-vetted statements were expressed as percentages of respondents. Free-text answers were analyzed for each respondent and grouped by topic. Results: All surveyed nurses (N=12) agreed that OBDS administration improved efficiency and was easy to learn and administer with a low level of physical burden, leading to a preference for OBDS over IV Isa administration and facilitating a positive treatment experience for the patients. Compared with IV dosing, the OBDS improved patient comfort and could reduce time spent in the clinic. As agreed by most nurses, main advantages for patients included no needle visibility, short treatment duration, and a generally well-tolerated and painless SC injection. Conclusions: Our findings show a high level of confidence among nurses in SC Isa administration via OBDS, due to the ease of use, tolerability, and time savings achieved with hands-free OBDS injections. Our findings suggest applicability of the OBDS for convenient SC Isa administration to MM patients in routine clinical practice.
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.