Slavcev, Mary

Introduction : Daratumumab (DARA) is a human CD38 antibody approved in combination with standard-of-care (SoC) regimens in pts with NDMM who are TIE. DARA-based treatments showed significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with TIE NDMM in ongoing phase 3 studies ALCYONE (DARA + bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP] vs VMP) and MAIA (DARA + lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd] vs Rd continuous). An NMA allows estimation of the relative efficacy of regimens not compared in head-to-head trials. A previous NMA examined D-VMP and D-Rd vs comparators (Facon T et al., EHA 2019), excluding the SWOG S0777 study (bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [VRd]; Durie BG, et al. Lancet 2017) as it enrolled both transplant-eligible (TE) and TIE pts, and data for pts who are TIE only (~50% [aged ≥65 y and frail]) were unavailable. In this NMA, D-Rd and D-VMP had the highest probabilities of being more effective than reference treatment Rd continuous in terms of PFS. Recently, VRd received EMA approval for treatment of TIE NDMM based on SWOG S0777, but results specific to TIE pts are still unavailable. Recent NMAs of TIE pts (Blommestein HM et al., Haematologica, 2019; Weisel et al., EHA 2019; Cao Y et al., Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk, 2019) have included data from the the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of SWOG S0777, though its inclusion violates the similarity assumption. Here, we present a sensitivity analysis of the previously-conducted NMA including all pts who received VRd in SWOG S0777 for a comprehensive view of the comparative effectiveness of DARA-based treatments in TIE NDMM. Methods: VRd was included as part of a sensitivity analysis of the previous NMA based on the ITT population, reporting PFS and overall survival (OS). The Guyot method was used to estimate OS hazard ratios (HRs) for pts aged ≥65 y (proxy for TIE) from SWOG S0777 (Durie BG et al., ASH 2018). Median follow-up in ALCYONE and MAIA was 27.8 months and 28.0 months, respectively. Based on a systematic literature review conducted through January 2019, both PFS and OS were extracted and synthesized in Bayesian NMAs. Choice of fixed- or random-effects (FE or RE) model was based on lowest deviance information criterion (DIC) and/or presence of heterogeneity in the network. Rd continuous was selected as reference, as it was commonly included in guidelines across regions. For PFS and OS, HR <1 indicates the comparison is not in favor of Rd continuous. In addition to the previous NMA, we also report an NMA sensitivity analysis including only comparators approved by the EMA that are relevant for the European, Middle East and/or Africa (EMEA) region (EMEA NMA). Results: Global NMA: RE model was used for both PFS and OS. Compared with Rd continuous, the PFS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.74 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.42-1.30), which was similar to SWOG S0777 (0.71; [96% Wald confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.91]) and higher than HRs for D-Rd (0.55; 95% CrI, 0.31-0.97) and D-VMP (0.58; 95% CrI, 0.20-1.62; Table). For OS, the SWOG S0777 HR estimated by Guyot algorithm for pts aged ≥65 y was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.56-1.16). Compared with Rd continuous, the OS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.51-1.26), which was similar to SWOG S0777 and higher than D-Rd (0.78; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.18). EMEA NMA: FE model was used for both PFS and OS. Compared with Rd continuous, the PFS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.74 (95% CrI, 0.60-0.92), which was higher than HRs of D-Rd (0.55; 95% CrI, 0.43-0.71) and D-VMP (0.64; 95% CrI, 0.41-1.02). Compared with Rd continuous, the OS HR for VRd in the sensitivity analysis was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.55-1.17), which was higher than for D-Rd (0.78; 95% CrI, 0.56-1.09). These results are consistent with the Global NMA, but differ slightly as the EMEA NMA has fewer evidence-loops (only EMEA SoC regimens were included). Conclusions: This study demonstrated favorable efficacy outcomes for DARA-based regimens vs other relevant frontline options, such as VRd, for pts with NDMM who are TIE. Limitations of the sensitivity analysis include lack of comparative trial data and demographic differences between pts from SWOG S0777 and trials of frontline MM treatments for pts who are TIE included in our network. The majority of SWOG S0777 pts are TE (<65 y), who often have better prognoses than TIE pts (≥65 y), and thus violates the similarity assumption of NMAs. However, DARA-based regimens still showed a comparative clinical advantage. Disclosures Facon: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; 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; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. San-Miguel:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Dimopoulos:Sanofi Oncology: Research Funding. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mateos:Adaptive: Honoraria; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavo:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen, Celgene: Other: Travel Accommodations; Janssen, Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Heeg:Ingress-Health: Employment. Van Beekhuizen:Ingress-health: Consultancy. Pisini:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nair:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lam:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Slavcev:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background: Each additional line of therapy is associated with lower rates of deeper responses, shorter durations of treatment-free intervals, and increased rates of toxicities/comorbidities in patients with multiple myeloma (MM; Yong K, et al. Br J Haematol 2016. 175[2]:252-264), all of which are factors that contribute to treatment discontinuation. In order to characterize the newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patient population in the United States not treated with a stem-cell transplant based on the number of subsequent lines of therapy (LOT) received, we examined baseline patient characteristics and pre-existing comorbidities, frontline treatment patterns, and attrition rates for these patients according to whether subsequent LOT was received or not received. Methods: NDMM patients were identified from 3 US patient-level data sources: the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Linked database (from January 2007 through December 2014), the OPTUM™ Commercial Claims database (from January 2000 through March 2017), and the OPTUM™ Electronic Medical Records (EMR) database (from January 2007 through March 2016). Patients included in the assessment had 1) an index diagnosis of MM on or after 1 January 2007, 2) known gender, 3) medical prescription coverage in place at diagnosis, 4) a 1-year look-back period prior to the index diagnosis, 5) no prior malignancies in the 1-year period prior to index diagnosis, and 6) received ≥1 LOT. The analysis was limited to patients who did not receive stem cell transplantation at any time during their follow-up. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted to characterize and compare patients who received or did not receive a subsequent LOT. Results: The analysis included a total of 7,724 patients (1 LOT only: n = 3,906; 2+ LOT: n = 3,818). A summary of baseline patient characteristics and pre-existing comorbidities by LOT is summarized in Table 1. Patients who received a subsequent LOT vs those that did not were significantly younger (median age 72.0 vs 74.0 years; P <0.0001) and had significantly lower mean Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI) score due to lower occurrence of renal, cardiac, and hepatic comorbidities (Table 1). Older age at diagnosis and presence of renal, congestive heart failure (CHF), hepatic, and pulmonary comorbidities were associated with higher attrition. The regimens used in frontline treatment included bortezomib/dexamethasone (26%), lenalidomide/dexamethasone (21%), bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (11%), a bortezomib/alkylator ± steroid combination (6%), bortezomib monotherapy (10%), lenalidomide monotherapy (6%), thalidomide monotherapy (4%), and other (17%). The proportions of patients progressing to each subsequent line of therapy are shown in Table 2. In total, 49% of patients went on to receive a second line of therapy, and 55% of patients receiving a second line of therapy went on to receive a third line of therapy. The incidence of patients not receiving subsequent lines of therapy due to death or being lost to follow up by LOT is summarized in Table 2. Conclusions: A majority of non-transplant patients with NDMM in the study did not progress to subsequent lines of therapy, with attrition as high as 50% per line of therapy and only <8% of patients reaching LOT 5. This high level of attrition is associated with older age and poor comorbidity status of non-transplant patients with NDMM. Therefore, utilizing the most optimal regimens upfront (rather than reserving them for later lines) is warranted. Disclosures Fonseca: Mayo Clinic: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding. Mehra:Janssen Global Services, LLC: Employment. Slavcev:Janssen Global Services, LLC: Employment. Ukropec:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Employment. Lam:Janssen Global Services, LLC: Employment. Potluri:SmartAnalyst Inc.: Employment.