| Title |
Incidence and risk of cardiac toxicities in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma treated with carfilzomib
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s159818 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fang Zhao, Bo Yang, Juan Wang, Rui Zhang, Jing Liu, Fenglei Yin, Weixing Xu, Chunyuan He |
| Abstract |
Carfilzomib has been approved for use in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Cardiac toxicities have been reported with the use of carfilzomib. We aimed to determine the overall incidence and risk of cardiac toxicities in RRMM patients treated with carfilzomib using a meta-analysis. We searched several databases for relevant articles. Prospective trials evaluating carfilzomib in RRMM patients with adequate data on cardiac toxicities were included for analysis. Pooled incidence, Peto ORs, and 95% CIs were calculated according to the heterogeneity of selected studies. A total of 2,607 RRMM patients from eight prospective trials were included. The pooled incidence of all-grade congestive heart failure (CHF) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) related to carfilzomib in RRMM patients was 5.5% (95% CI: 4.3%-6.9%) and 2.7% (95% CI: 1.1%-6.7%), respectively. In addition, the use of carfilzomib significantly increased all-grade (Peto OR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.56-3.48, p<0.001) and high-grade (Peto OR 3.22, 95% CI: 1.84-5.61, p<0.001) CHF when compared to controls, whereas there was no significantly increased risk of developing all-grade (Peto OR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.79-2.18, p=0.30) and high-grade (Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI: 0.73-2.72, p=0.31) IHD in RRMM patients receiving carfilzomib. The use of carfilzomib in RRMM patients significantly increases the risk of developing CHF but not IHD. Clinicians should be cautious about the risk of CHF associated with carfilzomib to maximize the benefits and minimize the toxicities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 23% |
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#8,190,103
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#578
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,424
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#13
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.