Real-world treatment patterns in patients initiating third-line therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain.

OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively analyze real-world treatment patterns in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who initiated third-line treatment in Europe. METHODS: German and Italian administrative claims data were sourced from the German AOK PLUS health insurance fund and Italian local health units (2016-2020). Data for the United Kingdom (UK), France, and Spain were sourced from medical chart reviews (MCRs) from 2016 to 2018 (historical) and 2019 to 2021 (new) using electronic case report forms. RESULTS: Across all countries, immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD)-based regimens were prominent in the third-line setting. From 2016 to 2020, lenalidomide-dexamethasone was most common in Italy (18.0%) and Germany (12.7%). From 2019 to 2021, the most common regimen was ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (67.5%) in the UK, pomalidomide-dexamethasone (17.1%) in France, and daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (15.0%) in Spain. In the historical data (2016-2018), third-line lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-dexamethasone doublet use across the UK (>47%), France (>46%), and Spain (>33%) was high. From historical to new, triplet use increased in Spain (>19% to >60%) as did anti-CD38 agent use in France (15.1% to 51.9%) and Spain (19.7% to 42.1%). CONCLUSIONS: From 2016 to 2021, third-line regimens were mostly IMiD based. The MCR data demonstrated evolving treatment choices from 2016 to 2018 and 2019 to 2021, providing insights into uptake of novel agents and current RRMM European clinical practice.

Treatment preferences of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, and Spain: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Introduction: Newer treatment options for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with efficacy and safety profiles that differ from traditional therapies have facilitated personalized management strategies to optimize patient outcomes. In the context of such personalized management, understanding how treatment characteristics influence patients' preferences is essential. This study assessed patients' preferences for RRMM treatment attributes and determined trade-offs between potential benefits, administration procedures, and adverse effects. Methods: Patients' preferences were evaluated using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Patients with RRMM who reported failing two lines of anti-myeloma treatment (immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor [PI]) or ≥ 3 lines (including ≥1 PI, immunomodulatory agent, or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody), were recruited across the US, UK, Italy, Germany, France, and Spain. DCE attributes and levels were identified using a targeted literature review, a review of clinical data for relevant RRMM treatments, qualitative patient interviews, and input from clinical and myeloma patient experts. The DCE was administered within an online survey from February-June 2022. Preference data were analyzed using an error-component logit model and willingness to make trade-offs for potential benefits, and relative attribute importance scores were calculated. Results: Overall, 296 patients from the US (n = 100), UK (n = 49), Italy (n = 45), Germany (n = 43), France (n = 39), and Spain (n = 20) participated in the DCE. Mean (standard deviation) age was 63.8 (8.0) years, 84% had a caregiver, and patients had a median of 3 (range: 2-8) prior lines of therapy. Efficacy attributes most influenced patients' preferences, with increasing overall response rate (25-85%) and overall survival (6 months to 2 years) contributing to ~50% of treatment decision-making. Administration procedures were also considered important to patients. Avoiding individual side effects was considered relatively less important, with patients willing to tolerate increases in side effects for gains in efficacy. Patient characteristics such as rate of disease progression, sociodemographics, or clinical characteristics also influenced treatment preferences. Conclusion: Patients with RRMM were willing to tolerate increased risk of side effects for higher efficacy. Preferences and risk tolerance varied between patients, with preference patterns differing by certain patient characteristics. This highlights the importance of shared decision-making for optimal treatment selection and patient outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of single-agent belantamab mafodotin versus pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-3): a phase 3, open-label, randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma remains incurable, and heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory disease have few good treatment options. Belantamab mafodotin showed promising results in a phase 2 study of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma at second or later relapse and a manageable adverse event profile. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of belantamab mafodotin in a phase 3 setting. METHODS: In the DREAMM-3 open-label phase 3 study, conducted at 108 sites across 18 countries, adult patients were enrolled who had confirmed multiple myeloma (International Myeloma Working Group criteria), ECOG performance status of 0-2, had received two or more previous lines of therapy, including two or more consecutive cycles of both lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor, and progressed on, or within, 60 days of completion of the previous treatment. Participants were randomly allocated using a central interactive response technology system (2:1) to receive belantamab mafodotin 2·5 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days, or oral pomalidomide 4·0 mg daily (days 1-21) and dexamethasone 40·0 mg (20·0 mg if >75 years) weekly in a 28-day cycle. Randomisation was stratified by previous anti-CD38 therapy, International Staging System stage, and number of previous therapies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients who were randomly allocated. The safety population included all randomly allocated patients who received one or more doses of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04162210, and is ongoing. Data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 12, 2022. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between April 2, 2020, and April 18, 2022. As of September, 2022, 325 patients were randomly allocated (218 to the belantamab mafodotin group and 107 to the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group); 184 (57%) of 325 were male and 141 (43%) of 325 were female, 246 (78%) of 316 were White. Median age was 68 years (IQR 60-74). Median follow-up was 11·5 months (5·5-17·6) for belantamab mafodotin and 10·8 months (5·6-17·1) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median progression-free survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 6·4-14·5) for belantamab mafodotin and 7·0 months (4·6-10·6) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone (hazard ratio 1·03 [0·72-1·47]; p=0·56). Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (49 [23%] of 217) and anaemia (35 [16%]) for belantamab mafodotin, and neutropenia (34 [33%] of 102) and anaemia (18[18%]) for pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Serious adverse events occurred in 94 (43%) of 217 and 40 (39%) of 102 patients, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in the belantamab mafodotin group and one (1%) in the pomalidomide-dexamethasone group due to sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Belantamab mafodotin was not associated with statistically improved progression-free survival compared with standard-of-care, but there were no new safety signals associated with its use. Belantamab mafodotin is being tested in combination regimens for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: GSK (study number 207495).

Treatment Patterns and Sequencing in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

PURPOSE: Treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn disease (CD) have increased considerably in recent years with the advent of new biologics, but little is known about treatment pathways in clinical practice. We aimed to characterize treatment patterns and sequences in patients with UC or CD newly initiated on a biologic or an immunosuppressant (IMS). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used US health insurance claims data dated from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013, from patients with UC or CD newly initiated on a biologic or an IMS. Treatment patterns and sequences were described during a 24-month follow-up period. FINDINGS: Among 5543 patients with UC and 7561 patients with CD, 2403 and 4677 patients, respectively, were initiated on a biologic; 3140 and 2884 patients were initiated on an IMS. In patients initiated on a biologic, monotherapy was chosen in 71% for UC (primarily infliximab [68%]) and in 79% for CD (primarily adalimumab [52%]). Approximately one third of patients remained on the first-line biologic during the follow-up period; 69% (UC) and 70% (CD) of patients were initiated on a second-line therapy, among whom 25% (UC) and 39% (CD) received a different biologic monotherapy, suggesting intolerance, inadequate response, or loss of response to first-line therapy. In patients initiated on an IMS, 58% (UC) and 66% (CD) were initiated on monotherapy; combination therapy with a corticosteroid was prescribed in 41% (UC) and 30% (CD) of patients; and second-line therapy was initiated in 72% (UC) and 75% (CD) of patients. IMPLICATIONS: While current treatment options seem effective in a proportion of patients with UC and CD, others require multiple lines of therapy, suggesting anunmet need for alternative treatments in UC and CD to achieve disease control.