来那度胺或沙利度胺用于不符合移植条件的新诊断多发性骨髓瘤患者?系统回顾综述

IF 1.4 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Value in health regional issues Pub Date : 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1016/j.vhri.2024.100998
Marília Berlofa Visacri PhD , Mayra Carvalho Ribeiro MSc , Denis Satoshi Komoda , Bruno Kosa Lino Duarte PhD , Carlos Roberto Silveira Correa PhD , Flávia de Oliveira Motta Maia PhD , Daniela Fernanda dos Santos Alves PhD
{"title":"来那度胺或沙利度胺用于不符合移植条件的新诊断多发性骨髓瘤患者?系统回顾综述","authors":"Marília Berlofa Visacri PhD ,&nbsp;Mayra Carvalho Ribeiro MSc ,&nbsp;Denis Satoshi Komoda ,&nbsp;Bruno Kosa Lino Duarte PhD ,&nbsp;Carlos Roberto Silveira Correa PhD ,&nbsp;Flávia de Oliveira Motta Maia PhD ,&nbsp;Daniela Fernanda dos Santos Alves PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.vhri.2024.100998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To present an overview of evidence of efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life of lenalidomide or thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search was performed in 5 databases until July 2022. We included systematic reviews with network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the use of lenalidomide compared with thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was used to appraise the quality of included reviews. The results were focused on the lenalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (RDc) versus thalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (TDc) and induction with melphalan + prednisone + lenalidomide, followed by maintenance with lenalidomide (MPR-R) versus induction with melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide, followed by maintenance with thalidomide (MPT-T) regimens.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Nine studies were included. Only 1 study did not show any weakness in critical domains of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. For overall survival, RDc proved to be superior to TDc; however, no study showed significant difference between MPR-R and MPT-T. For progression-free survival, 2 of 3 studies showed that RDc is better than TDc; however, no difference between MPR-R and MPT-T was found. Regarding safety, these lenalidomide-based regimens had a lower risk for neurologic adverse events, with an increased risk of hematologic adverse events. No health-related quality of life meta-analyses were found.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These findings suggest that, in terms of efficacy and safety, lenalidomide-based regimen is a good option for treatment of transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in the public health system of Brazil, especially for those patients who develop severe neuropathy with thalidomide.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23497,"journal":{"name":"Value in health regional issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lenalidomide or Thalidomide for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma? An Overview of Systematic Reviews\",\"authors\":\"Marília Berlofa Visacri PhD ,&nbsp;Mayra Carvalho Ribeiro MSc ,&nbsp;Denis Satoshi Komoda ,&nbsp;Bruno Kosa Lino Duarte PhD ,&nbsp;Carlos Roberto Silveira Correa PhD ,&nbsp;Flávia de Oliveira Motta Maia PhD ,&nbsp;Daniela Fernanda dos Santos Alves PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.vhri.2024.100998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To present an overview of evidence of efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life of lenalidomide or thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search was performed in 5 databases until July 2022. We included systematic reviews with network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the use of lenalidomide compared with thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was used to appraise the quality of included reviews. The results were focused on the lenalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (RDc) versus thalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (TDc) and induction with melphalan + prednisone + lenalidomide, followed by maintenance with lenalidomide (MPR-R) versus induction with melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide, followed by maintenance with thalidomide (MPT-T) regimens.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Nine studies were included. Only 1 study did not show any weakness in critical domains of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. For overall survival, RDc proved to be superior to TDc; however, no study showed significant difference between MPR-R and MPT-T. For progression-free survival, 2 of 3 studies showed that RDc is better than TDc; however, no difference between MPR-R and MPT-T was found. Regarding safety, these lenalidomide-based regimens had a lower risk for neurologic adverse events, with an increased risk of hematologic adverse events. No health-related quality of life meta-analyses were found.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These findings suggest that, in terms of efficacy and safety, lenalidomide-based regimen is a good option for treatment of transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in the public health system of Brazil, especially for those patients who develop severe neuropathy with thalidomide.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23497,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in health regional issues\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in health regional issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109924000311\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in health regional issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109924000311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的概述来那度胺或沙利度胺治疗符合移植条件的多发性骨髓瘤的疗效、安全性和健康相关生活质量的证据。方法在5个数据库中进行文献检索,直至2022年7月。我们纳入了来那度胺与沙利度胺治疗符合移植条件的多发性骨髓瘤随机对照试验的系统综述和网络荟萃分析。评估系统性综述的测量工具2用于评价纳入综述的质量。研究结果主要集中在来那度胺+地塞米松直至疾病进展(RDc)与沙利度胺+地塞米松直至疾病进展(TDc)、美法仑+泼尼松+来那度胺诱导,然后用来那度胺维持(MPR-R)与美法仑+泼尼松+沙利度胺诱导,然后用沙利度胺维持(MPT-T)方案的比较。只有 1 项研究在《评估系统性综述的测量工具 2》的关键领域没有显示出任何不足之处。在总生存期方面,RDc优于TDc;但没有研究显示MPR-R和MPT-T之间存在显著差异。在无进展生存期方面,3项研究中有2项显示RDc优于TDc;但MPR-R与MPT-T之间未发现差异。在安全性方面,这些来那度胺治疗方案发生神经系统不良事件的风险较低,而发生血液学不良事件的风险较高。结论 这些研究结果表明,就疗效和安全性而言,在巴西公共卫生系统中,基于来那度胺的方案是治疗符合移植条件的多发性骨髓瘤的良好选择,尤其是对于那些使用沙利度胺后出现严重神经病变的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lenalidomide or Thalidomide for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma? An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Objectives

To present an overview of evidence of efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life of lenalidomide or thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.

Methods

A literature search was performed in 5 databases until July 2022. We included systematic reviews with network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the use of lenalidomide compared with thalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was used to appraise the quality of included reviews. The results were focused on the lenalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (RDc) versus thalidomide + dexamethasone until disease progression (TDc) and induction with melphalan + prednisone + lenalidomide, followed by maintenance with lenalidomide (MPR-R) versus induction with melphalan + prednisone + thalidomide, followed by maintenance with thalidomide (MPT-T) regimens.

Results

Nine studies were included. Only 1 study did not show any weakness in critical domains of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. For overall survival, RDc proved to be superior to TDc; however, no study showed significant difference between MPR-R and MPT-T. For progression-free survival, 2 of 3 studies showed that RDc is better than TDc; however, no difference between MPR-R and MPT-T was found. Regarding safety, these lenalidomide-based regimens had a lower risk for neurologic adverse events, with an increased risk of hematologic adverse events. No health-related quality of life meta-analyses were found.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that, in terms of efficacy and safety, lenalidomide-based regimen is a good option for treatment of transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in the public health system of Brazil, especially for those patients who develop severe neuropathy with thalidomide.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in health regional issues
Value in health regional issues Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
期刊最新文献
Understanding What Matters: Stakeholder Views on Decision Criteria for Cancer Drug Selection in the Public Sector in Malaysia. Postpartum Screening for Type 2 Diabetes in Women With a History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Singapore Cost-Utility Analysis of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin Chemotherapy Regimen in Comparison With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Chemotherapy Regimen in the Treatment of Patients With Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer in Iran. Editorial Board Table of Contents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1