4.6 Article

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Analysis of vascular thrombotic events in the GRIFFIN study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 199, 期 3, 页码 355-365

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18432

关键词

daratumumab; GRIFFIN; newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; prophylaxis; vascular thromboembolic events; VTEs

资金

  1. Janssen Oncology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with multiple myeloma have an increased risk of vascular thromboembolic events (VTEs). Adding daratumumab to the RVd treatment did not increase the incidence of VTEs, but the cumulative incidence of VTEs was relatively high in this cohort and the use of anti-thrombotic prophylaxis was suboptimal.
Patients with multiple myeloma are at increased risk of vascular thromboembolic events (VTEs). This post hoc analysis evaluated VTEs in the randomised phase 2 GRIFFIN study ( Identifier: NCT02874742) that investigated lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVd) +/- daratumumab (D). Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) received D-RVd/RVd induction, high-dose therapy and ASCT, D-RVd/RVd consolidation and up to 2 years of lenalidomide maintenance therapy +/- D. VTE prophylaxis was recommended (at least aspirin, >= 162 mg daily) in accordance with International Myeloma Working Group guidelines. In the safety population (D-RVd, n = 99; RVd, n = 102), VTEs occurred in 10.1% of D-RVd patients and 15.7% of RVd patients; grade 2-4 VTEs occurred in 9.1% and 14.7%, respectively. Median time to the first onset of VTE was longer for D-RVd versus RVd patients (305 days vs 119 days). Anti-thrombosis prophylaxis use was similar between arms (D-RVd, 84.8% vs RVd, 83.3%); among patients with VTEs, prophylaxis use at time of first VTE onset was 60.0% for D-RVd and 68.8% for RVd. In summary, the addition of daratumumab to RVd did not increase the incidence of VTEs, but the cumulative VTE incidence was relatively high in this cohort and anti-thrombotic prophylaxis use was suboptimal.

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