Maiese, Eric M.

Abstract Daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (D‐Rd) recently received FDA approval for the treatment of transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The present PEGASUS study compared progression‐free survival (PFS) in patients treated with D‐Rd in the MAIA trial and patients treated with common standard‐of‐care regimens from the Flatiron Health electronic health record‐derived deidentified database, which has data from patients treated primarily at community‐based oncology practices in the United States. Individual‐level patient data from both data sources were used to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of D‐Rd to bortezomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (VRd) and bortezomib‐dexamethasone (Vd); lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (Rd) was the common anchor for the ITC. Hazard ratios (HRs) reflecting direct comparisons of PFS within MAIA (D‐Rd vs Rd) and Flatiron Health (VRd vs Rd; Vd vs Rd) were used to make ITCs for D‐Rd vs VRd and Vd, respectively. After application of MAIA inclusion/exclusion criteria and propensity‐score weighting, the Flatiron Health patients resembled the MAIA trial population on measured baseline characteristics. Based on the direct comparison within MAIA, treatment with D‐Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to Rd (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42, 0.71). Based on the ITCs, D‐Rd was associated with a significantly lower risk of progression or death compared to VRd (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48, 0.98) and Vd (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33, 0.69). In the absence of head‐to‐head trials comparing D‐Rd to VRd or Vd, the present ITC may help inform treatment selection in transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM.

Introduction: Daratumumab, a CD38-directed monoclonal antibody, in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd), recently received FDA approval for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). FDA approval was based on results of the prespecified interim analysis of a pivotal phase III trial (MAIA) in which D-Rd was compared to Rd among patients with NDMM who were ineligible for ASCT. In the MAIA trial, D-Rd significantly reduced the risk of progression or death compared to Rd. However, no trials have compared D-Rd to other standard-of-care (SOC) regimens. The present study compared progression-free survival (PFS) of D-Rd from the MAIA trial database to common SOC regimens from the Flatiron Health EHR Database, a de-identified nationwide US database of records primarily from community-based oncology practices. Methods: Patient-level data were obtained from the MAIA trial and the Flatiron database. Patients in the MAIA trial were enrolled between March 2015 and January 2017. To be included in MAIA, patients had to be deemed ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT due to either age (≥65 years) or presence of comorbidities, have Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤2, creatinine clearance ≥30mL/min, and adequate bone marrow reserve. In the Flatiron Database, patients had to be diagnosed with MM between January 2011 and April 2019, age ≥65 years at initiation of first line treatment (LOT1), could not have received stem cell transplant as part of LOT1, and met MAIA inclusion/exclusion criteria. Regimens received by fewer than 10% of patients in Flatiron were excluded due to sample size and statistical power considerations. Bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRd), bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd), and Rd were the most commonly used regimens in non-transplant NDMM patients, representing 67% of regimens used in this setting. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to address missing data in Flatiron. Eligible Flatiron patients treated with VRd, Vd, or Rd as LOT1 were reweighted to resemble the MAIA trial population on measured baseline characteristics using propensity-score (PS) weighting. An anchored adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was performed to compare D-Rd to VRd and D-Rd to Vd, using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model with Rd as the common anchor across both data sources. The model calculates hazard ratios (HRs) for direct comparisons within MAIA (D-Rd vs Rd) and within Flatiron (VRd vs. Rd, Vd vs. Rd) to estimate the HRs indirectly for D-Rd vs. VRd and D-Rd vs. Vd. Results: After application of MAIA inclusion criteria and PS-reweighting, the Flatiron VRd, Rd, and Vd patients resembled the MAIA trial population on baseline patient demographics and clinical characteristics (Table 1). D-Rd statistically significantly reduced the risk of progression or death compared to Rd (HR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72) based on the direct comparison with D-Rd using the MAIA trial data; D-Rd statistically significantly reduced the risk of progression or death compared to VRd (HR=0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95) and Vd (HR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67) based on the anchored ITC (Figure 1). Sensitivity analyses will be performed and updated analysis using longer follow-up data from the MAIA study will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrated that D-Rd reduced the risk of progression or death compared to other SOCs VRd and Vd for patients with NDMM who are transplant-ineligible. In the absence of head-to-head trials, this type of patient-level analysis provides important information that can help optimize treatment for patients with NDMM who are transplant-ineligible. Disclosures Durie: Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor. Ammann:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lam:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kobos:Janssen: Employment. Maiese:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: With the introduction of the Oncology Care Model, which aims to provide higher quality, more coordinated oncology care at the same or lower cost to Medicare, physician practices are increasingly being held accountable for performance and financial measures.1 Urgent care (emergency room [ER] visits and hospitalizations) is known to contribute a significant proportion of healthcare costs, and while there has been a focus on drug costs, little is known about the utilization or economic impact of urgent care among multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Objective: To identify the primary reasons and economic burden of ER visits and hospitalizations among newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients during first line of therapy (LOT1). Methods: Patients from the Optum Clinformatics Extended DataMart - Date of Death database (Optum DOD) with ≥1 medical or pharmacy claim for an NCCN listed MM treatment from 7/1/11 to 3/31/2018 (index date) were included if they had diagnosis code for MM (ICD9/10 code 203/C90) and ≥6-months continuous enrollment without MM treatment prior to index date. Patients were followed until death, end of eligibility, or end of study (9/30/2018), whichever occurred first. The top 20 most common primary diagnoses (PDx) for ER visits and for hospitalizations were identified separately for patients who received stem cell transplant (SCT) or not (nSCT) during LOT1. Total costs and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs of ER visits and hospitalizations for each PDx were reported. Results: Total 3,099 patients met inclusion criteria, including 2,761 (89.1%) nSCT and 338 (10.9%) SCT patients. nSCT patients were older than SCT patients (median nSCT=72 years vs SCT=62 years, p < 0.0001). The most common treatment regimens among nSCT were bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone (dex) (34%) followed by lenalidomide in combination with dex (27.4%). The most common treatment regimen among SCT were bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dex (46%) followed by bortezomib in combination with chemotherapy (18.3%). Median duration of LOT1 was 5.1 months among all patients, with median 11.2 months among SCT vs 4.5 months among nSCT, p < 0.0001). Among all patients, (Table 1) there was a total of 1,645 ER visits and 3,385 hospitalizations with a total cost of $3,729,208 and $56,751,758, respectively, and a PPPM cost of $146 and $2,220 for ER visits and hospitalizations, respectively. Among nSCT, there were 1,339 (81% of the total) ER visits and 2,776 (82% of the total) hospitalizations with a total cost of $3,063,727 and $39,763,095, respectively, and a PPPM cost of $151 and $1,955 for ER visits and hospitalizations, respectively. Among SCT, there were 306 (19% of the total) ER visits and 609 (18% of the total) hospitalizations, with a total cost of $665,481 and $16,988,663, respectively, and a PPPM cost of $127 and $3,253 for ER visits and hospitalizations, respectively. The most common PDx for hospitalizations among the entire cohort was 'MM, without mention of having achieved remission' with 769 hospitalizations for a total cost of $19,299,593 and a PPPM cost of $7,112. This same PDx was the most common among nSCT with 449 (58%) hospitalizations for a total cost of $7,551,282 and a PPPM cost of $9,292; as well as for SCT with 320 (42%) hospitalizations for a total cost of $11,748,760 and a PPPM cost of $4,435. This was also the most common PDx for ER visits among nSCT and SCT. For hospitalizations, the second most common PDx among the entire cohort and among nSCT was 'shortness of breath' while for SCT it was 'administration of antineoplastic chemotherapy'. The second most common PDx overall and for nSCT for ER visits was 'chest pain' and for SCT patients was 'musculoskeletal dysfunction (Segmental and somatic dysfunction of cervical region)'. Conclusions: In this analysis, NDMM patients experienced frequent ER visits and hospitalizations over a median of ~5 months for a total cost of more than $60 million, with most of the cost among nSCT patients. The most common PDx was related to MM. Even though some hospitalizations for the SCT patients may have been for the SCT procedure itself, the economic burden of urgent care for MM patients remains very high. Additional research to assess the impact of newer treatments on urgent care visits among NDMM, identify patients at high risk of urgent care visits may provide insight into the potential for developing cost-saving interventions to reduce the utilization of urgent care. Disclosures Maiese: Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhu:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Other: contractor for Janssen. Wu:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ailawadhi:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Background:It has been well documented that each additional line of treatment is associated with lower rates of deeper responses, shorter duration of treatment, and increased rates of toxicities/comorbidities in patients with multiple myeloma (MM; Yong K, et al. Br J Haematol 2016. 175[2]:252–264). These factors contribute to treatment discontinuation and impact the proportion of patients reaching subsequent lines of therapy.Aims:To characterize the rate of therapy attrition at relapse for patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) who are transplant eligible in the United States.Methods:Patients with NDMM were identified from 3 US patient‐level data sources: the OPTUM™ Commercial Claims database (period: January 2000–March 2017), the OPTUM™ Electronic Medical Records (EMR) database (period: January 2007–March 2016), and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)‐Medicare Linked database (period: January 2007–December 2014). Patients had 1) an index MM diagnosis on or after 1 January 2007, 2) medical prescription coverage in place at diagnosis, 3) no prior malignancies in the one‐year period prior to index diagnosis, 4) a one‐year look‐back period prior to index diagnosis, and 5) received ≥1 lines of therapy. Patients were considered transplant eligible if they received stem cell transplantation anytime during the follow‐up period. Baseline characteristics including comorbidities, index age, frontline treatment regimens and attrition rates at each subsequent line of therapy were characterized. Attrition was defined as the percentage of patients who did not have any recorded subsequent MM treatments as a result of death or lost to follow‐up in the database for any reason, including end of the database.Results:A total of 1,599 patients were included in this analysis. Baseline patient characteristics and pre‐existing comorbidities are summarized in Table 1. The induction regimens used as frontline treatments included bortezomib/dexamethasone (22%), lenalidomide/dexamethasone (13%), bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (25%), all other bortezomib combinations (20%), and other (20%). The proportions of patients observed to progress to each subsequent line of therapy are summarized in Table 2. In total, 77% of patients received a second line of therapy, and only 55% received a third line treatment. The proportion of patients not receiving a subsequent line of therapy due to death is also summarized by lines of therapy in Table 2.Summary/Conclusion:A substantial number of patients with NDMM who are transplant eligible did not receive subsequent lines of therapy, with attrition by lines of therapy ranging from 23–40%. The increase in attrition rates with each additional line of therapy underscores the need to utilize upfront therapy associated with optimal progression‐free survival. Further studies evaluating the etiologic basis for this unexpectedly high attrition rate are warranted.image