Generic Lenalidomide Rivelime Versus Brand-name Revlimid® in the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Retrospective Single-center Experience on Efficacy, Safety and Survival Outcome.
Brand-name
Generic equivalent
Lenalidomide
Multiple myeloma
Oncological outcome
Relapsed/refractory setting
Journal
Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia
ISSN: 2152-2669
Titre abrégé: Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101525386
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2023
03 2023
Historique:
received:
05
11
2022
accepted:
05
12
2022
pubmed:
8
1
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
entrez:
7
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to compare use of original brand-name lenalidomide (Revlimid®) vs. generic equivalent (Rivelime®) in terms of efficacy, safety and survival outcome in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 184 patients RRMM (median age: 62 years, 60.9% were males) who received singlet, doublet or triplet lenalidomide-containing regimens including either Revlimid® (n=74) or Rivelime® (n=110) were included in this study. Treatment response was based on evaluation of objective response to treatment (ORR) including the sum of patients who achieved partial response (PR), very good partial responses (VGPR) or complete response (CR) to therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety data were also recorded. Revlimid® and Rivelime® groups were similar in terms of ORR (54.1 vs. 60.0%), CR (22.5 vs. 28.8%), VGPR (55.0 vs. 50.0%) and PR (22.5 vs. 21.2%) rates. Median (SE) PFS time were similar between Rivelime® vs. Revlimid® treated patients who were in the 2 In conclusion, replacing Revlimid® with its generic version Rivelime® in singlet, doublet or triplet lenalidomide containing RRMM regimens seems not to compromise the efficacy of treatment, and to yield a similarly improved response rates and survival outcome and no additional toxic effects, enabling a long-term therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to compare use of original brand-name lenalidomide (Revlimid®) vs. generic equivalent (Rivelime®) in terms of efficacy, safety and survival outcome in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 184 patients RRMM (median age: 62 years, 60.9% were males) who received singlet, doublet or triplet lenalidomide-containing regimens including either Revlimid® (n=74) or Rivelime® (n=110) were included in this study. Treatment response was based on evaluation of objective response to treatment (ORR) including the sum of patients who achieved partial response (PR), very good partial responses (VGPR) or complete response (CR) to therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety data were also recorded.
RESULTS
Revlimid® and Rivelime® groups were similar in terms of ORR (54.1 vs. 60.0%), CR (22.5 vs. 28.8%), VGPR (55.0 vs. 50.0%) and PR (22.5 vs. 21.2%) rates. Median (SE) PFS time were similar between Rivelime® vs. Revlimid® treated patients who were in the 2
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, replacing Revlimid® with its generic version Rivelime® in singlet, doublet or triplet lenalidomide containing RRMM regimens seems not to compromise the efficacy of treatment, and to yield a similarly improved response rates and survival outcome and no additional toxic effects, enabling a long-term therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36610852
pii: S2152-2650(22)01752-9
doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2022.12.007
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Lenalidomide
F0P408N6V4
Thalidomide
4Z8R6ORS6L
Dexamethasone
7S5I7G3JQL
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e164-e170Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.