MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417012491 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2267

Efficacy and safety of isa-vrd in elderly patients with or without frailty criteria: Pooled analysis of imroz and phase 1b studies in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients

2025· article· en· W4417012491 sur OpenAlexaff
Enrique M. Ocio, Aurore Perrot, Jesús F. San Miguel, Lionel Karlin, Joaquín Martínez‐López, Sara Bringhen, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Mohamad Mohty, Robert Orlowski, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Xavier Leleu, María‐Victoria Mateos, Philippe Moreau, Sandrine Macé, Umer Khan, Corina Oprea, Thierry Façon

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensHotel Dieu Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLenalidomideMultiple myelomaPooled analysisSubgroup analysisPost-hoc analysisPhases of clinical researchThalidomideDexamethasoneBortezomib

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: In the phase 3 IMROZ study (NCT03319667), isatuximab (Isa) given intravenously (IV) with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) followed by Isa-Rd was associated with a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Although frail pts often have worse outcomes, a post-hoc subgroup analysis of frailty in the IMROZ study found Isa-VRd to be an effective option in these pts, with PFS benefit. The efficacy and safety of Isa-VRd was also demonstrated in a phase 1b study (TCD13983; NCT02513186) in NDMM pts not eligible or with no immediate intent for ASCT. In addition, long-term efficacy and safety data from the phase 1b study showed PFS benefit in the subgroup of pts ≥75 years (yrs). Here we report on a pooled post hoc analysis of IMROZ and phase 1b studies exploring the efficacy and safety of Isa-VRd in pts ≤75 yrs and >75 yrs with and without frailty criteria, to evaluate the consistent efficacy of Isa-VRd in hard to treat pt populations. Methods: Pts in the Isa-VRd arm (n=265) from IMROZ, a global, randomized, phase 3 study, and pts from the multicenter, phase 1b study (n=73) were included in this analysis. In both studies, pts received Isa 10mg/kg IV weekly in cycle 1, then every 2 weeks (Q2W), and then Q4W from cycle 18 onwards in combination with VRd and then Rd. A subgroup analysis was performed by baseline age (≤75 yrs, >75 yrs) and further by frailty [defined according to the simplified International Myeloma Working Group (Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome) score]. PFS and overall response rate (ORR) were examined. Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity was evaluated by central-laboratory testing (next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ®)) at 10-5 sensitivity level. Safety was also evaluated. Results: In this pooled analysis (N=336), median age was 71 (range, 49-87) yrs. Of the pts ≤75 yrs (n=271) and >75 yrs (n=65), 14.4% and 64.6% were frail, respectively. Median PFS was not reached in the overall population or in the ≤75 and >75 yrs subgroups. Similarly, median PFS was not reached in non-frail and frail pts within each age subgroup. Pts ≤75 yrs experienced greater PFS than those >75 yrs [hazard ratio=1.630 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.041–2.550; p=0.033)]. Within each age subgroup, however, no PFS difference was observed between non-frail and frail pts. ORR was similar between the two age groups: ≤75 yrs, 93.0% and >75 yrs, 92.3%, with complete response or better (≥CR) in 72.0% and 67.7% of pts, respectively. However, ORR was generally greater in the non-frail vs frail pts within each age subgroup (non-frail vs frail: ≤75 yrs, 95.7% vs 76.9%; >75 yrs, 100% vs 88.1%) as was ≥CR (non-frail vs frail: ≤75 yrs, 72.9% vs 66.7%; >75 yrs, 87.0% vs 57.2%). Rates of MRD- with CR/stringent CR (CR/sCR) were 53.5% vs 50.8% in the ≤75 yrs and >75 yrs subgroups, respectively. The 24-month sustained MRD- rates were 32.8% vs 23.1% in the ≤75 and >75 yrs subgroups, respectively. In the ≤75 yrs subgroup, rates of MRD- with CR/sCR were 53.9% in non-frail and 51.3% in frail pts, with 24-month sustained MRD- rates of 34.9% and 20.5%, respectively. In the >75 yrs subgroup, rates of MRD- with CR/sCR were 60.9% in non-frail and 45.2% in frail pts, with 24-month sustained MRD- rates of 34.8% and 16.7%, respectively. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 87.8% pts ≤75 yrs (non-frail, 87.6%; frail, 89.5%) and 95.4% pts >75 yrs (non-frail, 95.7%; frail, 95.2%). Serious TEAEs occurred in 66.8% pts ≤75 yrs (non-frail, 64.4%; frail, 81.6%) and 73.8% pts >75 yrs (non-frail, 65.2%; frail, 78.6%). Isa-VRd was well tolerated with definitive treatment discontinuation due to AE in 21.8% pts ≤75 yrs (non-frail, 20.2%; frail, 31.6%) and 26.2% pts >75 yrs (non-frail, 21.7%; frail, 28.6%). Conclusions: Thispooled analysis of the IMROZ and phase 1b studies further supports the broad applicability of the Isa-VRd regimen in NDMM pts not eligible for ASCT, demonstrating consistent efficacy in pts ≤75 yrs and >75 yrs with and without frailty criteria. This was evidenced by median PFS not being reached with Isa-VRd in all subgroups analyzed and the similarity of sustained MRD- among pts ≤75 yrs and >75 yrs old.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,082

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,012
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,356
Écart entre enseignants0,326 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→