RECAP DAVA Hawaii Lung 2026 — top KOL voices, trial buzz & every conference slide, decoded View Full Coverage →
KOL Sentiment Index · The Answer

Physician Sentiment on SARCLISA®

Physicians are broadly favorable, with real nuance on SARCLISA® — 22% positive across 37 verified physician voices, by clinical trial:

37 physician voices 3 clinical trial(s) 2024-05-08 – 2026-07-10 Sanofi · isatuximab
Compiled and reviewed by the KOL Pulse research team, led by Brian Shields, Founder, KOL Pulse. Last updated 2026-07-13. KOL Pulse reports the physician conversation and does not endorse any product.

What do oncologists think of the IMROZ trial (SARCLISA®)?

IMROZ — 1L newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, transplant-ineligible (isatuximab + bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone)

FDA APPROVED · Sep 2024FDA-approved September 20, 2024, in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone for adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant.

Physicians are broadly favorable, with real nuance on IMROZ: 32% of 25 verified physician voices positive, 28% nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 40% neutral, 0% critical.

32%
28%
40%
Positive 32% Nuanced 28% Neutral 40% Critical 0%
Denominator: 25 distinct verified physician voices across 90 oncologist posts, 2024-05-08 to 2025-09-23. Sponsor: Sanofi

Full conference coverage and trial data: KOL Pulse trial profile coming soon.

Primary sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · NCT03319667  ·  NEJM 2024 — IMROZ primary publication
Facon T, Dimopoulos MA, Leleu XP, et al. Isatuximab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(17):1597-1609.

Physician voices — verbatim

Full physician voice list (25)

PhysicianComment (verbatim)SentimentImpressions
Vincent Rajkumar
@VincentRK
The 4 big myeloma randomized trials to watch out for @ASCO #ASCO24 1. Isa-VRd vs Isa-Rd newly diagnosed 2.Isa-VRd vs VRd (IMROZ) 3.DREAMM8 Bela-Pd vs Pd 4.Ven Dex vs Pom Dex (Canova) See thread for why they are important. Neutral 39,631
Manni Mohyuddin
@ManniMD1
The IMROZ trial (Isa-VRd versus VRd for transplant ineligible myeloma) just dropped. Although the trial is successful, numerous caveats exist. Six key take-aways regarding this trial, while we await the formal presentation at ASCO htt… Nuanced 25,707
Rafael Fonseca MD 🦔🇺🇸🏜🇲🇽
@Rfonsi1
“To add a PI or not to” With IMROZ and BENEFIT that is the key question. It is always about trade-offs: better efficacy (PFS and MRD-) but also a risk of toxicity. To me a toxicity that is minimized and is critical is peripheral neuropat… Nuanced 7,654
Mohamad Mohty
@Mohty_EBMT
Looking forward to the IMROZ trial presentation during #ASCO24 These are practice-changing results which will impact the whole myeloma treatment landscape. ⁦@TheIACH⁩ ⁦@COMyCongress⁩ ⁦@SanofiFR⁩ ⁦@Myeloma_Doc⁩ ⁦@thanosdimop⁩ ⁦@mbeksac56⁩ e… Positive 7,216
Robert Z. Orlowski
@Myeloma_Doc
Keep in mind that IMROZ enrolled newly diagnosed #myeloma patients who were up to 80 years old at study entry but not older than that, and so will miss some of the frail group. Nuanced 4,457
Samer Al Hadidi, MD,MS,FACP
@HadidiSamer
#mmsm #ASCO24 oral myeloma IMROZ Isa-VRd vs VRD Older patients median 72 Improved PFS despite excellent outcomes of VRd arm Kiddos for allowing cross over for control arm (the right thing to do) Neutral 3,076
C. Ola Landgren, M.D.
@DrOlaLandgren
FDA approves isatuximab with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma #mmsm ⁦@IMFmyeloma⁩ ⁦@theMMRF⁩ ⁦@HealthTree⁩ ⁦@SanofiUS⁩ ⁦@sanofi⁩ ⁦@FDAOncology⁩ ⁦@ASH_hematology⁩ Neutral 2,636
Rahul Banerjee, MD, FACP
@RahulBanerjeeMD
Our brave new world of “quad-eligible” vs “quad-ineligible” in newly diagnosed myeloma regardless of ASCT is here 👏 Plus isa in 1st line as CD38 mAb… great news for #MMsm pts and congrats to IMROZ team! (And BENEFIT, IsKia, GMMG CONCEPT, … Positive 2,483
Joshua Richter, MD, FACP
@JoshuaRichterMD
From Xavier Leleu. When your OS from one study becomes the single line pfs for another study you are making incredible strides !!! #mmsm Positive 1,530
Muzaffar Qazilbash
@Transplant_Doc
#ASCO24 IMROZ trial. Isa-VRd vs. VRd in transplant-ineligible NDMM. N=446, ~97% patients 65-80 years with ECOG PS 0-1; 5-year PFS 63% vs. 45% favoring Isa-VRd. No unexpected toxicities #mmsm @NEJM @thanosdimop @Myeloma_Doc @mbeksac56 Positive 1,258
Ariel Sindel, DO
@Spartan_DO1
This point was my thoughts to, non frail 65-79, so curious what criteria they were using to determine transplant ineligible, also would love to see if any got transplants on disease progression Neutral 1,256
Juan Esteban Vélez, MD
@JuanesVelezMD
Plasma cell dyscrasia 😎😎😎 #ASCO24 IMROZ trial, TI NDMM Primary endpoint PFS >VGPR, MRD Safe… but more TAES Nuanced 989
Mike Thompson, MD, PhD, FASCO
@mtmdphd
#ASCO24 #mmsm #IDonc @DrOlaLandgren reviews IMROZ BENEFIT PERSEUS #PrecisionMedicine #mmMRD Neutral 934
Ben Derman
@bdermanmd
IMROZ data is out in @NEJM simultaneous with oral pres. As for treatment schedule, these were 6 week cycles with reduced dose dex and twice weekly bortezomib. Mostly std risk patients were enrolled but 36% had 1q gain. Median age 72 (26% >=… Nuanced 572
Mateo Mejia
@mmejia91
Love it! I think the big question is which patients should get quad (CEPHEUES/IMROZ) and which should get DRd...the hardest decision to me often! Positive 417
Krina Patel
@DrKrinaPatel
11/Do results w isa show similar trends? IMROZ🔑trial IsaVRd➡️IsaRd v VRd➡️Rd in TIE pts w NDMM 👉IsaVRd ➡️↓time to MRD-: 14.7 v 32.8m ↑ PFS @ 60m: 63.2 v 45.2%; HR: 0.60; P<0.001 ↑ CR: 74.7% v 64.1%; P=0.01 🎉IMROZ results support IsaVRd as… Positive 242
Beth Faiman PhD
@Bethfaiman
Another effective treatment approved for #Multiplemyeloma #mmsm #kNOwmyeloma #BCAM Positive 213
Simon Stern
@DrSStern
Very good late afternoon abstract session at #IMS24 expertly co-chaired by @_DrCP, including presentations on the potentially practice-changing IMROZ and Benefit studies. Positive 189
EmatoInfo
@EmatoInfo
#EHA24 | Thierry Facon presents data from #IMROZ trial 👇🏼 #multiplemyeloma @DottorClaudio Neutral 160
Ghazi Alotaibi
@Ghazialot
Also that dex schedule and velcade twice a week protocol is anything but tolerable. Nuanced 134
Anita Turk
@anita_turk
Dr. Rafat Abonour presents IMROZ: Isa-VRd shows significant MRD improvement vs VRd in transplant-ineligible MM! 📊 Deep responses with higher MRD-negative rates 📈 Sustained MRD negativity ≥12 months ⏱️ Faster time to MRD negativity #ASCO25 @… Neutral 121
Linda F Huguelet
@LindaMyeloma
presented Phase 3 Imroz IsaVRd vs VRd in NDMM - led to greater depth of response of MRD- over time, with higher rates of MRD- at both the end of initiation and during maintenance compared with the control arm. #MMSM #Myeloma #ASH24 #IMFASH… Neutral 92
Hamza Hashmi
@hhashmi87
Myeloma oral abstract: IMROZ MRD assessment of IsaVRD vs VRD for Ti NDMM Early MRD negativity with no significant change over time. Low rates of loss of MRD over time. Do we need velcade beyond 6 months for Ti NDMM? #mmsm #ash24 Neutral 90
Jenn Wieworka
@JWiework
Abstract 770 IMROZ study of Isa+VRd induction and Isa-Vd maintenance showed significant and sustained progression free survival after conversion in NDMM who were transplant ineligible. #imfash24 #ASH24 Neutral 61
Becky Bosley
@MidAtlanticMSG
beautifully presented Isa, Bort, Len, and Dex (Isa-VRd) in pts with NDMM: Analyses of MRD negativity dynamics from Phase 3 Imroz study #IMFASH24 #ASH24 Effects on not only the myeloma cells themselves, but also in the micro-environment Nuanced 17

Full conference coverage and trial data: KOL Pulse trial profile coming soon.

What do oncologists think of the GMMG-HD7 trial (SARCLISA®)?

GMMG-HD7 — Transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma — isatuximab added to RVd induction (German GMMG academic trial)

INVESTIGATIONALInvestigational in this setting. GMMG-HD7 studied isatuximab added to RVd induction in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; isatuximab is not FDA-approved for transplant-eligible NDMM induction.

Physicians are broadly favorable, with real nuance on GMMG-HD7: 19% of 16 verified physician voices positive, 6% nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 75% neutral, 0% critical.

19%
75%
Positive 19% Nuanced 6% Neutral 75% Critical 0%
Denominator: 16 distinct verified physician voices across 53 oncologist posts, 2024-10-31 to 2025-12-05. Sponsor: German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG) / Heidelberg University Hospital (investigator-initiated)

See full GMMG-HD7 conference coverage & trial data →

Primary sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · NCT03617731  ·  JCO 2025 — GMMG-HD7 Final Part 1 analysis
Goldschmidt H, Mai EK, Nievergall E, et al. Isatuximab, Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Induction Therapy for Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Final Part 1 Analysis of the GMMG-HD7 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(11) (published online April 10, 2025).

Physician voices — verbatim

Full physician voice list (16)

PhysicianComment (verbatim)SentimentImpressions
Vincent Rajkumar
@VincentRK
#1 Isatuximab-VRd vs VRd Induction for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma: Phase 3 GMMG-HD7 #HartmutGoldSchmidt @EliasKarlMai #ASH24 Well designed RCT. More to come in Part 2 later. Along with other RCTs, establishes quads as standard frontline for… Neutral 4,041
Samer Al Hadidi, MD,MS,FACP
@HadidiSamer
#ASH24 #mmsm @ASH_hematology Oral myeloma: GMMG-HD7 final PFS analysis @EliasKarlMai Very important to include anti-CD38 upfront for better PFS second randomization will be very informative Consolidation was used as a second transpl… Neutral 3,161
Joshua Richter, MD, FACP
@JoshuaRichterMD
AEs & QOL Key takeaway: manageable AE profiles w/ quads → preserved QOL Safety analysis: Tolerable AE profiles support use of upfront quad tx for appropriate pts w/ TE NDMM NCCN GLs #MMBrief #MMSM. ⁦@SoMeCME⁩ Neutral 3,131
Raj Chakraborty
@rajshekharucms
PFS update from GMMG-HD7 @EliasKarlMai: Despite ~25-30% of pts. receiving response/risk-adapted tandem ASCT, Isa-VRd induction led to a significant PFS benefit over VRd! 3-year PFS: 83% vs 75% (HR 0.7; p=0.018)! My take: ASCT is imp. but … Nuanced 3,020
Rahul Banerjee, MD, FACP
@RahulBanerjeeMD
Open question: what changes once SQ isatuximab approved? Comparing CD38-VRd between GMMG-HD7 ( @RaabMarc @EliasKarlMai et al) & PERSEUS, one difference is no post-ASCT consolidation in HD7 - unclear if will be different in real life. Anyt… Neutral 2,990
Ben Derman
@bdermanmd
GMMG-HD7 (@EliasKarlMai) : Isa-VRd vs VRd induction --> ASCT x1-2--> Isa-R vs R (second randomization) Isa-VRd > VRd induction with respect to PFS, even when accounting for second randomization. It would be good to see specifically what do… Neutral 1,820
Elias K. Mai MD
@EliasKarlMai
! Looking forward to present our GMMG-HD7 PFS/MRD data at #ASH24 ! @med5_ukhd @uniklinik_hd @HDMyeloma Positive 985
Luciano J Costa
@End_myeloma
7- GMMG-HD7 PFS from first randomization. Somewhat expected results, yet important. Neutral 921
Marc-A. Bärtsch
@marc_a_baertsch
The overflow rooms were overflowing! Important contributions from German study groups GMMG and DSMM in NDMM: impressive 100% MRD negativity with Teclistamab based regimens in HD10 presented by @RaabMarc and significant PFS benefit with Isa-… Positive 809
Mike Thompson, MD, PhD, FASCO
@mtmdphd
Isatuximab, Lenalidomide, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Induction Therapy for TE NDMM: Final PFS Analysis of Part 1 of an Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial (GMMG-HD7) [Dec 9, 2024] Goldschmidt et al. #ASH24 Abst 769 https://… Neutral 596
Beth Faiman PhD
@Bethfaiman
GMMG-HD7, Phase 3: ISA-RVD w/ significant PFS benefit across all subgroups #ASH24 Interesting design w/ 2nd randomization before maintenance Neutral 233
Murali Janakiram
@JanakiramMurali
hoping by that time we will get disease/risk guided maintenance Rahul.. Neutral 204
Saurabh Zanwar
@ZanwarSaurabh
Nice presentation @EliasKarlMai! Look forward to the Monday session Positive 111
Linda F Huguelet
@LindaMyeloma
Phase 3 Trial (GMMG-HD7) - adding Isatuximab showed 30% reduction in risk of progression or death compared to RVd alone. #MMSM #Myeloma #ASH24 #IMFASH24 Neutral 69
Becky Bosley
@MidAtlanticMSG
Abstract #769-Isa, Len, Bort, dex induction therapy for TE-NDMM: Final PFS analysis of Part 1 of an open label, muticenter, randomized, phase 3 traisl GMMG-HD7 #IMFASH24 #ASH24 Neutral 68
Ajay Major, MD, MBA
@majorajay
8. PROs from GMMG-HD7 trial of isa-RVd vs RVd #mmsm #ASH25 Neutral 21

See full GMMG-HD7 conference coverage & trial data →

What do oncologists think of the IRAKLIA trial (SARCLISA®)?

IRAKLIA — Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma — subcutaneous isatuximab (SARCLISA ESCENA via the CirCLIQ on-body injector) with pomalidomide and dexamethasone vs intravenous isatuximab, both with pomalidomide-dexamethasone

FDA APPROVED · subcutaneous · Jul 2026The subcutaneous isatuximab formulation (SARCLISA ESCENA, delivered via the CirCLIQ on-body injector) is FDA-approved (July 2026) across all existing intravenous Sarclisa multiple-myeloma indications, based on IRAKLIA — the first anticancer treatment administered via an on-body injector.

Physicians are broadly favorable, with real nuance on IRAKLIA: 20% of 10 verified physician voices positive, 20% nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 60% neutral, 0% critical.

20%
20%
60%
Positive 20% Nuanced 20% Neutral 60% Critical 0%
Denominator: 10 distinct verified physician voices across 22 oncologist posts, 2025-01-11 to 2026-07-10. Sponsor: Sanofi

See full IRAKLIA conference coverage & trial data →

Primary sources: ClinicalTrials.gov · NCT05405166

Physician voices — verbatim

Full physician voice list (10)

PhysicianComment (verbatim)SentimentImpressions
Oncology Brothers
@OncBrothers
Isatuximab subcutaneously with the on-body delivery system is now @US_FDA ✅ for multiple myeloma ✅ Isa-VRd in NDMM ✅ Isa-Pd in RRMM ✅ Isa-Kd in RRMM #Mmsm #HemeTwitter #HappyFriday @OncUpdates Neutral 3,017
C. Ola Landgren, M.D.
@DrOlaLandgren
Press Release: New Sarclisa subcutaneous formulation met co-primary endpoints in the IRAKLIA phase 3 study in multiple myeloma #mmsm @IMFmyeloma @theMMRF @HealthTree @LLSusa Neutral 1,389
Nico Gagelmann
@NicoGagelmann
On-body isatuximab matches IV in myeloma, with fewer reactions❗️ The phase 3 IRAKLIA trial showed that subcutaneous isatuximab delivered via on-body delivery system (OBDS) is non-inferior to intravenous (IV) isatuximab when combined with p… Neutral 1,102
Michael H. Tomasson, MD
@MTomasson
Bravo to the teams involved! It's a challenging road to be second in class, but - more options for patients - competition we can hope will bring prices down, and - we can ask if there are any clinical differences with Dara that might be ex… Nuanced 762
Rahul Banerjee, MD, FACP
@RahulBanerjeeMD
3/ #ASCO25 #MMsm newly Dx'ed: 7506 IRAKLIA (Ailawadhi): subQ isa via auto-injector (no slow RN push): non-inferior to IV Isa. Only 0.4% ISRs! Plus ⬆️ pt satisfaction (albeit only 70% vs 53%, will need to see why not 100%). COLUMBA-like ap… Neutral 348
Samer Al Hadidi, MD,MS,FACP
@HadidiSamer
#mmsm #ASCO25 oral myeloma sessions IRAKLIA study of OBI device of Isa Cool device to deliver Isa Study schema Neutral 338
Rafael Fonseca MD 🦔🇺🇸🏜🇲🇽
@Rfonsi1
IRAKLIA study shows on body delivery system is safe, effective and preferred by patients. Cool fearture that time of administration depends on tissue resistance. Called "escargot" in France! Less infusion/injection reactions (1.5 vs 25%) #… Positive 281
Robert Z. Orlowski
@Myeloma_Doc
#Myeloma Paper of the Day: Phase 3 IRAKLIA study shows Isatuximab (+Pom/dex) w/ on-body delivery system shows similar efficacy & pharmacokinetic non-inferiority versus Isa-iv/Pom/dex w/ no unexpected safety signal and lower infusion reactio… Positive 204
Victor H Jimenez-Zepeda
@vhugo8762
Summary of the IRAKLIA study! #eha2025 Neutral 77
Charles Milrod, MD
@CharlesMilrod
Nice to see subQ isatuximab approved! *But* reminds me of this study👇 from @majorajay- subQ forms (this was for BsAbs) didn’t lead to the time convenience I would have expected https://t.co/h2cxkuDEp3 Nuanced 22

See full IRAKLIA conference coverage & trial data →

SARCLISA® — FDA status

FDA APPROVEDSARCLISA® (isatuximab) is FDA-approved for multiple myeloma — in newly diagnosed disease not eligible for transplant (with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone) and in the relapsed/refractory setting (with carfilzomib–dexamethasone or pomalidomide–dexamethasone). A subcutaneous on-body-delivery formulation is also FDA-approved. Marketed by Sanofi. For the full, current list of FDA indications and prescribing information, see sarclisa.com or FDA label (DailyMed). KOL Pulse indexes the physician conversation; the label is owned and maintained by the manufacturer.

SARCLISA® sentiment — FAQ

IMROZ

What do oncologists think of the IMROZ trial (SARCLISA®)?

Across 25 verified physician voices in KOL Pulse's index for IMROZ, 32% expressed positive sentiment, 28% were nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 40% were neutral, and 0% were critical. Positive voices highlight the progression-free-survival benefit and deep MRD-negativity from adding isatuximab to VRd in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed myeloma, bringing the anti-CD38 quadruplet to this population; nuanced and critical voices flag applicability to older or frailer patients, added infection/toxicity of a four-drug regimen, overall-survival maturity, and how it sequences against daratumumab-based quadruplets.

Where can I find the IMROZ trial data for SARCLISA® (isatuximab)?

IMROZ is registered as NCT03319667 and studied SARCLISA® (isatuximab) in 1L newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, transplant-ineligible (isatuximab + bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone). KOL Pulse's IMROZ trial profile is coming soon.

GMMG-HD7

What do oncologists think of the GMMG-HD7 trial (SARCLISA®)?

Across 16 verified physician voices in KOL Pulse's index for GMMG-HD7, 19% expressed positive sentiment, 6% were nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 75% were neutral, and 0% were critical. Positive voices highlight the improved MRD-negativity after induction from adding isatuximab to RVd in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed myeloma; nuanced and critical voices flag whether the post-induction MRD advantage will translate into a progression-free / overall-survival benefit, that the regimen is investigational (not FDA-approved), and the maintenance-strategy question.

Where can I find the GMMG-HD7 trial data for SARCLISA® (isatuximab)?

GMMG-HD7 is registered as NCT03617731 and studied SARCLISA® (isatuximab) in Transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma — isatuximab added to RVd induction (German GMMG academic trial). For the full GMMG-HD7 trial data and conference coverage, see the KOL Pulse GMMG-HD7 trial profile at kolpulse.com/kol-pulse-trial-profile-gmmg-hd7.

IRAKLIA

What do oncologists think of the IRAKLIA trial (SARCLISA®)?

Across 10 verified physician voices in KOL Pulse's index for IRAKLIA, 20% expressed positive sentiment, 20% were nuanced (praising the result while flagging a caveat), 60% were neutral, and 0% were critical. Positive voices highlight delivering isatuximab subcutaneously via an on-body injector with comparable efficacy and far shorter administration time than the intravenous infusion; nuanced and critical voices flag that this is a delivery-format advance rather than a new efficacy signal, and the logistics and real-world adoption of the on-body injector.

Where can I find the IRAKLIA trial data for SARCLISA® (isatuximab)?

IRAKLIA is registered as NCT05405166 and studied SARCLISA® (isatuximab) in Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma — subcutaneous isatuximab (SARCLISA ESCENA via the CirCLIQ on-body injector) with pomalidomide and dexamethasone vs intravenous isatuximab, both with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. For the full IRAKLIA trial data and conference coverage, see the KOL Pulse IRAKLIA trial profile at kolpulse.com/kol-pulse-trial-profile-iraklia.

Regulatory

Is SARCLISA® (isatuximab) FDA approved?

SARCLISA® is FDA-approved. KOL Pulse organizes this page by clinical trial and links out to the manufacturer's brand site and the FDA label for the full, current list of FDA indications and prescribing information — the label is owned and updated by the manufacturer, so we point to it rather than reproducing it.

How this index is built

KOL Pulse indexes verbatim posts from verified oncology physicians and rolls sentiment up per clinical trial. Each physician is counted once per trial, at their highest-reach post. Sentiment is classified from the verbatim text (positive / nuanced / neutral / critical), where "nuanced" marks a voice that praises the result while flagging a substantive caveat (immature overall survival, toxicity, or trial-design/selection concerns). Institutional, media, finance, and non-physician accounts are excluded from the denominator. Quotes are reproduced verbatim and attributed to the physician's public post. KOL Pulse organizes this page by clinical trial — the maintainable unit — and links out to the manufacturer's brand site and the FDA label for the full indication list, which the manufacturer owns and updates. Trial efficacy figures are held for medical-expert verification before publication. This page reports the physician conversation; it is not medical advice and does not endorse any product.