Medhekar, Rohan

Abstract Introduction: DRd is the standard of care for frontline (FL) treatment (tx) of transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). This is supported by its superior efficacy and tolerable safety profile vs lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) and vs bortezomib plus Rd (VRd) per the phase 3 MAIA clinical trial and real-world data. However, based on recent phase 3 CEPHEUS and IMROZ trial data, the tx paradigm is shifting toward the use of quadruplets for suitable TIE patients with NDMM. CEPHEUS demonstrated the superior efficacy of DVRd vs VRd in TIE and transplant-deferred patients with NDMM. DVRd-treated patients achieved significantly higher rates of minimal residual disease negativity and significantly improved progression-free survival vs VRd-treated patients. DVRd is listed as a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Category 1 preferred regimen in this setting and is therefore used in US real-world clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate real-world usage patterns of FL DVRd and FL DRd in nontransplanted patients with NDMM and to assess the characteristics of patients treated with these regimens. Methods:Data from the Flatiron Health Research database were used for this retrospective observational study. Patients were included in this analysis if they received FL tx with DVRd or DRd for NDMM between Jan 1, 2019, and Dec 31, 2024. The index date was defined as the initiation date of FL DVRd or FL DRd. As the Flatiron database does not capture transplant eligibility status, the analysis excluded all patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation at any time during the study period. Patients were also excluded if they were <18 years of age, enrolled in a clinical trial, had presence of other cancers, received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, or were diagnosed with amyloid light-chain amyloidosis before the index date. High cytogenetic risk was defined as the presence of abnormalities including del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16). Descriptive statistics were used to report demographic and clinical characteristics. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate duration of therapy. Results: Among the nontransplanted NDMM cohort, 704 FL DVRd-treated patients and 396 FL DRd-treated patients were identified. At index, FL DVRd patients were generally younger than FL DRd patients (median age, 68 vs 78 years, respectively), more likely to be male (55.3% vs 49.5%), and less likely to have Medicare coverage (8.4% vs 17.2%). The 2 cohorts had similar proportions of Black/African American patients (18.9% and 18.7%). Among patients with available data, high cytogenetic risk was more frequently observed in FL DVRd (29.2%) vs FL DRd (17.5%) patients; a lower proportion of FL DVRd patients had International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease (27.1%) than ISS stage I disease (39.9%), whereas a higher proportion of FL DRd patients had ISS stage III disease (32.9%) than ISS stage I disease (25.5%). FL DVRd patients were more likely to be nonfrail (Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome simplified frailty score <2) vs FL DRd patients (64.6% vs 28.2%). Use of both DVRd and DRd increased during the study period; however, the increase was greater for DVRd, particularly in the later years. Notably, FL DVRd was started in 10 patients in 2019, increasing to 146 in 2022 and 222 in 2024. By comparison, FL DRd was initiated in 17 patients in 2019, increasing to 85 in 2022 and 97 in 2024. Median follow-up was 15.6 mo in the DVRd cohort and 20.3 mo in the DRd cohort. Median duration of DVRd therapy was 18.5 mo (95% CI, 14.8–22.7) and was 23.5 mo (95% CI, 19.0–31.7) for DRd therapy. Bortezomib as part of the DVRd regimen was given once weekly or less frequently in the majority (65.6%) of patients. Conclusions: These real-world data show the increasing FL use of the daratumumab-based quadruplet regimen DVRd among nontransplanted patients with NDMM. FL DVRd patients were generally younger and less frail but more likely to have high cytogenetic risk than those treated with DRd. These data also show that daratumumab-based regimens, either as a triplet (DRd) or a quadruplet (DVRd), are increasingly adopted over time in real-world clinical practice. These data further suggest that DRd and DVRd may be considered foundational for the tx of nontransplanted patients with NDMM regardless of patient characteristics, including age, frailty, cytogenetic risk, and ISS stage.

Background: Daratumumab (DARA) has demonstrated clinical benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) and is approved for the treatment of both newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and relapsed refractory MM (RRMM). While single-center studies have shown the benefit of DARA retreatment in patients (pts) who are refractory to DARA (D-Ref), there is a lack of real-world data on the characteristics of pts who are retreated with DARA across multiple lines of treatment (LOTs). In this study, we examine DARA retreatment patterns and outcomes among pts who are D-Ref and those who are sensitive to DARA (D-Sens) after the first DARA exposure in the US real-world clinical practice. Methods: This study used the Flatiron MM Core Registry data to identify pts with MM treated with a DARA-containing regimen in ≥2 separate LOTs between November 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024. The first DARA-based LOT was defined as D1, and the second DARA-based LOT was defined as the retreatment LOT (D2). The following criteria, developed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, were used to classify pts as Dara-retreated: 1) pts treated with the same DARA-containing regimens in consecutive LOTs were classified as Dara-retreated if there was a gap of >90 days between D1 and D2, 2) pts treated with different DARA-containing regimens in consecutive LOTs were classified as Dara-retreated, 3) pts treated with DARA-containing regimens had ≥1 LOTs between D1 and D2 they were classified as Dara-retreated, regardless of whether the regimens were the same or different. Derived disease progression reported in the Flatiron data was used for this analysis. If disease progression was reported during D1, or within 60 days of discontinuing D1, the pt was considered as D-Ref, otherwise, the pt was considered as D-Sens. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were conducted to evaluate duration of D2, proportion of pts not receiving subsequent treatment after D2, and progression-free survival (PFS) rates during D2. Results: Data for 201 pts retreated with DARA were identified in this analysis, 150 were D-Sens and 51 were D-Ref. In the D-Sens group, the median age at D2 initiation was 71 years, 44.0% of pts were female, 27.3% were ISS stage II and 16.0% were African American. In the D-Ref group, the median age at D2 initiation was 67 years, 45.1% of pts were female, 21.6% were ISS stage II, and 25.5% were African American. At D2 initiation, 64.7% (D-Sens) and 60.8% (D-Ref) of pts were frail, and 56.0% (D-Sens) and 52.9% (D-Ref) of pts had a Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥3, indicating a high burden of comorbidities. About 31% of pts in both groups had high cytogenetic risk abnormalities, and about 20% had a 1q21 gain or amplification. The median time from MM diagnosis to start of D1 and to start of D2 was shorter in the D-Sens group (10.8 and 34.9 months) than in the D-Ref group (18.4 and 44.4 months). D-Sens pts were less likely to receive D1 in the third LOT or later compared to D-Ref pts (30.0% vs 45.1%). The median number of LOTs before D2 was three in both groups. The median gap between D1 and D2 was 9.3 months in D-Sens pts and 9.0 months in D-Ref pts, however, more D-Sens pts received D1 and D2 LOTs consecutively compared to D-Ref pts (62.0% vs 51.0%). The most common regimen used in D1 was DARA + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (dex; 18.7%) and DARA + bortezomib + dex (18.7%) among D-Sens pts, and DARA + pomalidomide + dex (23.5%) among D-Ref pts. The most common regimen used in D2 was DARA mono (31.3%) in D-Sens pts, and DARA mono (17.6%) and DARA + carfilzomib + dex (17.6%) in D-Ref pts. Overall, 32.0% of D-Sens and 35.3% of D-Ref pts received agents from the same drug class in D1 and D2. The KM median duration of D2 was 7.4 months (95% CI: 5.5-9.5) among D-Sens pts and 6.4 months (95% CI: 3.8-23.5) among D-Ref pts. The proportion of pts that had not received subsequent treatment after D2 was 38.7% and 29.5% at 12 months in the D-Sens and D-Ref groups, respectively. PFS rates at 12 months after D2 initiation were 77.1% in the D-Sens group and 49.4% in the D-Ref group. Conclusion: DARA retreatment is utilized frequently and is effective in the real-world, suggesting the ability to use this approach in subsequent LOTs among pts with RRMM. In the absence of other feasible alternatives, this may be a treatment strategy for patient benefit, regardless of whether they are D-Sens or D-Ref. Future studies are needed to definitively investigate the benefit of DARA retreatment in combination with drugs with novel mechanisms of action.

Abstract Background Patients with high-risk, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (HR-NDMM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) have limited first-line treatment options. Recent meta-analyses evaluating the impact of incorporating daratumumab in the backbone regimen on progression-free survival (PFS) have found mixed results in these patients. Materials and Methods A pooled analysis of patient-level data for ASCT-ineligible patients with HR-NDMM [ie, del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16)] from the MAIA and ALCYONE trials; stratified by study identifier and adjusting for cytogenetic abnormality subtype, baseline performance status, International Staging System stage, myeloma type, and renal impairment; was conducted. Impact of daratumumab on PFS and rates of complete response or better (≥CR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR, very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), and overall response (ORR) was compared to control. Results Among 101 patients in the daratumumab and 89 patients in the control cohort, median follow-up was 43.7 months. Daratumumab reduced the risk of progression or death by 41% (adjusted hazard ratio for PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.59 [0.41-0.85]) versus control. At 36 months, the estimated proportion of patients who did not progress and were still alive was 41.3% in the daratumumab and 19.9% in the control cohort. Rates of ≥CR (41.6% vs. 22.5%), MRD-negative CR (24.8% vs. 5.6%), ≥VGPR (75.2% vs. 46.1%), and ORR (92.1% vs. 74.2%) were higher for daratumumab versus control. Conclusion These findings demonstrate that incorporation of daratumumab in frontline treatment regimens reduced the risk of progression or death and improved response rates among ASCT-ineligible HR-NDMM patients.

Introduction Carfilzomib dosing as a single agent or in combination with dexamethasone (Kd) has evolved from the initial 27 mg/m 2 twice-weekly (legacy dose), to more recently approved doses of 56 mg/m 2 twice-weekly and 70 mg/m 2 once-weekly (optimized doses). The objective of this study was to evaluate the overall survival (OS), and time to next treatment (TTNT) among multiple myeloma patients treated with Kd optimized vs legacy doses. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients receiving Kd between 01/01/2013–07/31/2017 was conducted using IQVIA’s oncology electronic medical records database. Kd dose was estimated based on body surface area. OS was measured from the Kd-initiation date until death. TTNT was defined as the time from Kd-initiation until the start of subsequent treatment. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models were used to evaluate OS and TTNT. Results Of the 1,469 patients evaluated, 129 (8.8%) received optimized dose and 1,340 (91.2%) received legacy dose. Risk of mortality was 64% lower for patients receiving the optimized doses (HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.178–0.745). Patients receiving the optimized doses had significantly longer TTNT compared to patients receiving the legacy dose (median TTNT: 17.5 months [95% CI: 14.8-NE] and 13.2 months, [95% CI: 12.4–14.4], respectively; p = 0.023), and 33% lower risk of progressing to the subsequent treatment (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48–0.93). Conclusions Patient outcomes could be improved if eligible MM patients are treated with the optimized, recently approved Kd doses (56 mg/m 2 twice-weekly and 70 mg/m 2 once-weekly).

Introduction: Lenalidomide is increasingly used for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. However, most patients experience relapse during treatment or after prolonged exposure to lenalidomide, therefore, there is an emerging unmet need for new, highly efficacious lenalidomide-sparing regimens at relapse. CANDOR is an ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) that compares the lenalidomide-free KdD regimen with carfilzomib 56mg/m2 twice-weekly with dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Based on the primary analysis, KdD was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to Kd (HR: 0.63, p=0.001).(Dimopoulos et al. 2020 Lancet) Besides the trial-based comparator Kd, DVd is considered as an additional relevant comparator. DVd is the most similar lenalidomide-free triplet regimen comprising a proteasome inhibitor, daratumumab, and dexamethasone. DVd was assessed in the phase 3 CASTOR RCT and demonstrated superior PFS versus 8 cycles (24 weeks) of bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone (Vd) (HR: 0.31, p<0.001).(Weisel et al. 2019 ASH) In the absence of a direct head-to-head trial comparing these treatments and an assessment suggesting that network meta-analysis is not feasible, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used (Signorovitch et al. 2010) to assess the efficacy of KdD relative to DVd. MAIC leverages all available data and compares outcomes across balanced populations. Method: Baseline characteristics and PFS data from the CANDOR and CASTOR trials were used in the analyses. Outcomes were compared in three steps. First, after aligning patient selection criteria of both trials, KdD patients in CANDOR were matched to the average characteristics of DVd patients in CASTOR using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons methodology. The matching variables reflected tumor stage, disease burden, and treatment history, and were generally consistent with validated prognostic markers used in stratifying patients into different risk groups. Second, the published Kaplan-Meier PFS curves for DVd were digitized to generate virtual patient-level data that reconstructed the curves. Third, Cox regression models were fitted to the matched CANDOR data and the reconstructed virtual patient-level CASTOR data to estimate the efficacy of KdD versus DVd. The outcome measure was the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS. Outcomes were also compared for the first 24 weeks and for the period beyond 24 weeks to assess the impact of stopping Vd in DVd after 24 weeks on the HRs. Scenario and subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. Results: KdD patients in the CANDOR trial who were proteasome inhibitor-refractory (n=102) were removed from the data so that the KdD population was aligned with that of DVd in the CASTOR trial. Following the matching procedure, the effective sample size for KdD reduced to 82. In matched populations, PFS at 12 months was 73.1% for KdD and 59.9% for DVd. The MAIC results showed that treatment with KdD decreases the risk of progression or death versus DVd, with an overall HR of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45-0.82). The time-dependent analysis demonstrated similar PFS for the two treatments for the first 24 weeks and a larger benefit for KdD over DVd after 24 weeks. Similar results were obtained in scenario analyses; in bortezomib-exposed patients the overall HR was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.33-0.64). Conclusions: After adjusting for cross-trial differences, KdD was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of progression or death compared with DVd. Although based on an approach in agreement with methods guide, the results are associated with inherent limitations due to the decreased sample size for KdD, and due to known (longer follow-up for DVd, different duration of proteasome inhibition) or unobserved differences in the trials (potential unobserved heterogeneity in patient characteristics). A comparison of overall survival was not considered due to immature data in CANDOR. The results are in line with those of the head-to-head ENDEAVOR trial that directly compared carfilzomib with bortezomib (HR for PFS for Kd vs Vd 0.53; 95% CI: 0.44-0.65) supporting the clinical validity of this study. The present analysis suggests that KdD improves outcomes compared with DVd in patients with RRMM and may provide a rationale for a preferential treatment. Disclosures Weisel: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nooka:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal Fees: Travel/accomodations/expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Terpos:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis pharma SA: Honoraria, Other: travel expenses , Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel expenses , Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Spencer:AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Servier and Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Goldschmidt:Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD): Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; University Hospital Heidelberg, Internal Medicine V and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Mundipharma GmbH: Research Funding. Majer:Amgen (Europe) GmbH: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. DeCosta:Amgen Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Medhekar:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yusuf:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Cellectar: Other; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding.

Aim To compare healthcare resource use and costs between newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients with and without skeletal-related events (SREs). Methods Adults newly diagnosed with MM (1 January 2006 and 30 June 2017) with at least 12 months continuous health coverage prior to diagnosis were identified using the IBM MarketScan administrative claims. To control for baseline differences, NDMM patients with SREs were propensity score matched to NDMM patients without SREs. Outcomes included annual HRU and costs during follow-up along with number and type of SREs (SRE cohort only). Patients with SREs were stratified by number of SREs, and annual SRE-related costs were reported. Student's t test and Chi-squared test were used to compare outcomes. Results Before matching, the 6648 patients in the SRE cohort had more comorbidities, were more likely to have MM treatment, and had higher pre-index healthcare costs than the 7458 patients in the non-SRE cohort. After matching, cohorts of 3432 patients were well balanced on baseline characteristics. Patients with SREs (vs. without SREs) had significantly higher inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy HRU. Patients with SREs had significantly higher mean annual all-cause healthcare costs ($213,361 vs. $94,896, p < 0.001) with hospitalization being the leading driver of increased costs (38.7% of total). Among 6648 patients with SREs, the mean annual SRE-related healthcare costs were $39,603, $45,463, and $50,111 for patients with one, two, and three or more events, respectively. Conclusions NDMM patients with SREs have more than twice the all-cause healthcare costs than matched patients without SREs. Costs increase with the number of SRE events.

e18356 Background: Carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Kd) dosed once weekly at 70 mg/m2 (QW Kd70) was recently approved in the US for treating patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of QW Kd70 vs twice weekly Kd dosed at 27 mg/m2 (BIW Kd27), data from the phase 3 ARROW trial, which directly compared these regimens in patients with 2-3 prior lines of therapy were used. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed for the CE analysis. Time to treatment discontinuation, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were estimated from the ARROW trial. Long-term OS was extrapolated using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry data after matching characteristics of patients in the registry and ARROW trial. Direct costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. Utilities collected in the ARROW trial using the five-level version of the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) were applied to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Uncertainty was explored using sensitivity analyses. Two subgroups of patients refractory to lenalidomide or bortezomib were assessed. Main outcomes were mean life-years (LYs), QALYs, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: For QW Kd70 and BIW Kd27, the model predicted mean LYs of 4.17 and 3.07 years, QALYs of 2.98 and 2.03 years, and mean total lifetime costs of $444,563 and $373,364, respectively. The incremental LYs gain, QALY gain, and incremental costs of QW Kd70 vs BIW Kd27 were estimated to be 1.10 years, 0.95 year, and $71,199, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $64,595 per LY gained and $75,204 per QALY gained. For patients refractory to lenalidomide and bortezomib, similar results were found with ICERs of $79,988 and $76,793, respectively. Conclusions: In line with ARROW trial results, this CE analysis showed that QW Kd70 is expected to provide considerable additional benefit in terms of LYs and QALYs gained compared with BIW Kd27. In the RRMM setting, QW Kd70 is cost-effective with ICERs below accepted willingness to pay thresholds in US and represents an efficient utilization of the health care budget.