Comparative Effectiveness of Teclistamab Versus Real-World Physician's Choice of Therapy in LocoMMotion and MoMMent in Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Teclistamab is the first approved B cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody with precision dosing for the treatment of triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC) in patients from the prospective, non-interventional LocoMMotion and MoMMent studies. METHODS: Patients treated with teclistamab from MajesTEC-1 (N = 165) were compared with an external control arm from LocoMMotion (N = 248) or LocoMMotion + MoMMent pooled (N = 302). Inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted for imbalances in prognostic baseline characteristics. The relative effect of teclistamab versus RWPC for overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate was estimated with an odds ratio using weighted logistic regression transformed into a response-rate ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Weighted proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment cohorts after reweighting. Patients treated with teclistamab had significantly improved outcomes versus RWPC in LocoMMotion: ORR (RR [95% CI], 2.44 [1.79-3.33]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.78 [3.74-8.93]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 113.73 [15.68-825.13]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.39 [0.24-0.64]; p = 0.0002), PFS (HR 0.48 [0.35-0.64]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.64 [0.46-0.88]; p = 0.0055). Teclistamab versus RWPC in LocoMMotion + MoMMent also had significantly improved outcomes: ORR (RR 2.41 [1.80-3.23]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.91 [3.93-8.88]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 132.32 [19.06-918.47]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.43 [0.26-0.71]; p = 0.0011), PFS (HR 0.49 [0.37-0.66]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.69 [0.50-0.95]; p = 0.0247). CONCLUSION: Teclistamab demonstrated significantly improved effectiveness over RWPC in LocoMMotion ± MoMMent, emphasizing its clinical benefit as a highly effective treatment for patients with TCE RRMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MajesTEC-1, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03145181 (phase 1) and NCT04557098 (phase 2); LocoMMotion, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04035226; MoMMent, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05160584.

Teclistamab versus real-world physician's choice of therapy in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Aim: We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC) in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Materials & methods: MajesTEC-1 eligibility criteria were applied to the RWPC cohort. Baseline covariate imbalances were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Overall survival, progression-free survival and time to next treatment were compared. Results: After inverse probability of treatment weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts (teclistamab, n = 165; RWPC, n = 364 [766 observations]). Teclistamab treated patients had numerically better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.59-1.14]; p = 0.233) and significantly greater progression-free survival (HR: 0.43 [0.33-0.56]; p < 0.0001) and time to next treatment (HR: 0.36 [0.27-0.49]; p < 0.0001) versus the RWPC cohort. Conclusion: Teclistamab offered clinical benefit over RWPC in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Comparative Efficacy of Teclistamab Versus Physician's Choice of Therapy in the Long-term Follow-up of APOLLO, POLLUX, CASTOR, and EQUULEUS Clinical Trials in Patients With Triple-class Exposed Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of teclistamab in patients with RRMM who received ≥3 prior lines of therapy and were triple-class exposed (TCE) are being evaluated in the single-arm, multicohort, phase I/II MajesTEC-1 trial (NCT04557098). We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of teclistamab versus physician's choice (PC) of therapy in TCE RRMM patients. METHODS: Individual patient-level data from MajesTEC-1 patients who received teclistamab (1.5 mg/kg weekly; clinical cutoff March 16, 2022) were included. An external control arm was created from patients in long-term follow-up of 4 clinical trials of daratumumab who were treated with PC therapy after discontinuation of trial treatments. In the primary analysis, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for imbalances in 9 baseline covariates. A fully adjusted model included 5 additional prognostic factors. Outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to next treatment (TTNT). RESULTS: After adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts. In the primary analysis, outcomes were significantly improved with teclistamab versus PC: ORR (OR [95% CI] 4.81 [3.04-7.72]; P < .0001); ≥VGPR rate (OR, 12.07 [6.91-22.11]; P < .0001); OS (HR, 0.54 [0.40-0.73]; P < .0001); PFS (HR, 0.59 [0.46-0.78]; P = .0001); and TTNT (HR, 0.32 [0.24-0.42]; P < .0001). Results of the fully adjusted model were consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: Teclistamab showed significantly improved effectiveness versus PC on all outcomes, highlighting its clinical benefit in patients with TCE RRMM and limited treatment options.

Comparative Efficacy of Teclistamab Versus Current Treatments in Real-World Clinical Practice in the Prospective LocoMMotion Study in Patients with Triple-Class-Exposed Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE-RRMM) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, was studied in patients with TCE-RRMM in the single-arm MajesTEC-1 study. To assess the relative effectiveness of teclistamab versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC), adjusted comparisons were performed using individual patient data from MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion, a prospective study of patients with TCE-RRMM. METHODS: An external control arm for MajesTEC-1 was created from patients in LocoMMotion (n = 248; clinical cut-off: November 2, 2021) and compared with treated patients (n = 165) from MajesTEC-1 (teclistamab 1.5 mg/kg weekly; clinical cut-off: March 16, 2022). Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline covariates. For binary endpoints [overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, complete response or better (≥ CR)], relative effect of teclistamab versus RWPC was estimated with an odds ratio and relative response rate and 95% confidence interval (CI), derived from weighted logistic regression. Weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for time-to-event endpoints [duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)]. RESULTS: After weighting, baseline characteristics were balanced across cohorts. In adjusted comparisons, teclistamab-treated patients were 2.3-fold, 5.2-fold and 148.3-fold, more likely to reach ORR [response-rate ratio (RR) = 2.31, 95% CI 1.77-2.85, p < 0.0001], ≥ VGPR (RR = 5.19, 95% CI 3.26-7.12, p < 0.0001) and ≥ CR (RR = 148.25, 95% CI 20.63-1065.40, p < 0.0001), respectively, versus patients receiving RWPC. Following adjustment, DOR (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.54, p < 0.0001) and PFS (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35-0.65, p < 0.0001) were significantly longer with teclistamab versus RWPC. OS was numerically better with teclistamab versus RWPC [HR 0.77 (0.55-1.09), p = 0.1419]. CONCLUSION: Teclistamab demonstrated improved effectiveness versus RWPC, highlighting its clinical benefit as a novel and effective treatment for patients with TCE-RRMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Majest TEC-1, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04557098; LocoMMotion, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04035226.

Results of a Time and Motion Survey Regarding Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Daratumumab in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Daratumumab (DARA) is a humanized anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and approved as monotherapy or in combination with standard of care regimens for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). DARA intravenous (IV) administration is time-consuming; availability of DARA subcutaneous (SC) is expected to reduce this burden. A time and motion survey was undertaken to elicit healthcare providers' (HCPs') understanding of the workflow and time estimates for administration of DARA IV and SC (beyond treatment time) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This web-based, prospective survey collected data from HCPs at sites that actively enrolled patients in the phase 3 COLUMBA trial, a multicenter, noninferiority study of DARA IV versus DARA SC. Data collection included time actively spent on pre-specified drug preparation and drug administration/patient care activities; active HCP and chair time were extrapolated for first and subsequent treatments. RESULTS: Compared with DARA IV, DARA SC reduced median total active HCP time by 63.8% (from 265.9 to 96.3 minutes) and 49.5% (from 179.2 to 90.4 minutes) for first and subsequent treatments, respectively. When extrapolated to the anticipated number of treatments per year (23 in Year 1 and 13 in Year 2, per label), estimated active HCP time per patient was reduced by 50% in Years 1 (from 70.1 to 34.8 hours) and 2 (from 38.8 to 19.6 hours) for DARA SC versus DARA IV. Estimated chair time for DARA SC was decreased by 97% versus DARA IV for first (from 456.9 to 13.3 minutes) and subsequent treatments (from 238.0 to 8.1 minutes). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that DARA SC is associated with less active HCP involvement during drug preparation and drug administration/patient care compared with DARA IV, potentially reducing burdens on patients and caregivers and creating efficiencies for HCPs and healthcare facilities, allowing more patients access to care.

Greater treatment satisfaction in patients receiving daratumumab subcutaneous vs. intravenous for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: COLUMBA clinical trial results.

PURPOSE: The phase III COLUMBA study evaluated daratumumab (DARA) intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we report patient-reported satisfaction with therapy (SWT) in COLUMBA. METHODS: DARA IV or DARA SC was administered weekly (cycles 1-2), every 2 weeks (cycles 3-6), and every 4 weeks (cycles 7 +). Patients completed a modified version of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ) at weekly (cycles 1-2) and monthly (cycles 3 +) intervals and at the end of treatment. Results for each item and the SWT domain score were summarized using descriptive statistics. The distribution of responses for individual items was calculated for each assessment. The proportion of patients for whom SWT domain score change from first assessment met or exceeded the minimally important difference (MID) of 5.9 points was calculated at each assessment time point. RESULTS: Two-hundred fifty-nine patients were randomized to DARA IV and 263 to DARA SC. Mean scores for SWT domain questions were high and largely positive during treatment. Responses indicating positive perceptions of therapy were given by a numerically greater proportion of patients in the DARA SC group than the DARA IV group for most questions. Changes from the first assessment in SWT domain scores met or exceeded the MID for an average of ~ 40% of patients. CONCLUSION: In COLUMBA, modified CTSQ results suggest patients in the DARA SC group were more satisfied with their cancer therapy than those in the DARA IV group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03277105. Registered September 8, 2107.

Frontline treatment patterns and attrition rates by subsequent lines of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: For patients with multiple myeloma (MM), each additional line of therapy (LOT) is associated with lower response rates, shorter treatment duration and treatment-free intervals, and increased rates of toxicities and comorbidities. Here, we examine frontline treatment patterns, and attrition rates by LOT among newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients in the United States who were eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). METHODS: Data were identified from three US patient-level databases collectively covering the period January 2000 to September 2018. Patients had an index diagnosis of MM on or after January 1, 2007, medical and prescription insurance coverage at diagnosis, a 1-year look-back period prior to the index diagnosis, no prior malignancies in the 1-year period before index diagnosis, and had received ≥1 LOT. RESULTS: Among patients who did not receive ASCT (non-transplant; n = 22,062), 12,557 (57%) received only 1 LOT and 9505 (43%) received > 1 LOT. Patients receiving only 1 LOT were significantly older, had higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores, and higher incidences of comorbidities. Among the 2763 patients receiving ASCT, 2184 received > 1 LOT, and 579 (21%) received only 1 LOT (ie, ASCT was the last treatment). 1682 (61%) patients received induction therapy as frontline treatment, of whom 187 (11%) also received consolidation therapy. The latter group was younger than those who received only induction therapy, had lower mean CCI scores, and comparable or lower incidences of selected comorbidities. The most common frontline therapy for non-transplant and transplant-eligible patients was bortezomib/dexamethasone and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, respectively. Attrition rates across all LOTs were high for non-transplant patients (range, 43-57%) and transplant patients (range, 21-37%). Treatment duration decreased by LOT for non-transplant patients and was consistent across LOTs for transplant patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, a substantial proportion of patients with NDMM who received frontline therapy did not appear to receive a subsequent LOT. These high attrition rates underscore the need to use the most optimal treatment regimens upfront rather than reserving them for later LOTs in which the clinical benefit may decrease.

A matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) of daratumumab-bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (D-VMP) versus lenalidomide-dexamethasone continuous (Rd continuous), lenalidomide-dexamethasone 18 months (Rd 18), and melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT).

D-VMP is a novel treatment for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TIE NDMM). D-VMP significantly prolonged PFS versus VMP in the ALCYONE trial. The FIRST trial investigated Rd given in 28-day cycles until disease progression, Rd for 18 cycles, and MPT for 12 cycles for TIE NDMM. As no randomized controlled trials comparing D-VMP to standard-of-care regimens such as those in FIRST are available, an MAIC was performed to assess relative OS and PFS for D-VMP from ALYCONE and Rd continuous, Rd 18, and MPT from FIRST. Individual patient data for D-VMP in ALCYONE were weighted to match aggregated baseline patient characteristics for each arm of FIRST. D-VMP significantly improved OS versus MPT and Rd 18, with a trend favoring D-VMP versus Rd continuous. D-VMP performed significantly better than all FIRST comparators for PFS. This MAIC demonstrates OS and PFS benefits for D-VMP versus Rd continuous, Rd 18, and MPT.

A comparison of the efficacy of immunomodulatory-free regimens in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis.

Treatment history influences the outcomes of subsequent therapies in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and needs to be considered when deciding which treatment to use next. To assess the relative merits of immunomodulatory (IMiD)-free treatments, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials in patients with RRMM. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess various IMiD-free regimens, including bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd)-based treatments, and to explore differences in patient outcomes. The SLR identified 52 articles, from which four trials were ultimately included in the base-case NMA. The NMA showed that daratumumab plus Vd (DVd) provided a significant advantage in prolonging progression-free survival. Similar trends were observed for overall survival and overall response. Across all outcomes, DVd had the highest probability of being the best treatment. These findings suggest that DVd may provide superior clinical outcomes for RRMM patients suitable for IMiD-free regimens.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of Immunomodulatory-containing Regimens in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous network meta-analyses combined studies of immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)-containing and IMiD-free regimens, despite a lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials to robustly link them. However, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with IMiD-containing regimens differ from those treated with IMiD-free regimens, especially relating to treatment history, which is an important treatment-effect modifier requiring clinical consideration when evaluating the most appropriate subsequent treatment options. A need exists to separately assess the efficacy of treatment regimens for patients who are suitable candidates for IMiD-containing and IMiD-free regimens. The presented analyses will enable clinicians to assess the best regimens to use in patients suitable for IMiD-containing regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare IMiD-containing regimens in patients with RRMM. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by previous therapy line, previous bortezomib therapy, and previous lenalidomide therapy. RESULTS: The results indicated that triplet combinations are more effective than doublet combinations. Of the triplet combinations, daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (DRd) was significantly better in improving progression-free survival in patients with RRMM than were other IMiD-containing regimens (lenalidomide, dexamethasone [Rd]: hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; carfilzomib, Rd: HR, 0.54; elotuzumab, Rd: HR, 0.54; ixazomib, Rd: HR, 0.50). Similar trends were observed for overall survival and overall response. DRd showed the greatest probability of being the best treatment for all clinical efficacy outcomes. The subgroup analyses results were consistent with the base-case results. CONCLUSION: In patients with RRMM who are suitable for an IMiD-containing regimen, DRd showed clear advantages in survival and response outcomes compared with other IMiD-containing regimens.