LAUSR

Bortezomib, the first potent therapeutic proteasome inhibitor, has been suggested as a standard care in patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). However, evidence bearing on the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV) administration of bortezomib for MM patients is controversial. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were enrolled in our meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of bortezomib via SC vs. IV administration on MM patients. Sixteen trials with a total of2575 patients with MM (SC, n=1191; IV, n=1384) were included in our meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between these two arms regarding overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), or very good partial response (VGPR). The pooled RRs for rate of adverse events (AEs), such as thrombocytopenia and bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy (BIPN), were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68-0.92) and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.51-0.79), respectively. Moreover, there was much more largely decreased incidence of grade 3 and higher thrombocytopenia and BIPN in bortezomib SC administration than IV route. In general, alternative SC administration should be considered instead of IV administration in use of bortezomib for patients with MM. Key words: bortezomib; multiple myeloma; meta-analysis; subcutaneous administration