(Bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide)- vs. (bortezomib or lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The aim of the study was to perform a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of (bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide)- vs. (bortezomib or lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We searched electronic and printed sources for relevant articles published. Inclusion criteria was as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCT) of (bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide) vs. (bortezomib or lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens as induction therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Two reviewers independently assessed potentially eligible studies and extracted relevant data. We retrieved five RCT studies including a total of 1,200 patients. Using the random-effects model to pool the five RCT with a statistically significant heterogeneity (P = 0.03; X² = 10.69; df = 4; I² = 63%), the weighted risk ratios of a complete response (CR) for (bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens was 1.81 (P = 0.005; 95% CI: 1.20-2.73). When we excluded the study by Cavo et al. (Lancet 376:2075-2085, 2010), the pooled risk ratio for CR was 1.59 (P < 0.0001, 95% CI: 1.29-1.96) with no statistically significant heterogeneity (P = 0.54; X² = 2.14; df = 3; I² = 0%) among four RCT under the fixed effects mode. The pooled odds ratio for the main grade III/IV adverse events (the peripheral neuropathy, thrombotic events, and infections) were 1.76 (P = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.58-5.31), 0.92 (P = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.52-1.61), and 1.05 (P = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-1.57), respectively. Our analysis showed (bortezomib plus lenalidomide/thalidomide)-containing regimens as induction treatment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma improved CR but did not increase the risk of major adverse events (the peripheral neuropathy, thrombotic events, and infections).