Venner, Christopher P.

Introduction: Improvements in outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) depend on the use of regimens approved based on results from large phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy. However, many real-world (RW) patients would not have met the stringent RCTs inclusion criteria. Therefore, the effectiveness of these drugs in the RW setting is unknown. Understanding this efficacy-effectiveness gap is important to contextualize the expected outcomes in the current RW setting. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective population-based study to compare the efficacy versus effectiveness of registration RCTs with RW patients using standard of care (SoC) MM regimens for the primary outcomes of 1) progression free survival [PFS]; 2) overall survival [OS] and 3) serious adverse events (AEs). Methods: RW data was obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, an administrative database capturing all health records in the publicly funded health care system in Ontario, Canada. Adult patients treated between Jan 2007 to Dec 2020 with SoC regimens were included. Only regimens with corresponding registrational phase III RCTs which led to the public reimbursement in Ontario were included (lenalidomide/dex [Rd] and bortezomib/Rd [VRd] for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients, and relapsed MM (RRMM) regimens included carfilzomib/Rd [KRd], carfilzomib/dex [Kd], daratumumab/Rd [DRd], daratumumab/bortezomib/dex [DVd], pomalidomide/dex [Pd]). In the RW cohort, PFS was defined as the time from initiation of index regimen to death, initiation of subsequent MM treatment, or last follow-up, and patients remaining on the index regimen as last follow up were censored. Kaplan-Meier curves from pivotal phase 3 RCTs were manually digitized to provide individual patient-level estimates of PFS and OS. Meta-analyses were performed to compare the gap of PFS and OS outcomes of RW versus RCT patients, and effect estimates were summarized using hazard ratios (HR). The frequency of serious AE data was abstracted from published RCTs. Given that serious AEs in RCTs would have resulted in hospitalization, hospital admission during treatment with the index regimen was used as a surrogate for serious AEs in the RW cohort. Differences in RW and RCT safety outcomes were reported descriptively. Results & Discussion: A total of 3951 RW MM patients, treated with 7 standard of care MM regimens, were included. Baseline characteristics of patients in the RW and RCT cohorts are shown in table 1. Overall, patients in the RW cohort were older than in the RCTs. For relapsed regimens, there was a longer time between MM diagnosis and start of the regimen in the real-world versus RCT. With regards to the efficacy-effectiveness gap, MM patients treated in routine practise in the RW had a worse PFS despite overestimated of RW PFS compared to highly selected RCT patients for 6 of the 7 MM regimens evaluated, with a pooled HR of 1.44 (95% CI 1.34-1.54) in the meta-analysis (Figure 1A). Similarly, RW patients had a worse OS compared to RCT patients treated with 6 of the 7 regimens, with a pooled HR of 1.75 (95% ci 1.63-1.88) in the meta-analysis (Figure 1B). RRMM patients in the RW had higher rates of prior lenalidomide exposure compared to RCT patients. The only regimen which showed a trend towards performing better in the RW as compared to RCTs was Pd. The reason for this is likely multifactorial but perhaps patients included in the MM-003 RCT may have had more refractory MM (given the higher prior immunomodulatory drug exposure and longer time from diagnosis to treatment among Pd RCT patient) compared to RW patients in this study. With regards to safety, the percentage of patients with inpatient hospitalization during treatment in the real-world cohort and reported serious AEs in RCT were comparable (VRD 57% vs not reported [NR]; Rd 64% vs NR; Kd 57% vs 59%; KRd 53% vs 60%; DVd 36% vs NR; DRd 46% vs 49%; Pd 59% vs 61%). Conclusion: This is one the largest population-level studies highlighting the significant efficacy-effectiveness gap between registrational RCTs and RW usage of these regimens, with RW patients experiencing 44% worse PFS and 75% worse OS compared to RCT patients. Our data emphasize the importance of ongoing evaluation of RW data to contextualize effectiveness and toxicity of selected regimens in the clinic, and better inform both clinicians and patients for shared treatment decision making.

AbstractDeeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression‐free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0–4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE‐MM2 receiving ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo‐Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo‐Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo‐Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor‐immunomodulatory drug‐steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

8044 Background: In the phase 3 MAIA study, adding DARA to Rd improved progression-free survival (primary endpoint), overall survival, duration of response, and PROs in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. We report a MAIA subgroup analysis of time to response, duration of response, and PROs. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM received 28-day cycles of Rd (R 25 mg PO on Days 1-21; d 40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW in Cycles 1-2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Secondary endpoints included time to response and duration of response. PROs were measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30, with treatment effects assessed via mixed-effects model with repeated measures. Results: In total, 368 pts were assigned to the D-Rd group and 369 pts to the Rd group; 162 (44%) D-Rd pts and 142 (38%) Rd pts had renal impairment (defined as baseline CrCl ≤60 mL/min). At a 56.2-mo median follow-up, median times to very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and complete response or better (≥CR) were shorter with D-Rd vs Rd in the overall study population and in the subgroups of pts with and without renal impairment (Table). Among pts who achieved ≥CR or partial response or better (≥PR), higher proportions of D-Rd vs Rd pts had not experienced disease progression at 48 mo (Table). Among pts with renal impairment, greater improvements from baseline in pt-reported pain, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting symptom scores were observed with D-Rd vs Rd across most timepoints; a notably greater meaningful reduction in pain symptom score was seen with D-Rd vs Rd as early as Cycle 6 Day 1 (least squares mean change from baseline, −14.9 vs −7.0; P=0.0241). Analyses for additional pt subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: In transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM, D-Rd showed more rapid deep responses as well as more durable responses vs Rd, regardless of renal function. Improvements in pt-reported symptoms were generally greater with D-Rd vs Rd in pts with renal impairment. Our results support the use of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Depth of response is associated with long-term outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM); however, the effect of response kinetics on outcomes in NDMM is variable and less clear. Although some studies have shown that achieving a ≥very good partial response (VGPR) at 4 months (mos) from diagnosis is associated with increased overall survival (Garderet Leukemia 2018), other reports have shown worse outcomes in pts with early vs late responses (Yan Blood Adv 2019). The double-blind, randomized TOURMALINE-MM2 (NCT01850524) trial (Facon Blood 2021) showed a clinical meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with IRd vs pbo-Rd (median 35.3 vs 21.8 mos; hazard ratio, 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P=0.073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 mos, respectively) in NDMM pts. Safety data were consistent with the established toxicity profile of IRd. We evaluated PFS and duration of response (DOR) by depth of best confirmed response and time to best response in TOURMALINE-MM2. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive oral ixazomib 4 mg (n=351) or placebo (n=354) on days 1, 8, and 15, plus oral lenalidomide 25 mg (10 mg if creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min) on days 1-21 and oral dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg in pts aged >75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles. After 18 cycles, treatment was continued without dexamethasone and reduced doses of ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progressive disease (PD)/toxicity. Response assessments were performed every cycle until PD, or every 4 weeks in pts who discontinued treatment prior to PD. PFS and DOR were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups defined by depth of response and in subgroups defined by time to best confirmed response; 'early' and 'late' responses were defined by time to best confirmed response of 0-4 and >4 mos, respectively (additional analyses were performed by time to best confirmed response of 0-6 and >6 mos). Pts in either subgroup could have recorded an initial response prior to their best response. PFS and DOR were evaluated from randomization to progression and time of initial response to progression, respectively. To address potential guarantee-time bias in the PFS analysis, and to eliminate potential bias due to transient responses in DOR analysis, sensitivity analyses were conducted in pts with PFS / DOR of ≥6 mos. Results: Among the 705 pts in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 20% (26% IRd vs 14% placebo-Rd) had a best confirmed response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR, 35% (37 vs 34%) had VGPR, 26% (19 vs 32%) had PR, 10% (9 vs 10%) had stable disease (SD), 3% (1 vs 4%) had PD. 7% (8 vs 6%) of pts were not evaluable. In a pooled analysis of both arms, achieving a deeper response was associated with longer PFS (Figure, A) and DOR (median not reached [NR], 42.8, and 15.0 mos for pts with ≥CR, VGPR, and PR, respectively). In 570 pts with ≥PR (288 IRd; 282 pbo-Rd), 152 (53%) and 136 (47%) in the IRd arm and 143 (51%) and 139 (49%) pts in the pbo-Rd arm were defined as early (0-4 mos) and late (>4 mos) responders, respectively. For early vs late responders, 46% vs 40% were aged ≥75 years, 21% vs 12% had International Staging System stage III MM, and 44% vs 33% had expanded high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Median PFS was prolonged among late vs early responders with IRd (65.7 vs 21.2 mos) and pbo-Rd (62.6 vs 18.2 mos), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs 22.6 mos; pbo-Rd, 64.1 vs 17.2 mos). The PFS sensitivity analysis among pts with PFS of ≥6 mos confirmed the association of late response with improved outcomes; among late vs early responders achieving ≥PR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 23.9 mos with IRd and 62.6 vs 18.4 mos with pbo-Rd (Figure, B), and among late vs early responders achieving ≥VGPR, median PFS was 65.7 vs 35.3 mos with IRd and 64.4 vs 21.7 with pbo-Rd. Conclusions: Achieving a deeper response was associated with prolonged PFS and DOR in NDMM patients in TOURMALINE-MM2. PFS benefit on the ITT analysis was driven by the higher rates of deep responses (≥VGPR) with IRd vs pbo-Rd. PFS and DOR were also longer in pts achieving a late vs early best confirmed response of ≥PR or ≥VGPR. Consistent with results from a similar analysis in relapsed/refractory MM in the TOURMALINE-MM1 trial (Garderet Leukemia 2018), our findings support the continuation of therapy with the aim of achieving a deeper response over time. Additional sensitivity analyses will be presented. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Richardson: Sanofi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Venner: Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Bahlis: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. White: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karlin: Celgene-BMS: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Sanofi: Honoraria; oncopeptide: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board, travel support; Abbvie: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel support and advisory board ; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: member of advisory board. Rigaudeau: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Suzuki: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shibayama: Mundi Pharma: Honoraria; Otsuka: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Nippon Shinyaku: Honoraria; Fujimoto: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Essentia Pharma Japan: Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Avvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Zhang: Takeda: Current Employment. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Twumasi-Ankrah: Takeda: Current Employment. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Rifkin: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Fresenius-Kabi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Coherus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; McKesson: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lonial: AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Moreau: Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Use of the oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for transplant.