Back to Authors

Araujo, C.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8957-4195

Mayo Clinic

Centre Hospitalier de la Côte Basque

Citations 1

PF603 FASTER & SUSTAINED IMPROVEMENT IN HEALTH‐RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN TRANSPLANT‐INELIGIBLE NEWLY DIAGNOSED MULTIPLE MYELOMA PTS TREATED WITH DARATUMUMAB, LENALIDOMIDE & DEXAMETHASONE (D‐RD) VS RD: MAIA
Plesner, Torben , Kumar, Shaji , Chaleteix, Carine, Araujo, C. , Delforge, Michel , Karlin, Lionel, Arnulf, Bertrand , Wang, J., Kobos, Rachel, McKay, Caroline, Gries, Katharine S. , Trudeau, Jeremiah , Hulin, Cyrille , Perrot, Aurore , Facon, Thierry T.F. , Usmani, Saad Z. , Orlowski, Robert Z. , Bahlis, Nizar Jacques , Nahi, Hareth , Mollee, Peter , Ramasamy, Karthik , Roussel, Murielle , Jaccard, Arnaud , Karlin, Lionel , Chari, Ajai , Weisel, Katja C

HemaSphere | June 17, 2019 | Volume: 3 | Issue: S1 | Pages: 255

10.1097/01.hs9.0000560700.97828.31 Get It

Background:MAIA, an ongoing phase 3 trial of transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, demonstrated significant improvement in progression‐free survival with D‐Rd vs Rd alone. Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) alongside efficacy endpoints provides patient perspective on their quality of survival and overall value of health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) while on treatments.Aims:To utilize PRO assessments as a tool in capturing the patient perspective on quality of survival and HRQoL changes in MAIA.Methods:The EORTC QLQ‐C30 and EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaires were completed by patients using an electronic device at baseline and every 3 months during treatment; interim results are presented for first 12 months. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures, mixed effects models and thresholds for clinically meaningful benefit were based on established criterion from the literature.Results:Compliance rates in completing the assessment tools were high and comparable at baseline (>90%) and through month 12 (>80%) for both groups (D‐Rd [n = 368]; Rd [n = 369]). Improvement in Global Health Status (GHS) occurred in both groups; however, for D‐Rd, significantly greater improvement was observed at cycle 3 (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 6.6], Rd: 1.5 [95% CI: −0.7, 3.7]; [p = 0.0454]) and increasing improvement occurred across all time points. Significant improvement and clinically meaningful benefit in HRQoL for D‐Rd was also observed in EQ‐5D‐5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (LS mean change; D‐Rd: 10.1 [95% CI: 8.1, 12.1], Rd: 4.9 [95% CI: 2.8, 7.0]; [p = 0.0002]). The VAS median time to worsening was 10 mo longer for D‐Rd. Of note, meaningful differences were observed between the treatment groups in two subscale scores, pain symptoms and cognitive functioning. Statistically significant less pain was reported early with D‐Rd (LS mean change at cycle 3; D‐Rd: −17.9 [95% CI: −20.7, −15.0], Rd: −11.0 [95% CI: −14.0, −8.1]; [p = 0.0007]); clinically meaningful reduction in pain symptoms was sustained with D‐Rd. There was a decline in cognitive functioning through Cycle 12 in both treatment arms with the peak difference occurring at Cycle 9, but mean differences between groups were not statistically significant.Summary/Conclusion:Faster and sustained improvement in patients treated with D‐Rd was observed using HRQoL assessments compared with Rd, with similar findings reflected across the pain subscale.