RESUMEN
Elranatamab efficacy in the single-arm, registrational MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359) was compared with that of physician's choice of treatment (PCT) for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma. MagnestisMM-3 eligibility criteria were applied to two USA-based oncology electronic health record databases, COTA and Flatiron Health (FH), to identify cohorts for this study (NCT05932290). Applied statistical techniques accounted for cohort imbalances. MagnetisMM-3 (BCMA-naive; n = 123) outcomes were compared with those from COTA (n = 239) and FH (n = 152). Elranatamab was associated with a significantly higher objective response rate (risk ratios, 1.88-2.25), significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs], 0.37-0.57), and, across most analyses, significantly longer overall survival (HRs, 0.46-0.66) versus PCT. BCMA-naive patients who were treated with elranatamab exhibited significantly better outcomes than patients treated in real-world clinical practice.
Elranatamab is a new medicine for the treatment of people with multiple myeloma. In the ongoing clinical trial MagnetisMM-3, most people had fewer myeloma cells when treated with elranatamab. However, MagnetisMM-3 only looks at the effects of elranatamab without comparing it to other myeloma treatments. Therefore, a new study was designed to compare the effectiveness of elranatamab in the MagnetisMM-3 study with other treatments used in real-world clinical practice (not in a clinical trial). Data from people in MagnetisMM-3 was compared with data from two US databases (COTA and Flatiron Health) containing health records of patients treated for multiple myeloma in real-life clinical practice. The same criteria used to select patients for the MagnetisMM-3 trial (123 people) were used to identify people with similar characteristics in COTA (239 people) and Flatiron Health (152 people). More people treated with elranatamab had fewer myeloma cells in their bodies after treatment than people who received their doctor's choice of treatment in clinical practice. In fact, six out of ten people treated with elranatamab had fewer myeloma cells versus about three in ten people from each real-world database. People treated with elranatamab versus physician's choice of treatment lived longer without their disease getting worse and lived longer overall. In conclusion, this study found that more people treated with elranatamab responded to treatment and lived longer than similar people from the COTA and Flatiron Health databases who were given treatments available in a real-world clinical setting.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05932290 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
Asunto(s)
Mieloma Múltiple , Humanos , Mieloma Múltiple/tratamiento farmacológico , Mieloma Múltiple/mortalidad , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Resultado del Tratamiento , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Resistencia a Antineoplásicos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , AdultoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite advances, most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) experience relapse and repeat multiple treatment lines, highlighting an unmet need for patients with relapsed or refractory MM (RRMM). Bispecific antibodies are a new option, but their efficacy and safety in Japanese patients are unknown. METHODS: This was an analysis of Japanese patients receiving elranatamab monotherapy in MagnetisMM-2 (NCT04798586) and MagnetisMM-3 (NCT04649359). Both studies evaluated a priming dose regimen of elranatamab followed by weekly subcutaneous doses, in patients with disease progression while receiving or who were intolerant to ≥3 prior therapies (≥1 proteasome inhibitor, ≥1 immunomodulatory drug and ≥1 anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody). The primary endpoints were dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) in MagnetisMM-2 and confirmed objective response rate (ORR) in MagnetisMM-3. In both, key secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, duration of response, time to response, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: In MagnetisMM-2 (N = 4) and MagnetisMM-3 (n = 12), median ages were 68.5 and 66.5 years, respectively. No DLTs were observed in MagnetisMM-2. ORRs were 50.0% (95% CI, 6.8-93.2) and 58.3% (95% CI, 27.7-84.8) in MagnetisMM-2 and MagnetisMM-3, respectively. All patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in MagnetisMM-2 (grade 3/4: 75.0%) and MagnetisMM-3 (grade 3/4: 100%); cytokine release syndrome occurred in 100% (grade 3/4: 25.0%) and 58.3% (no grade 3/4) of patients, respectively. Neither study reported immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: No new safety signals were observed, and ORRs were similar to that of the overall MagnetisMM-3 trial population, supporting further studies of elranatamab in Japanese patients with RRMM. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04798586 (MagnetisMM-2), NCT04649359 (MagnetisMM-3).
RESUMEN
Objective: Patients with triple-class refractory (TCR) multiple myeloma (MM) have limited treatment options and poor prognoses. This high unmet need has prompted the development of new therapies allowing for improved outcomes for these patients. Recently, new targeted therapies for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MM have been approved based on single-arm clinical trial results. Real-world (RW) data enable a better understanding of the effectiveness of new therapies in clinical practice and provide external controls for single-arm studies. However, using RW data to identify patients with TCR MM is challenging and subject to limitations. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study of an analysis of the COTA electronic health record (EHR) database, we used four algorithms to define refractory status and created four groups of patients with TCR MM initiating post-TCR therapy. Each algorithm relied on slightly different criteria to identify TCR patients, but all were based on the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG)-derived and/or healthcare provider (HCP)-reported progressions within the database. Results: A total of 3815 patients with newly diagnosed MM met the eligibility criteria for this study. The choice of the algorithm did not impact the characteristics of identified patients with TCR MM (Algorithm 1 [n = 404], Algorithm 2 [n = 123], Algorithm 3 [n = 404], and Algorithm 4 [n = 375]), including their demographic and disease characteristics, MM treatment history, or treatment patterns received after becoming TCR. However, identifying TCR MM using a combination of IMWG-derived and HCP-reported progressions allowed up to a 70% increase in the size of the identified group of patients compared with using only IMWG-derived progressions. Conclusion: In RW settings, progressions from both IMWG-derived data and physician reports may be used to identify patients with TCR MM.
Asunto(s)
Algoritmos , Mieloma Múltiple , Humanos , Mieloma Múltiple/tratamiento farmacológico , Mieloma Múltiple/diagnóstico , Mieloma Múltiple/terapia , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Registros Electrónicos de Salud , Resistencia a Antineoplásicos , AdultoRESUMEN
Once-weekly carfilzomib at 56 mg/m2 plus immunomodulatory drugs and dexamethasone has shown efficacy and tolerability treating early relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The phase 2 SELECT study (NCT04191616) evaluated efficacy/safety of weekly carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (KPd) in early RRMM patients refractory to lenalidomide. All 52 treated patients were refractory to prior treatment, and 19 (37%) were triple-class refractory. Overall response rate (ORR; primary endpoint) was 58% (35% ≥ very good partial response, 6% ≥ complete response); median response duration was 20.3 months. Minimal residual disease negativity (10-5) was achieved in 10% of patients. Median progression-free survival was 11.1 months; median overall survival was 18.8 months. Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with the known safety profile including grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs reported in 67% of patients. Although the primary endpoint of ORR was not met, KPd showed meaningful clinical benefits in lenalidomide-refractory RRMM patients, including those who were daratumumab-refractory and/or triple-class refractory.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Dexametasona , Mieloma Múltiple , Oligopéptidos , Talidomida , Humanos , Mieloma Múltiple/tratamiento farmacológico , Mieloma Múltiple/mortalidad , Mieloma Múltiple/patología , Talidomida/análogos & derivados , Talidomida/administración & dosificación , Talidomida/efectos adversos , Talidomida/uso terapéutico , Oligopéptidos/administración & dosificación , Oligopéptidos/efectos adversos , Oligopéptidos/uso terapéutico , Dexametasona/administración & dosificación , Dexametasona/efectos adversos , Dexametasona/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Femenino , Anciano , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Resultado del Tratamiento , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/tratamiento farmacológico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/patología , Adulto , Resistencia a Antineoplásicos , RecurrenciaRESUMEN
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.