4.6 Article

Health-related quality of life in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone +/- subcutaneous daratumumab: Patient-reported outcomes from the APOLLO trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 97, 期 4, 页码 481-490

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.26480

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Myeloma Network (EMN)
  2. Janssen Research & Development, LLC
  3. Janssen Global Services, LLC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the APOLLO trial, daratumumab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone showed significant clinical improvements in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) revealed that the addition of daratumumab to the treatment regimen did not negatively impact the health-related quality of life and even showed improvements in pain and fatigue.
In the phase 3 APOLLO trial, daratumumab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Pd) significantly reduced the rate of disease progression or death by 37% relative to Pd alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had received >= 1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from APOLLO. Median treatment duration was 11.5 months with D-Pd and 6.6 months with Pd. PRO compliance rates were high and similar in both groups. No changes from baseline were observed for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores in either group, while physical and emotional functioning, disease symptoms, and adverse effects of treatment remained at baseline levels with D-Pd but worsened with Pd. Reductions (p < 0.05) in pain and fatigue were seen at several time points with D-Pd versus Pd. Overall, these results suggest patients' health-related quality of life remained stable when daratumumab was added to Pd, with several results favoring D-Pd versus Pd. These findings complement the significant clinical improvements observed with D-Pd and support its use in patients with RRMM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据