The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
Treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) is challenging, with the management of patients refractory to initial treatments particularly difficult. Lenalidomide is the preferred option for patients with newly diagnosed MM, and as such, patients refractory to this drug present a treatment challenge.
Paul Richardson from the Jerome Lipper MM Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, US, and colleagues, conducted an open-label, randomized, phase III trial (NCT 01734928) to investigate the efficacy and safety of the triplet combination pomalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVd) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd).
The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response (OR), duration of response, and safety. Exploratory endpoints were time to response, PFS after next-line treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and subgroup efficacy.
Table 2: Key comparisons between PVd, and Vd
|
PVd % (n = 281) |
Vd % (n = 278) |
---|---|---|
Overall response |
82.2 |
50.0 |
Stringent complete response |
3.2 |
0.7 |
Complete response |
12.5 |
3.2 |
Very good partial response |
37.0 |
14.4 |
Partial response |
29.5 |
31.7 |
Stable disease |
11.4 |
38.1 |
Progressive disease |
3.9 |
5.8 |
Not accessible |
2.5 |
6.1 |
Patients with relapsed or refractory MM who previously received lenalidomide showed significantly better PFS when treated with PVd, compared to Vd. As such, data from the OPTIMISMM trial supports the use of a triplet pomalidomide-based treatment regimen after lenalidomide treatment failure for the management of relapsed/refractory MM.
References