A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of elranatamab versus teclistamab in patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma.

For patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE/RMM), where effective treatments options are limited, B-cell maturation antigen and CD3-directed bispecific antibodies offer a promising new approach. Teclistamab gained conditional approval in Europe and accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval based on the MajesTEC-1 trial (NCT03145181). Elranatamab, approved by the FDA demonstrated its safety and efficacy in the MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359). Given the absence of head-to-head trials, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess their relative efficacy. Key baseline characteristics were adjusted to be comparable between the two trials. In the MAIC, elranatamab demonstrated significantly better objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) than teclistamab, and numerically better complete response, duration of response, and overall survival (OS). These results suggest that elranatamab is an efficacious option for treating patients with TCE/R MM.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of elranatamab versus physician's choice of treatment in patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE/R MM), prognosis is poor and effective treatment options are limited. Elranatamab is a novel B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)- and CD3-directed bispecific antibody which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in August 2023 and demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with TCE/R MM in the phase 2, single-arm MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359). To compare the effectiveness of elranatamab vs physician's choice of treatment (PCT) in the absence of head-to-head comparative data, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted. METHODS: Individual patient data from MagnetisMM-3 (Cohort A [BCMA-naïve] N = 123, 14.7 months of follow-up) were reweighted to match published summary data from two real-world studies of PCT in patients with TCE/R MM (LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH) using a propensity score-type logistic regression. Unanchored MAIC analyses were conducted according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit (DSU) 18 guidance. RESULTS: Compared with PCT in LocoMMotion, elranatamab was associated with a significantly higher objective response rate (ORR rate difference: 37.52; 95% CI 26.20-48.83; odds ratio: 4.85; 95% CI 2.85-8.23) and complete or stringent complete response rate (≥CR rate difference: 42.29; 95% CI 31.84-52.74; odds ratio: 184.01; 95% CI 24.66-1372.86), longer progression-free survival (PFS HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.20-0.49), and overall survival (OS HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.94). Compared with PCT in MAMMOTH, elranatamab was associated with significantly higher ORR (rate difference: 28.14; 95% CI 16.77-39.52; odds ratio: 3.24; 95% CI 1.98-5.32) and ≥ CR (rate difference: 26.22; 95% CI 16.40-36.05; odds ratio: 5.48; 95% CI 2.88-10.44), as well as longer PFS (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.17-0.37) and OS (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.33-0.71). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: In the MAIC, elranatamab was consistently associated with improved rates and depth of response and significantly longer PFS and OS versus PCT in LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH.