Rodríguez‐Otero, Paula

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) often receive immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs; eg, lenalidomide), proteasome inhibitors (eg, bortezomib), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as part of their initial treatment. However, most pts relapse following initial treatment, with increasing attrition rates observed at each subsequent line of therapy (LOT), creating an unmet need for treatment options for pts with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) who have prior exposure to these agents. Current regimens for pts who have prior exposure to lenalidomide and anti-CD38 mAbs include elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (EPd; approved in Europe and the US) and pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd; approved in Europe and Australia), but disease control, as well as depth and durability of response, could be improved. Talquetamab (tal) and teclistamab (tec), targeting CD3 and either G protein-coupled receptor family C group 5 member D (GPRC5D, tal) or B-cell maturation antigen (tec), are the first T-cell redirecting bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved as monotherapies in Europe and the US for the treatment of pts with triple-class exposed (TCE) RRMM. Use of these novel immunotherapies in earlier LOTs, either with a dual-antigen targeting approach or by enhancing the activity of the BsAb with an IMiD (pomalidomide), may provide deeper, more durable responses and improve pt quality of life. Preliminary data using these combination treatments have shown promising results: in the phase 1b MonumenTAL-2 study (NCT05050097), tal+pomalidomide (tal-P) demonstrated overall response rates (ORRs) of >84% in pts with RRMM with ≥2 prior LOTs and in the phase 1b/2 RedirecTT-1 study (NCT04586426), tal+tec (tal-tec) showed ORRs of >77% in pts with TCE RRMM. MonumenTAL-6 (NCT06208150) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy of tal-P vs investigator's choice of EPd or PVd and tal-tec vs investigator's choice of EPd or PVd in pts with RRMM with 1-4 prior LOTs, including lenalidomide and an anti-CD38 mAb. Study Design and Methods: Eligibility includes pts aged ≥18 years with documented MM per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria, with measurable disease at screening, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who have received 1-4 prior LOTs (including lenalidomide and an anti-CD38 mAb in any prior LOT), and have progressive disease on or after their last therapy. Pts with prior exposure to pomalidomide, tec, or GPRC5D-directed therapies are excluded. Approximately 795 pts are randomized 1:1:1 to receive tal-P, tal-tec, or investigator's choice of EPd or PVd. Tal is administered subcutaneously at 0.8 mg/kg every other week (Q2W), and tec is administered subcutaneously at 3.0 mg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) following step-up doses of each. Pts are permitted to switch from Q2W to Q4W tal dosing following a confirmed very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) at cycle 5. Pomalidomide, EPd, and PVd are administered per approved dosing schedules. Randomization is stratified by number of prior LOTs (1 vs ≥2), International Staging System stage at screening (I vs II/III), and investigator's choice of treatment (EPd vs PVd). Pts receive study treatment until disease progression, start of subsequent anti-MM treatment, death, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or end of study, whichever occurs first. A finite dosing approach is employed for tal and tec. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include ORR assessed per IMWG 2016 criteria, ≥VGPR rate, complete response (CR) or better rate, rate of minimal residual disease-negative CR, overall survival, PFS on next LOT, time-to-next treatment, and pt-reported outcomes. This study is actively recruiting, with more than 160 locations in 26 countries. Results will provide insights into the efficacy of the combination of BsAbs in therapeutic strategies that exploit their different mechanisms of action to overcome treatment resistance and improve outcomes of pts with TCE RRMM in earlier LOTs.

Background: SAR442257 (SAR'257) is a trispecific antibody that targets CD38, CD3 and CD28. Simultaneous CD3 and CD28 binding triggers T cell co-signaling, and additional CD38 recognition directs the T cells to CD38+ cancer cells such as multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). This is a first-in-human phase 1 study investigating the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of SAR'257 in patients (pts) with refractory and relapsed (rr) MM and rrNHL. Methods: This is a multicenter, international, open-label, dose-escalation study (NCT04401020) of SAR'257 in pts with rrMM refractory to standard-of-care (SOC) options, including anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, and in pts rrNHL without any SOC options. SAR'257 was administered intravenously with lead-in doses (Day 1−5) in the first week, followed by twice weekly (BIW) or once weekly (QW) dosing; 11 target dose levels (TDLs) in pts with rrMM (9 TDLs: 0.06-11 µg/kg BIW; 2 TDLs: 18-27 µg/kg QW), and 2 TDLs in pts with rrNHL (2 µg/kg BIW and 4 µg/kg QW). Results: As of February 19, 2024, 47 pts (rrMM, n=40; rrNHL, n=7) received SAR'257. The median ages (years) were 64 (rrMM; range: 40−84) and 70 (rrNHL; range: 18−75). The median number of prior lines was 5 (range: 3−12) for rrMM and 5 (range: 2−7) for rrNHL cohort. In rrMM cohort, all (100%) pts had prior exposure to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (MAb) and were refractory to anti-CD38 and in rrNHL cohort all were anti-CD38 naïve. The median time from last anti-CD38 dose was 2.7 (range: 1−65) months for rrMM cohort. Safety analysis revealed that 68% (n=32) pts had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 26 pts in rrMM and 6 pts in rrNHL); 21.3% pts (n=10) Grade (G) ≥3 TEAEs (7 in rrMM and 3 in rrNHL). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common TEAE, occurring in 52.5% of rrMM pts across all TDLs (n=21; G≥3 in 1 pt from 11 µg/kg BIW TDL) and in 57.1% of rrNHL pts (n=4; no G≥3) at the two TDLs tested. Repetitive CRS episodes (>1 episode) were more frequent at higher TDLs. Infusion-related reactions (IRRs; any G) were observed in 22.5% pts with rrMM (n=9; no G≥3) and in 28.5% pts with rrNHL (n=2; G≥3 in 1 pt). Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection/reactivation was reported in 17.5% (n=7; G≥3 in 4 pts) and 28.6% (n=2; no G≥3) pts with rrMM and rrNHL respectively. Further, 15% (n=6, G≥3 in 2 pts) from rrMM and 14.3% (n=1; G2 CMV reactivation) pts from rrNHL cohort reported cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/reactivation. One case of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was reported (G4) in the rrNHL cohort. Four dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in the rrMM cohort [1 at 4 µg/kg BIW (G3 hepatotoxicity); 1 at 11 µg/kg BIW (G5 CRS−EBV reactivation; and 2 at 27 µg/kg QW (G3 CMV infection reactivation and G3 febrile neutropenia in same pt)]. Three DLTs were observed in the rrNHL cohort (2 at 2 µg/kg BIW [G4 neutropenia and G4 thrombocytopenia; same pt] and 1 at 4 µg/kg QW [ICANS G4]). For pts with rrMM, the maximum plasma concentration of SAR'257 reached within or above the theoretical efficacious range (0.1−1nM; extrapolated from ex vivo models), starting at 8 µg/kg BIW and 18 µg/kg QW in the first treatment cycle. As of July 08, 2024, the overall response rate (ORR), defined as partial response (PR) or better, was 5% (n=2) in the rrMM cohort: 1 pt exhibited stringent complete response (duration of response [DOR]=8.1 months, on-going) and 1 showed a complete response (CR) at 27 µg/kg QW TDL. In rrNHL cohort, the ORR was 14.3%, 1 pt achieved PR (DOR=7.1 months) at 2 µg/kg BIW TDL. The disease control rate (stable disease or better for >8 weeks) was 60% (n=24) and 28.6% (n=2) in the rrMM and rrNHL cohorts respectively. For both cohorts exploratory biomarker analysis revealed that: (1) SAR'257 treatment activated peripheral blood T cells and reduced regulatory T cell numbers and CD4/CD8 ratio; (2) CD38 expression on plasma cells positively corelated with time since the last anti-CD38 MAb dose; (3) Among the pts experiencing CRS, the peak values of cytokines (Interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and C-reactive protein) were significantly higher during the first cycle in comparison to subsequent cycles. Conclusion: This Phase 1 study of SAR'257 showed an anti-tumor response in a small number of pts from the rrMM and rrNHL cohorts. Due to safety concerns, in particular high rates of EBV and CMV reactivation and recurrent episodes of CRS in the higher dose levels, the study was terminated during dose escalation.

Abstract Outcomes are poor in triple-class–exposed (TCE) relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM). In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE R/RMM and 2 to 4 prior regimens were randomized 2:1 to idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or standard regimens (SRs). An interim analysis (IA) demonstrated significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point; 13.3 vs 4.4 months; P < .0001) and higher overall response rate (ORR) with ide-cel vs SRs. At final PFS analysis (median follow-up, 30.9 months), ide-cel further improved median PFS vs SRs (13.8 vs 4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.63). PFS benefit with ide-cel vs SRs was observed regardless of number of prior lines of therapy, with greatest benefit after 2 prior lines (16.2 vs 4.8 months, respectively). ORR benefit was maintained with ide-cel vs SRs (71% vs 42%; complete response, 44% vs 5%). Patient-centric design allowed crossover from SRs (56%) to ide-cel upon progressive disease, confounding overall survival (OS) interpretation. At IA of OS, median was 41.4 (95% CI, 30.9 to not reached [NR]) vs 37.9 (95% CI, 23.4 to NR) months with ide-cel and SRs, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.40); median OS in both arms was longer than historical data (9-22 months). Two prespecified analyses adjusting for crossover showed OS favoring ide-cel. This trial highlighted the importance of individualized bridging therapy to ensure adequate disease control during ide-cel manufacturing. Ide-cel improved patient-reported outcomes vs SRs. No new safety signals were reported. These results demonstrate the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of ide-cel in early-line and TCE R/RMM. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03651128.

Introduction In the KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128), ide-cel, a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy (Tx), significantly improved median progression-free survival (13.3 vs 4.4 mo, HR 0.49, P < 0.001) and overall response rate (71% vs 42%, P < 0.001) vs std regimens in pts with RRMM who were TCE to immunomodulatory (IMiD ®) agents, proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and daratumumab (Rodríguez-Otero NEJM 2023). Early high-grade (gr) cytopenias and severe infections have been reported post-CAR T cell infusion (Logue Blood 2022, Thibaud Blood 2022), and persistent cytopenias and infections can pose clinical challenges in pt care. In this safety analysis of KarMMa-3, we report frequency, kinetics of occurrence, and management of cytopenias and infections post-Tx with ide-cel or std regimens. Methods This international, randomized, multicenter phase 3 trial enrolled pts with RRMM who received 2-4 prior Txs (an IMiD agent, a PI, and daratumumab) and were refractory to the last Tx. Pts were randomized 2:1 to ide-cel or a std regimen (DPd, DVd, IRd, Kd, or EPd) selected by investigator based on prior anti-MM Tx. In the ide-cel arm, pts could have ≤ 1 cycle of optional bridging Tx (BTx) for disease control. Treated population (pop; ide-cel: pts who received leukapheresis [LA], BTx, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, or ide-cel; std regimens: pts who received any dose of study Tx) was used to assess adverse events (AEs), gr 3/4 AEs, and serious AEs. Safety pop (pts who received ide-cel or any dose of std regimens) was used to assess treatment-emergent AEs, AEs of special interest, investigator-identified neurotoxicity/cytokine release syndrome and others. In pts who had documented disease progression on std regimens and then underwent LA to receive ide-cel, only AEs before LA were included. In this analysis, incidence of cytopenias and infections at various time intervals and management, types of infections, and incidence of hypogammaglobulinemia (HGG) were assessed. Results At data cutoff (Oct 3, 2022), median follow-up was 24.1 (range 5.9−41.0) mo in the 386 randomized pts. In the treated pop, 248/249 (99.6%) vs 124/126 (98.4%) pts had any-gr AEs, 234 (94.0%) vs 96 (76.2%) had gr 3/4, and 36 (14.5%) vs 9 (7.1%) had gr 5 in ide-cel vs std regimens arms, respectively. Of the gr 5 AEs, 18/36 and 3/9 had verbatim terms consistent with progressive disease. In the safety pop, incidence of gr 3/4 cytopenias with ide-cel were higher early after infusion but generally resolved over time (196 [87.1%] pts at < 3 mo, 52 [24.1%] pts at 3−< 6 mo, 30 [14.7%] pts at ≥ 6 mo; Table 1) vs std regimens, which showed lower rate of resolution over time. More pts in the ide-cel (16 [7.1%]) vs std regimens arms (3 [2.4%]) had any-gr febrile neutropenia. Cytopenias were mainly managed using colony-stimulating factor in both arms (55.5% and 58.7%, respectively); RBC (48%) and platelet transfusions (32%) were more common in the ide-cel arm. Overall, incidence of gr 3/4 infections was high at < 3 mo and remained consistent over time in both arms (ide-cel: 17 [7.6%] pts at < 3 mo, 18 [8.3%] pts at 3−< 6 mo, 13 [6.4%] pts at ≥ 6 mo; Table 2). Any-gr bacterial infections were more common in the ide-cel vs std regimens arms with higher incidence at < 3 mo (10% vs 6%) but lowered at later timepoints. Incidence of gr ≥ 3 viral infections remained low and consistent with time; fungal infections were uncommon. Deaths due to infections occurred in 3 (1.3%) vs 1 (0.8%) pts at < 3 mo, 0 pts at 3−< 6 mo, and 7 (3.4%) vs 2 (2.6%) pts at ≥ 6 mo in the ide-cel vs std regimens arms, respectively. Indence of any-gr new HGG was higher in the ide-cel vs std regimens arms but decreased over time: 15 (6.7%) vs 2 (1.6%) pts at < 3 mo, 3 (1.4%) vs 1 (0.9%) at 3−< 6 mo, and 5 (2.5%) vs 0 at ≥ 6 mo, respectively; of these, 13 (5.8%) vs 1 (0.8%), 2 (0.9%) vs 1 (0.9%), and 5 (2.5%) vs 0 pts received IV immunoglobulin replacement Tx at the respective time intervals. Incidence rate (% per 100 pt-years, 95% CI) of second primary malignancies remained low and similar between arms (ide-cel, 4.0 [2.4−6.7]; std regimens, 4.4 [1.9−10.7]). Conclusion In KarMMa-3, most severe cytopenias associated with ide-cel occurred early, with a low incidence of prolonged cytopenias; all were largely manageable. Any-gr bacterial infections decreased over time while viral infections remained the same. No new safety concerns were identified for ide-cel; safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Study support 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Introduction: Patients with TCE RRMM have a high disease burden and often report worsening HRQoL with additional lines of therapy. The single-arm, phase 2 KarMMa study demonstrated that ide-cel, a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy, improved HRQoL from baseline in patients with TCE RRMM who had received ≥ 3 prior regimens (Delforge M, et al. Blood Adv 2022;6:1309-1318). Furthermore, in the phase 3 KarMMa-3 clinical trial (NCT03651128), ide-cel significantly improved progression-free survival and response compared with standard regimens in patients with TCE RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens (Rodriguez-Otero P, et al. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1002-1014). Here we assessed the comparative effects of ide-cel versus standard regimens on HRQoL in patients with TCE RRMM who had received 3-4 prior regimens including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and daratumumab (an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody) using data from the KarMMa-3 study. Methods: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module (QLQ-MY20), and EQ-5D-5L. The pre-specified primary domains of interest included EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain; EORTC QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms and side effects of treatment; and the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS). PROs were collected at screening (baseline), the day of ide-cel infusion (ide-cel) or first treatment dose (standard regimens), monthly from 2 to 28 months, and thereafter every 3 months. Comparisons were performed on least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline through 28 months between arms using constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Effect size was estimated by Hedges' g. The comparative effects of ide-cel versus standard regimens on time to confirmed improvement and time to confirmed deterioration (defined by prespecified change thresholds) were assessed via stratified Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. All P values are nominal and not adjusted for multiple testing. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced among the patients in the ide-cel arm (n = 167) and the standard regimen arm (n = 93), with a median age of 63 years and a median time of 4.7 years from RRMM diagnosis to study screening. Completion rates of HRQoL assessments were high over time for most visits (> 75%). At baseline, mean HRQoL domain scores were similar between arms. Overall LS mean changes from baseline to 28 months showed significant differences in favor of ide-cel versus standard regimens (nominal P < 0.05) for 11 domains (effect sizes of 0.26-0.82), and 7 (4 primary: global health status/QoL, cognitive functioning, pain, EQ-5D VAS; 3 secondary: dyspnea, insomnia, constipation) of them exceeded the prespecified MID thresholds (Table). Time to confirmed improvement was significantly shorter (nominal P < 0.05) in the ide-cel arm than in the standard regimen arm for 10 domains, including all primary domains except pain. Time to confirmed deterioration was longer in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimen arm for most domains, with significant differences in emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, and dyspnea (EORTC QLQ-C30). Finally, side effects of treatment favored the ide-cel versus standard regimen arm (EORTC QLQ-MY20) (Table). Conclusions: These patient-reported findings demonstrate that compared with standard regimens, treatment with ide-cel improved MM-relevant disease symptoms, functioning, and overall health status/HRQoL of patients with TCE RRMM in the KarMMa-3 trial. These data further substantiate the superior treatment outcomes of ide-cel over standard regimens in this patient population. Overall, treatment with ide-cel may help alleviate detriments to HRQoL in these patients with complex disease.

Background: Despite the development and approval of effective therapies for multiple myeloma (MM), MM remains an incurable disease. Moreover, patients with high-risk cytogenetics, like translocation t(4;14), continue to have a poor prognosis compared to standard-risk patients. No novel agents have been approved specifically for this population. There remains an unmet need for precision therapies for MM that can target specific drivers of high-risk MM like t(4;14). Multiple myeloma SET domain-containing protein (MMSET) overexpression observed in 100% of patients with t(4;14) acts through the MMSET-H3K36me2 axis, which promotes malignant transformation through regulation of multiple oncogenic programs. KTX-1001, a methyl transferase inhibitor, is a novel, first-in-class, potent, oral, small molecule that inhibits MMSET and the methylation of lysine K36. KTX-1001 had favorable drug-like properties, demonstrated in vivo activity, and was well tolerated in non-clinical studies. Based on these data, KTX-1001 is now being studied in a Phase 1 dose escalation and expansion study in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Study Design and Methods: This multi-country, Phase 1, open-label study (NCT05651932) is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and initial clinical activity of KTX-1001. The study will also examine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Part A of this trial includes an accelerated titration, followed by 3+3 dose escalation with backfill of cohorts for dose optimization prior to moving to Part B, which is an expansion phase at the RP2D (please see Figure 1 for study design schematic). The expansion phase will only include patients with t(4;14). KTX-1001 will be administered orally daily and given until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. Estimated enrollment for Parts A and B will be approximately 60 patients. The study will enroll patients with RRMM who have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI), immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and anti-CD38 antibody. Patients must have measurable disease, be ≥18 years of age, have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of ≤2, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and kidney function. Key exclusion criteria include history of or current plasma cell leukemia, active central nervous system (CNS) disease, or active unstable cardiovascular function. The primary endpoints of safety and tolerability include incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLTs), treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related AEs. Secondary endpoints include plasma concentrations of KTX-1001 and efficacy outcomes such as objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Exploratory biomarker and pharmacodynamic assessments will also be performed. The sample size was not determined by formal statistical methods but will be sufficient to provide preliminary information on safety, PK, PD, and efficacy. Statistical analyses will be primarily descriptive. Conclusion: This Phase 1 study will evaluate a potential treatment for RRMM utilizing KTX-1001, which is a novel, first-in-class, potent, oral small-molecule MMSET inhibitor. The study is open and actively enrolling patients at centers in the United States, Spain, France, and Canada.

Background: An interim analysis (data cutoff date April 18, 2022) of the international, open-label, phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128) showed the chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) significantly improved progression-free survival and treatment response rates, as well as HRQoL, as compared with standard regimens, in patients with triple-class exposed (TCE) RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens (Rodriguez-Otero P, et al. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1002-1014; Delforge M, et al., HemaSphere, 2023;7(S3):P905). The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of ide-cel versus standard regimens (daratumumab [DARA], pomalidomide, and dexamethasone [DEX]; DARA, bortezomib, and DEX; ixazomib, lenalidomide, and DEX; carfilzomib and DEX; or elotuzumab, pomalidomide, and DEX) on HRQoL in KarMMa-3 trial participants with an extended follow-up of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data collection (data cutoff date April 28, 2023). Methods: In KarMMa-3, HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module (QLQ-MY20), and EQ-5D-5L. HRQoL assessments were completed at screening (baseline); the day of ide-cel infusion or the first dose of standard treatment; and monthly from 2 to 28 months; and every 3 months thereafter. The prespecified primary outcomes of interest were EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and pain; EORTC QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms and side effects of treatment; and the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). Least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline through month 25 for ide-cel and standard regimens were compared by constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA). Effect sizes were estimated by Hedges' g. The effect of ide-cel versus standard regimens on time to confirmed improvement and deterioration in HRQoL (defined by prespecified change thresholds and sustained duration) were compared by stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. There was no adjustment for multiple testing, and all P values reported are nominal. Results: Overall, 254 patients were randomized to the ide-cel arm and 132 to the standard regimens arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms; both arms had a median age of 63 years, a median of 3 prior anti-myeloma regimens, and median time from MM diagnosis to screening was 4 years. The baseline HRQoL scores were generally comparable between treatment arms. Overall LS mean changes from baseline to month 25 showed significant differences (nominal P value < 0.05) in favor of ide-cel for 18 out of 21 HRQoL domains, with effect sizes (Hedges' g) of 0.27 to 0.82 (Table). For 13 of these domains (including 6 primary domains of interest), the difference in overall LS mean change from baseline exceeded the prespecified minimum important difference (MID) threshold. Time to confirmed improvement was significantly shorter in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimens arm for 19 domains, including all primary domains of interest (Table). Time to confirmed deterioration showed trends of being longer in the ide-cel arm than the standard regimens arm for most domains and was significantly longer for emotional functioning, cognitive functioning, social functioning, dyspnea, and constipation as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30. The time to confirmed deterioration in side effects of treatment (based on the EORTC QLQ-MY20) was significantly longer for patients in the ide-cel arm and time to confirmed improvement was significantly faster, as compared with the standard regimens arm (Table). Conclusions: In the KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE RRMM who had received 2-4 prior regimens, ide-cel significantly and meaningfully improved MM-relevant symptoms, functioning, and overall health status/HRQoL compared with standard regimens. Confirmed HRQoL improvements in the ide-cel arm occurred sooner than standard regimens. PRO improvements were sustained over more than 2 years, which is notable after a single infusion treatment with ide-cel. These patient-reported findings further support the benefit of ide-cel in this patient population.

Introduction: BCMA-directed CAR-T and Bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) therapies have shown remarkable overall response rates in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This has led to the approval of idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel and teclistamab by the FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies. We performed a global survey on accessibility, practice patterns, and toxicity management of commercially available CAR-T and BiTE therapies. Methods: An online survey was completed by clinicians attending the International Myeloma Society's Immune Effector Cell Therapies in Multiple Myeloma Workshop, in-person or virtually, made available for 30 days after the meeting held in March 2023, Boston, MA. Results: 87 clinicians from 16 countries completed the survey, most practicing in an academic practice (86%) and in an urban environment (89%). Sixty-four percent of the respondents practice in North America followed by Europe (25.3%) including Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, France, Greece, and Cyprus, and 6.9% from Asia and 3.4% from Australia. Seventy-seven percent reported CAR-T cell therapy was approved in their country with 44.8% treating 1-5 patients and 14.9% treating >5 patients per month; 67% reported BiTE therapy was approved in their country with 14.9% treating >5 patients per month. Of evaluable responses (n = 40), 62% administered CAR-T therapy inpatient and 15% administered CAR-T therapy outpatient ≥ 50% of the time. Length of time between decision to treat with CAR-T therapy to infusion was 6-12 weeks for 42% of responders and <6 weeks for only 20%. Most (75%) reported inpatient administration of BiTE therapy step-up dosing; 17.5% reported outpatient step-up dosing administered ≥ 50% of the time. Use of institutional or practice SOPs for CAR-T and BiTE therapy patient selection was reported by 85% and 58%, respectively, with the factors influencing SOP outlined in Table 1. Of available CAR-T therapies, 53% prefer cilta-cel and 23% reported CAR-T therapy preference depended most on patients' co-morbidities/frailty (89%), timing of next available apheresis (67%), age (56%), CNS disease (44%) and other factors. Maintenance therapy after CAR-T therapy was reportedly used by 25% and 5% of respondents in 1-10% and 11-50% of their patients, respectively, to “maintain level of response achieved” (50%) or “achieve a deeper level of response” (25%). About half (43%) of the respondents reported using an SOP or particular criteria for secondary Hemophagocytic Lympho-Histiocytosis/Macrophage Activation Syndrome/CAR-related-HLH (sHLH/MAS/CarHLH) management that varied between the use of ASTCT Working Group IEC associated HLH-like syndrome Criteria (47%) (Hines 2023), CARTOX HLH Criteria (24%) (Neelapu 2017) and HLH-2004 criteria (6%). Tocilizumab was used as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) prophylaxis only by one responder. Keppra neurologic prophylaxis was used by 47.5% and 15% of responders for CAR-T and BiTE therapy, respectively. Delayed neurotoxicity with CAR-T was reported in 1-5% of patients by 57.5% of responders and 6-10% of patients by 15% of responders; most common manifestations were other movement/neuromuscular disorder (62%), nerve palsy (55%), and Parkinsonism (45%). Infectious prophylaxis was used to protect against HSV (92.5%), PJP (90%), bacterial pathogens (55%), fungal pathogens (60%), and IVIG (77.5%). However, criteria for infectious prophylaxis use varies widely incorporating IgG levels, infectious history, CD4+ count, B-cell aplasia and cytopenias (48.1 - 88.9%). Most respondents (46.3 - 86.5%) reported completing an infectious work-up including CMV, EBV, Hep B/C, and HIV ( Table 2). Conclusions: Trends of CAR-T and BiTE therapy use and patterns of concurrent prophylactic and supportive care in MM vary widely among academic centers across the globe, demonstrating a need for further understanding of toxicity pathogenesis, toxicity management and consistent guidelines. This survey also demonstrates the great unmet need for access beyond urban centers among the international myeloma community. Prospective studies and claims data analysis should be utilized to evaluate the longitudinal cost of care, quality of life, duration of response and management of infectious disease, neurological or related complications of CAR-T and bispecific TCE therapies.

Introduction A single ide-cel infusion showed significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) vs std regimens (13.3 vs 4.4 months [mo], HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, P < 0.001) with deep, durable responses in heavily pretreated TCE RRMM at an interim analysis (IA) of KarMMa-3 (NCT03651128); safety data were consistent with prior studies (Rodríguez-Otero et al. NEJM 2023). Ide-cel benefits were consistent across pts in high-risk subgroups and across 2-4 prior lines of therapy (Tx). Results of the preplanned final PFS analysis of KarMMa-3 with 12.3 mo additional follow-up are reported. Methods In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, pts with RRMM who received 2-4 prior regimens, including an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and daratumumab, and were refractory to last regimen were randomized 2:1 to ide-cel or a std regimen (DPd, DVd, IRd, Kd, or EPd). In the ide-cel arm, pts could receive ≤ 1 cycle of optional bridging Tx for disease control. Pts in the std regimens arm could receive ide-cel after confirmed disease progression (PD). The primary endpoint was IRC-assessed PFS in the ITT population; final PFS was planned to be analyzed with ~289 events. Key secondary endpoints were IRC-assessed overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS); other secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), duration of response (DOR), minimal residual disease (MRD) status, time to next anti-myeloma Tx (TTNT; time from randomization to next anti-myeloma Tx [MTx]), event-free survival (EFS; time from randomization to first PD, next MTx or any-cause death, whichever is first), PFS2 (time from randomization to second objective PD or any-cause death, whichever is first), safety, and health-related quality of life (QOL). Results Of 386 randomized pts (ide-cel, n = 254; std regimens, n = 132), 225 received ide-cel and 126 received a std regimen. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced. Median follow-up from randomization to data cutoff (April 28, 2023) was 30.9 mo (range 12.7-47.8). Ide-cel significantly improved median PFS (95% CI) vs std regimens (13.8 [11.8-16.1] vs 4.4 [3.4-5.8] mo), representing a 51% reduced risk of PD or death (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38-0.63; Figure); 18 mo PFS rates were 41% vs 19%, respectively. Ide-cel significantly improved ORR vs std regimens (71% vs 42%) with deeper (CRR 44% vs 5%; ≥CR and MRD negative status [sensitivity level 10 -5], 22% vs 1%), more durable responses (median DOR 16.6 vs 9.7 mo; Table). PFS and ORR benefits of ide-cel vs std regimens were consistent with the IA. Interim OS will be included in the presentation. In pts who received ide-cel (n = 225) or a std regimen (n = 126), median PFS (95% CI) was 15.7 (12.5-18.9) vs 4.4 (3.4-5.8) mo, respectively. In the ITT population, median TTNT, EFS, and PFS2 were numerically longer with ide-cel vs std regimens. Median (range) TTNT was 20.9 (16.6-24.2) vs 7.0 (5.3-8.5) mo. Median (95% CI) EFS was 13.3 (11.3-15.7) vs 3.9 (3.0-5.3) mo. Median PFS2 (95% CI) was 23.5 (18.4-27.9) vs 16.7 (12.2-20.3) mo; ide-cel was next MTx in 70 (53%) pts in the std regimens arm. In the treated population, grade (gr) 3/4 infections occurred in 66/249 (27%) pts in the ide-cel arm vs 25/126 (20%) in the std regimens arm. In the ide-cel safety population, any gr cytokine release syndrome occurred in 197/225 (88%) pts, gr ≥ 3 in 11 (5%); median time to first onset was 1 d (1-14), median duration was 4 d (1-51). Any gr investigator-identified neurotoxicity occurred in 34/225 (15%) pts, gr ≥ 3 in 7 (3%); median time to onset was 3 d (range 1-317); median duration was 2.5 d (range 1-252). Ide-cel continued to demonstrate durable, clinically meaningful improvements in pt-reported outcomes, including symptoms, functioning, and QOL vs std regimens. Conclusions In this final PFS analysis of KarMMa-3, significantly longer PFS was maintained with ide-cel; PD or death risk reduced by 51%; responses were deeper and more durable vs std regimens. CRR with ide-cel increased since the IA, indicating a deepening response, but were unchanged with std regimens. A single ide-cel infusion vs continuous treatment with std regimens resulted in longer median TTNT and PFS2, indicating improved long-term disease control. The ide-cel safety profile was consistent with previous reports, with no parkinsonism or Guillain-Barré syndrome reported. These data continue to support use of ide-cel in pts with TCE RRMM. Study support 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.