Post-ASCT consolidation with elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone or elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone in high-risk and ultra-high-risk multiple myeloma: a retrospective single-center study.

Patients with high-risk multiple-myeloma (HRMM) and ultra-high-risk multiple-myeloma (UHRMM) show rapid disease progression and shorter survival compared to those with standard-risk multiple-myeloma (SRMM). Lenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has shown inferior outcomes in this subgroup compared to SRMM, and there is an unmet need for improved post-ASCT therapy. This retrospective study, from September 2016 to March 2023, assesses elotuzumab combined with lenalidomide or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (ERd or EPd) as consolidation therapy post-ASCT for HRMM and UHRMM patients. HRMM (1 cytogenetic abnormality) and UHRMM (≥2 cytogenetic abnormalities) were defined using IMWG and mSMART criteria. Among 75 patients (median age: 64 years), 59 received ERd and 16 EPd. Median progression-free survival was 29.3 months for all patients, 32.7 months for HRMM, and 21.9 months for UHRMM. Elotuzumab plus an IMiD consolidation therapy post-ASCT demonstrated promising efficacy compared to other studies, with a fixed duration and reduced lenalidomide-related toxicity.

Nivolumab, Pomalidomide, and Elotuzumab Combination Regimens for Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Phase 3 CheckMate 602 Study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that combining nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor, with pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) with or without elotuzumab, an antisignaling lymphocytic activation molecule F7 monoclonal antibody, may improve multiple myeloma (MM) treatment efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase 3 CheckMate 602 study (NCT02726581) assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus pomalidomide/dexamethasone (NPd) and NPd plus elotuzumab (NE-Pd). Eligible patients (aged ≥ 18 years) had measurable MM after ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, that included an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and proteasome inhibitor (PI), each for ≥ 2 consecutive cycles, alone or combined, and were refractory to their last line of therapy. Patients were randomized 3:3:1 to receive NPd, Pd, or NE-Pd. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); overall response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 16.8 months, PFS was similar between treatment arms (Pd, 7.3 months [95% CI, 6.5-8.4]; NPd, 8.4 months [95% CI, 5.8-12.1]; NE-Pd, 6.3 months [95% CI, 2.4-11.1]). ORR was similar in the Pd (55%), NPd (48%), and NE-Pd (42%) arms. Nivolumab-containing arms were associated with a less favorable safety profile versus Pd, including a higher rate of thrombocytopenia (NPd, 25.0%; NE-Pd, 16.7%; Pd, 15.7%), any-grade immune-mediated adverse events (NPd, 13.9%; NE-Pd, 16.7%; Pd, 2.9%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation (NPd, 25.0%; NE-Pd, 33.3%; Pd, 18.6%). No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: CheckMate 602 did not demonstrate clinical benefit of nivolumab (+/- elotuzumab) plus Pd versus Pd for patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM).

Elotuzumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended follow-up of a multicenter, retrospective real-world experience with 321 cases outside of controlled clinical trials.

The ELOQUENT-3 trial demonstrated the superiority of the combination of elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloPd) in terms of efficacy and safety, compared to Pd in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), who had received at least two prior therapies, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. The present study is an 18-month follow-up update of a previously published Italian real-life RRMM cohort of patients treated with EloPd. This revised analysis entered 319 RRMM patients accrued in 41 Italian centers. After a median follow-up of 17.7 months, 213 patients (66.4%) experienced disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 7.5 and 19.2 months, respectively. The updated multivariate analysis showed a significant reduction of PFS benefit magnitude both in advanced International Staging System (ISS) (II and III) stages and previous exposure to daratumumab cases. Instead, advanced ISS (II and III) stages and more than 2 previous lines of therapy maintained an independent prognostic impact on OS. Major adverse events included grade three-fourths neutropenia (24.9%), anemia (13.4%), lymphocytopenia (15.5%), and thrombocytopenia (10.7%), while infection rates and pneumonia were 19.3% and 8.7%, respectively. A slight increase in the incidence of neutropenia and lymphocytopenia was registered with longer follow-up. In conclusion, our real-world study still confirms that EloPd is a safe and possible therapeutic choice for RRMM. Nevertheless, novel strategies are desirable for those patients exposed to daratumumab.

Daratumumab­resistant multiple myeloma with extramedullary disease successfully treated with combination elotuzumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone: A case report.

Despite the emergence of monoclonal antibodies, the prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) with extramedullary disease remains poor. The present report describes a rare case of daratumumab-refractory MM that was successfully treated with elotuzumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone. A 66-year-old male patient diagnosed with MM was treated with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Thereafter, the patient was treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone as maintenance therapy. This was changed to daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone when new paraskeletal lesions were identified, resulting in marked tumor shrinkage. After 15 months, an increase in serum monoclonal protein levels, development of a skeletal lesion in the right second rib and extramedullary disease of the right thoracic mediastinal lymph nodes were noted. Treatment with elotuzumab, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (EPd) resulted in expeditious symptomatic improvement and regression of the lesions. Notably, during daratumumab, bortezomib and dexamethasone treatment, lymphocyte counts gradually increased to a level at which elotuzumab was sufficiently effective. EPd might be a promising strategy for the treatment of patients with relapsed extramedullary MM while on daratumumab treatment.

Cytomegalovirus Reactivation during Elotuzumab Therapy in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Some treatments are associated with cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation (CMVRA) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, no reports exist on the association between elotuzumab and CMVRA. Therefore, we assessed the incidence of CMVRA in patients with MM who received elotuzumab therapy. METHODS: The medical records of 85 patients who underwent elotuzumab therapy were included in the retrospective analysis for CMV positivity. RESULTS: Thirty patients were tested for CMV antigenemia during elotuzumab therapy, and 16 were positive for CMV antigenemia; the cumulative incidence rate of CMVRA 6 months after elotuzumab initiation was 18.4%. The history of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) was significantly more common in the CMVRA group (31.2%) than that of the group without CMVRA (8.7%). However, even among patients who did not undergo allo-HSCT, the cumulative incidence rate of CMVRA at 6 months was 15.1%. During CMVRA, the symptoms included fever in 8 cases, while retinitis was observed in 1 case. Five patients required antiviral therapy and CMV antigenemia resolved in all but 1 case. CONCLUSION: Although the patient population was heterogeneous, CMVRA cannot be underestimated during elotuzumab therapy, and evaluation of CMVRA, especially in symptomatic cases, is clinically important.

NK and T-lymphocyte Kinetics Predict Outcome in Myeloma Patients Treated With Elotuzumab, Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone.

Background/Aim: Elotuzumab, an anti-SLAMF7 monoclonal antibody, can enhance immune activity via elevated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and reduced SLAMF7+CD8+CD57+ regulatory T-cells (Tregs). This multicenter observational study investigated the kinetics of lymphocytes in myeloma patients treated with elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (ERd) by two-color flow cytometry using peripheral blood samples. Patients and Methods: Twenty-one patients were included in this study. The median duration of ERd was 22.6 months, and the cutoff time for long-duration ERd was two years. Results: The CD2+CD16+ and CD16+CD57- NK cells were significantly increased over time in the long-duration ERd group compared to those in the short-duration ERd group (p=0.035 and p<0.001). The CD8+ and CD16-CD57+ lymphocytes, identified as low-activity NK cells or SLAMF7+ Tregs, were significantly increased in the patients whose ERd outcome was progressive disease (PD) compared to those in the non-PD group (p=0.023 and p<0.001). The mean CD4/CD8 ratio and CD19+ lymphocyte counts in the long-duration ERd group were significantly lower than those in the short-duration ERd group, although the kinetics of them did not change over time (p=0.016 and p=0.011). When the cutoff value of CD4/CD8 ratio was 0.792 according to ROC curves, the two-year time to next treatment (TTNT) in the low CD4/CD8 group was significantly longer than that in the high CD4/CD8 group (80.0% vs. 15.0%, p=0.024). Conclusion: The change in NK cells and CD8+ Tregs predicted long-duration ERd and PD, and maintaining low CD4/8 ratio predicted long TTNT, suggesting that these lymphocyte fractions might be biomarkers for a durable therapeutic effect of ERd in myeloma patients.

Safety and Effectiveness of Elotuzumab in Japanese Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Post-marketing Surveillance Study.

Objective Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (ELd) was approved in Japan in 2016 for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This post-marketing surveillance study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of ELd in RRMM patients during routine clinical practice in Japan. Methods Elotuzumab safety was assessed by evaluating adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and effectiveness was assessed primarily by the best overall response. Patients The study enrolled patients with RRMM who received ELd therapy between November 18, 2016, and June 18, 2017. The safety and effectiveness analysis sets included 831 and 755 patients, respectively. Results In the safety analysis set, patients received a median (range) of 12 (1-40) elotuzumab administrations over 108 (1-728) days of treatment. The relative dose intensity of elotuzumab was ≥90% in 74.1% of patients. ADRs and serious ADRs were reported in 41.2% and 15.2% of the patients, respectively. The most common ADR was infection (12.0%), followed by lymphocytopenia (10.1%), infusion reactions (7.5%), secondary malignancies (e.g. gastric cancer and pancreatic carcinoma), cataracts, and interstitial lung disease (0.2% each). While most patients with ADRs recovered, 71 discontinued treatment, and 14 deaths were reported. The presence of comorbidities, particularly cardiovascular disorders, significantly affected the safety. The overall response rate was 41.1%. Conclusion This all-case post-marketing surveillance study showed that ELd had an acceptable tolerability profile and promising clinical activity in Japanese patients with RRMM.

Efficacy of elotuzumab for multiple myeloma deteriorates after daratumumab: a multicenter retrospective study.

Elotuzumab-based regimens are sometimes selected for multiple myeloma treatment after daratumumab-based regimens. However, there has been insufficient discussion on the efficacy of elotuzumab after daratumumab. We used Kansai Myeloma Forum registration data in a multicenter retrospective evaluation of the efficacy of elotuzumab after daratumumab. Overall survival (OS) rate and time to next treatment (TTNT) were significantly worse in the cohort given elotuzumab after daratumumab (Dara cohort, n = 47) than in the cohort with no history of daratumumab administration before elotuzumab (No-Dara cohort, n = 80, OS: P = 0.03; TTNT: P = 0.02; best response: P < 0.01). In the Dara cohort, OS and TTNT rates were worse with sequential elotuzumab use after daratumumab than with non-sequential (OS: P = 0.02; TTNT: P = 0.03). In patients given elotuzumab < 180 days after daratumumab, OS (P = 0.08) and best response (P = 0.21) tended to be worse, and TTNT was significantly worse (P = 0.01), than in those given elotuzumab after ≥ 180 days. These findings were confirmed by subgroup analyses and multivariate analyses. Monoclonal-antibody-free treatment might be preferable after daratumumab-based regimens. If possible, elotuzumab-based regimens should be considered only ≥ 180 days after daratumumab use.

Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma.

The incorporation of monoclonal antibodies into backbone regimens has substantially improved the clinical outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Although the SLAMF7-targeting antibody elotuzumab has no single- agent activity, there is clinical synergy between elotuzumab and immunomodulatory drugs in patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Daratumumab and isatuximab are CD38-targeting antibodies which have single-agent activity and a favorable safety profile, which make these agents an attractive component of combination regimens. Monoclonal antibodies may cause infusion-related reactions, but with subcutaneous administration these are less frequently observed. All therapeutic antibodies may interfere with assessment of complete response. Next-generation Fc-engineered monoclonal antibodies are in development with the potential to further improve the outcome of patients with MM.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Myeloma Administered With Elotuzumab-Based Treatment.

Objective Elotuzumab is used to treat relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). However, the optimal patient selection and sequencing in MM therapy are less clear. Therefore, this retrospective cohort study assessed the clinical outcomes of patients with MM who underwent elotuzumab-based therapy. Methods We reviewed the medical records of 85 patients with relapsed/refractory MM who received elotuzumab for the first time. Participants were divided into progressive disease (PD group) and those without PD (non-PD group) at elotuzumab treatment initiation, and each group was analyzed separately. Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using log-rank tests. Results The median follow-up period was 33.6 (range: 0.5-72.0) months. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of PD and non-PD groups at elotuzumab therapy initiation were 5.3 months and not reached (NR), respectively (P < 0.0001), and 26.8 months and NR, respectively. Patients with triple-class refractory disease in both groups had worse PFS and OS. Twenty-one patients in the non-PD group received elotuzumab as post-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, whose PFS and OS were NR (95% CI, 21.4 months-NR) and NR (95% CI, NR-NR), respectively. Conclusions Elotuzumab exhibited limited therapeutic efficacy in patients with triple-class refractory MM but better treatment outcomes in situations with adequate disease control and post-transplant treatment.

Análise de custo por desfecho das novas terapias de combinação tripla com lenalidomida para o mieloma múltiplo recidivado/refratário no Brasil / Cost by outcomes analysis of novel triplecombination therapies with lenalidomide for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Brazil

Objetivo: Estimar o custo de tratamento das novas terapias de combinação tripla com lenalidomida no manejo dos pacientes com mieloma múltiplo recidivado/refratário (MMRR) sob a perspectiva do sistema de saúde privado brasileiro. Métodos: Os custos associados da combinação de lenalidomida + dexametasona com carfilzomibe (KRd), daratumumabe (DRd), elotuzumabe (ERd) e ixazomibe (IRd) foram comparados. Para cada terapia, a duração de tratamento foi estimada pela média do tempo de sobrevida livre de progressão (SLP) restrita a três anos a partir de dados de SLP dos estudos pivotais das respectivas terapias. Os custos de tratamento foram estimados para a duração de tratamento, considerando a posologia específica dos regimes terapêuticos. Os preços dos medicamentos foram baseados no preço fábrica de abril de 2020. Não foi considerado o compartilhamento de doses. O custo total do tratamento, o custo médio por ciclo e o custo por taxa de resposta objetiva (TRO) em três anos foram comparados. Resultados: A duração de tratamento no período de três anos foi de 23,3, 27,6, 20,3 e 20,9 meses para KRd, DRd, ERd e IRd, respectivamente. O custo médio total de tratamento foi estimado em 975.557 reais (BRL) para KRd, 1.507.544 BRL para DRd (+55% versus KRd), 1.207.899 BRL para ERd (+24% versus KRd) e 983.917 para IRd (+1% versus KRd). KRd teve o menor custo médio por mês de SLP (horizonte de três anos) entre as terapias, 41.957 BRL versus 54.709 BRL para DRd (+30% versus KRd), 59.635 BRL para ERd (+42% versus KRd) e 47.147 para IRd (+12% versus KRd). Similarmente, o custo por TRO foi 31% menor para KRd (1.119.770 BRL), comparado ao DRd (1.621.015 BRL), 27% menor, comparado ao ERd (1.528.986 BRL), e 11% menor, comparado ao IRd (1.256.064). Conclusões: Resultados da presente análise indicam que KRd está associado a um menor custo médio de tratamento, acompanhado de maior previsibilidade, menor custo por TRO e por mês de SLP, comparado ao DRd, ERd e IRd no horizonte de três anos sob a perspectiva do sistema de saúde privado brasileiro. Os resultados estão associados com alguma incerteza em razão das diferenças nas populações dos estudos, desenho dos estudos (duração fixa de carfilzomibe vs. tratamento até a progressão para daratumumabe, elotuzumabe e ixazomibe) e porque a duração de tratamento é tipicamente menor do que a SLP.

Objective: To estimate treatment costs for novel triple-combination therapies with lenalidomide in the management of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients from the Brazilian private healthcare perspective. Methods: Treatment costs associated with lenalidomide + dexamethasone combinations with carfilzomib (KRd), daratumumab (DRd), elotuzumab (ERd) and ixazomib (IRd) were compared. For each therapy, treatment duration was estimated as the mean progression-free survival (PFS) time restricted to three years using published PFS data from pivotal trials available for these treatments. Treatment costs were estimated for the modeled treatment duration considering therapy-specific dosing schedules. Drug prices were based on April 2020 Brazilian list prices. No vial sharing was assumed. Total treatment costs, average cost per cycle, and cost per overall response rate (ORR) over the three-year period were compared. Results: Modeled treatment duration over the three-year period was 23.3, 27.6, 20.3 and 20.9 months for KRd, DRd, ERd and IRd respectively. Corresponding average total treatment costs were estimated to be 975,557 Brazilian Real (BRL) for KRd; 1,507,544 BRL for DRd (+55% versus KRd); 1,207,899 BRL for ERd (+24% versus KRd) and 983,917 for IRd (+1% versus KRd). KRd had the lowest average cost per month of restricted PFS (3-year time frame) among the therapies, 41,957 BRL versus 54,709 BRL for DRd (+30% versus KRd); 59,635 BRL for ERd (+42% versus KRd); and 47,147 for IRd (+12% versus KRd). Similarly, the cost per achieved ORR was lower for KRd (1,119,770 BRL) than that for DRd (1,621,015 BRL); ERd (1,528,986 BRL); and IRd (1,256,064) by 31%, 27% and 11%, respectively. Conclusions: Results of the present analysis indicate that KRd is associated with lower mean treatment costs and more predictable costs, lower cost per ORR and per month in PFS than DRd, ERd and IRd over a relevant three-year time horizon from the Brazilian private healthcare perspective. The results are associated with some uncertainty due to differences in trial populations, trial design (fixed duration for carfilzomib vs treatment till progression for daratumumab, elotuzumab and ixazomib) and because treatment duration is typically shorter than PFS.

Custo-efetividade do esquema com daratumumabe, bortezomibe e dexametasona em comparação com terapias à base de carfilzomibe, elotuzumabe e ixazomibe para o tratamento de mieloma múltiplo recidivado e refratário na perspectiva de um pagador do sistema de saúde suplementar brasileiro / Cost-effectiveness analysis of daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination in comparison to carfilzomib, elotuzumab and ixazomib-based therapies for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma from a Brazilian private payer perspective

Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo é estimar a razão de custo-efetividade incremental da combinação de daratumumabe, bortezomibe e dexametasona (DVd) em comparação com carfilzomibe com dexametasona (Kd); carfilzomibe, lenalidomida e dexametasona (KRd); elotuzumabe, lenalidomida e dexametasona (ERd); e ixazomibe, lenalidomida e dexametasona (IRd) no tratamento do mieloma múltiplo refratário ou recidivado (MMRR) sob a perspectiva de um pagador privado no Brasil. Métodos: Foi utilizado um modelo de transição com três estados, baseado no método de área sob a curva, para simular a trajetória de uma coorte com MMRR: pré-progressão, pós-progressão e morte. Parâmetros clínicos foram obtidos por meio de uma metanálise e os custos incluídos foram aquisição e administração de medicamentos e serviços médicos. O horizonte de tempo adotado foi de 30 anos e descontos de 5% foram aplicados tanto a custos quanto a desfechos de efetividade. Análise de sensibilidade probabilística foi realizada. Resultados: Demonstrou-se que o esquema terapêutico DVd é dominante sobre Kd, KRd, ERd e IRd. DVd gerou 1,09 ano de vida incremental versus Kd com economia de R$ 174.227; 0,15 ano de vida incremental com redução de R$ 238.324 em comparação com KRd; incremento de 0,06 ano de vida com redução de R$ 641.021 comparado com ERd; e 0,59 ano de vida incremental com economia de R$ 254.367 comparado com IRd. A análise de sensibilidade probabilística confirmou a consistência e a robustez do modelo e demonstrou que DVd tem probabilidades de 92,9%, 89,1%, 99,9% e 94,2% de ser custo-efetivo em comparação com Kd, KRd, ERd e IRd, respectivamente, assumindo um limiar de disposição a pagar de 3 PIB per capita. Conclusão: DVd demonstrou ser superior aos comparadores tanto em desfechos clínicos quanto econômicos no tratamento do MMRR, dados a maior sobrevida e os menores custos.

Objective: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd) combination in comparison to carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd); carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd); elotuzumab, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (ERd); and ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRd) for the treatment of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) from a Brazilian private payer perspective. Methods: It was used a three-health state transition model based on the area under the curve method to simulate the cohort trajectory: pre-progression, post-progression, and death. Clinical parameters were obtained in a meta-analysis and considered costs were: drugs acquisition and administration, and medical services. Time-horizon was 30 years, and discount rates applied to costs and outcomes were 5%. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of the uncertainty of the input values. Results: The analysis demonstrated that DVd treatment is dominant over Kd, KRd, ERd, and IRd, providing an increment of 1.09 life year with cost reduction of R$174.227 when compared to Kd, an increment of 0,15 life year with cost reduction of R$238.324 when compared to KRd, an increment of 0,06 life year with cost reduction of R$641.021 when compared to ERd, and an increment of 0,59 life year with cost reduction of R$254.367 when compared to IRd. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of the model and results consistency, demonstrating that DVd has 92.9%, 89.1%, 99.9%, and 94,2% probability of being cost-effective versus Kd, KRd, Erd, and IRd, respectively, when an ICER of 3 per-capita GDP is assumed. Conclusion: DVd combination demonstrated superior clinical and economic outcomes in RRMM patients when compared to Kd, KRd, Erd, and IRd, since the therapy provides longer survival to patients at a lower cost to payers.