Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

The Efficacy and Safety of Ixazomib for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) and Refractory or Relapsed Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): An Updated Systematic Review Lubis, Ainun Basyiroh; Santosa, Damai; Rizky, Daniel; Tandarto, Kevin; Kartiyani, Ika; Yunarvika, Vina; Ardini, Desta Nur Ewika; Setiawan, Budi; Pangarsa, Eko Adhi; Suharti, Catharina
Indonesian Journal of Cancer Vol 19, No 2 (2025): June
Publisher : http://dharmais.co.id/

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33371/ijoc.v19i2.1241

Abstract

Background: Newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is a significant healthcare concern, comprising 1.8% of newly diagnosed cancers in the United States. Recent advancements in NDMM and refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma (RRMM) treatment, including novel agents like ixazomib, have improved patient outcomes. Ixazomib, an oral proteasome inhibitor, has shown promise in clinical trials, particularly in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd). This study aims to find the efficacy and safety profiles of ixazomib for NRMM and RRMM.Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review using Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ProQuest databases, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ixazomib’s efficacy and safety in NDMM and RRMM treatment. Eligibility criteria included studies published within the last 3 years reporting data on ixazomib in NDMM and RRMM patients. Quality assessment utilized the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs.Results: The review identified three studies from 2021–2023 demonstrating ixazomib’s efficacy and safety in MM treatment across various patient groups. Benefits included improved progression-free survival (PFS) in non-transplant NDMM, significant PFS advantage in relapsed/ refractory MM, and efficacy in transplant-ineligible NDMM induction regimens.Conclusion: Ixazomib emerges as a well-tolerated maintenance therapy offering significant PFS advantages in NDMM and RRMM, irrespective of age or frailty status. Future research, including multicenter studies, is warranted to further elucidate ixazomib’s role in MM management.
Adherence to Guidelines: Evaluation of Opioid Usage According to the Who Step Ladder Guideline in Inpatient Cancer Patients Pangarsa, Eko Adhi; Setiawan, Budi; Santosa, Damai; Rizky, Daniel; Yunarvika, Vina; Suharti, Catharina
Indonesian Journal of Global Health Research Vol 7 No 4 (2025): Indonesian Journal of Global Health Research
Publisher : GLOBAL HEALTH SCIENCE GROUP

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37287/ijghr.v7i4.6343

Abstract

WHO analgesic step-ladder is still the mainstay guideline in managing pain. However, pain in cancer patients developed from a more complex pathomechanism, hence requiring special consideration. This study aimed to compare the visual analog scale (VAS) of opioid and non-opioid analgesia in treating cancer patients and evaluate its rationality with World health organization (WHO) analgesic step-ladder.Method: A single-center, cross-sectional and analytic-descriptive study conducted in our centre. The population of this study comprised all cancer patients receiving analgesic therapy. The sampling technique used was consecutive, involving patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 62 patients were included in the study as the research sample. Pain level was measured before and between 12 – 24 hours after analgesia, using VAS and divided into mild, moderate, or severe. Analgesic regimens were documented, and the daily opioid dose was presented on milligram morphine equivalent. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the variables before and after analgesia using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with a p-value <0.05 considered statistically significant.Result: From 62 patients, 46 subjects were included. Median milligram morphine equivalent was 20 mg (0-60). While the majority of patients experienced mild pain, 13 patients (27.7%) had moderate to severe pain. The most commonly used opioid was intravenous fentanyl, administered to 13 patients (27.7%), with a median morphine equivalent dose of 20 mg/day. Only 1 patient received opioid rationally according to WHO. Both non-opioid and opioid group had significant VAS differences before and after therapy (p = 0.014 and p <0.001). In both non-opioid and opioid groups, there were differences of VAS scores in the post-administration of analgesic, but these differences were not statistically significant (p= 0.885). Conclusion: The study concludes that, although most analgesics were not administered in accordance with the WHO step-ladder guideline, both opioid and non-opioid analgesics were effective in reducing pain in palliative cancer patients.