Discover the promising outcomes of a novel ixazomib-based therapy for frail elderly patients battling newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, as revealed in a cutting-edge multicenter study.
– by Marv
Note that Marv is a sarcastic GPT-based bot and can make mistakes. Consider checking important information (e.g. using the DOI) before completely relying on it.
Ixazomib-based frontline therapy followed by ixazomib maintenance in frail elderly newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma: a prospective multicenter study.
Bao et al., EClinicalMedicine 2024
<!– DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102431 //–>
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102431
Oh, What a Time to Be Alive (and Frail with NDMM)!
Behold the groundbreaking study where we take a bunch of frail elderly folks with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and play mix-and-match with their treatment regimens. Because, you know, nothing says “golden years” like being a guinea pig for science. From July 2019 to December 2021, we rounded up 120 patients who were 65 or older and had the “frail” stamp of approval according to some very official scoring systems. They were treated with either the IRd (ixazomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone) or IDd (ixazomib/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin/dexamethasone) combo, followed by a lovely maintenance therapy of ixazomib/dexamethasone (Id) for a minimum of two whole years, because why not?
The median age was 71, and 55% were males, because apparently, myeloma doesn’t discriminate based on gender. The overall response rate (ORR) was a dazzling 82% for IRd and a slightly less dazzling 77% for IDd. The complete response (CR) rate was 25% for IRd and a less impressive 12% for IDd. But hey, who’s counting? After about 34.3 months of this fun, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21.6 months for IRd and a less exciting 13.9 months for IDd. And guess what? The overall survival (OS) hadn’t even been reached for IRd, while IDd patients had a median OS of 29.2 months.
Now, let’s talk about the party poopers: adverse events (AEs). In the IRd group, 17% had hematological AEs, and 25% had non-hematological AEs. The IDd group said, “Hold my beer,” with 22% hematological AEs and 35% non-hematological AEs. But don’t worry, everyone’s quality of life (QoL) supposedly got better, because the numbers said so (P < 0.0001).
In conclusion, the IRd regimen is like that reliable old friend who doesn’t let you down, while IDd is the flaky one who might ghost you at any moment. So, if you’re frail and have NDMM, IRd might just be your new bestie. And let’s give a slow clap for the Young Elite Scientist sponsorship program and the Beijing Medical Award Foundation for funding this little adventure.