Thompson‐Leduc, Philippe

ABSTRACT Introduction Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) are the only preferred treatment regimens for patients with transplant‐ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). As there are no randomized head‐to‐head studies of DRd versus VRd, this analysis aimed to compare real‐world time‐to‐next‐treatment (TTNT) or death in this population. Methods Patients with NDMM who received front‐line (FL) DRd or VRd were identified from the Acentrus database (January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2023). Those with a record of a stem cell transplant or aged < 65 years were excluded to limit analysis to the TIE population. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline patient characteristics. A doubly robust Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare TTNT or death between cohorts. Results A total of 149 and 494 patients who initiated DRd and VRd, respectively, were identified. After weighting (weighted N DRd = 302, weighted N VRd = 341), cohorts had similar baseline characteristics. Of these, 98 (32.4%) DRd and 175 (51.2%) VRd patients either received a subsequent line of therapy or died, with a median TTNT or death of 37.8 months in the DRd cohort and 18.7 months in the VRd cohort (hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: 0.35, 0.81; p < 0.001). Conclusion Treatment of TIE NDMM patients with DRd led to a significantly longer TTNT or death compared to VRd, evidenced by a 42% risk reduction, supporting the effectiveness of DRd over VRd as FL treatment in this patient population.

Introduction: Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) are the only two regimens that are considered as preferred per the National Comprehensive Care Network for transplant ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). While there are no head-to-head studies comparing clinical outcomes of DRd and VRd in this population, an indirect comparison (PEGASUS study [Durie et al., 2020]) has shown that DRd was associated with significantly lower risk of disease progression or death compared with VRd and Rd. This study aims at supplementing this information by comparing real-world time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) or death between NDMM TIE patients treated with front-line (FL) DRd or VRd. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted for patients with NDMM who initiated FL DRd or VRd in Acentrus (1/1/2018 - 5/31/2023), an electronic medical record (EMR) database from academic and non-teaching hospitals in the United States. Patients were included if they had ≥2 records with an ICD-10-CM diagnosis code for MM, ≥6 months of data availability prior to first record with MM diagnosis (without use of antineoplastic agent), initiated FL treatment (initiation of DRd or VRd; index date) within 12 months of first record of MM diagnosis, and ≥90 days of data availability post-index. Patients with pre-index diagnosis of amyloidosis or other cancers and those who participated in a clinical trial before or during FL treatment were excluded. To limit the analysis to the TIE population, patients who had a record of a stem-cell transplant (SCT) before or during FL treatment and those who were &lt;65 years old (used as proxy to SCT eligibility) were excluded. Patient characteristics were evaluated up to 12-months pre-index (baseline period). Patients were followed from the index date until earliest of date of initiation of a next line of treatment, death, or end of data availability. Medications received within 60 days from the date of the first MM antineoplastic agent were considered as FL therapy regimen. Next line of treatment was identified as initiation of a new antineoplastic agent (excluding corticosteroids) outside of FL therapy or re-treatment of FL after &gt;90-day gap. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics between study cohorts, with variables with standardized differences &lt;10% considered balanced. Weighted Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and a doubly-robust Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline variables remaining imbalanced after IPTW were used compare TTNT or death between study cohorts. Results: Overall, 149 and 494 patients were identified in the DRd and VRd cohorts, respectively. After weighting (N DRd weighted = 302, N VRd weighted = 341), most baseline characteristics in both cohorts were similar, including mean age (DRd: 75.3, VRd: 74.5), female sex (DRd: 48.9%, VRd: 45.8%), white race (DRd: 55.8%, VRd: 58.7%), black race (DRd: 8.8%, VRd: 11.3%), Medicare insurance coverage (DRd: 62.7%, VRd: 65.9%), and mean Quan-Charlson comorbidity index (DRd: 3.8, VRd: 3.6; Table 1). Some imbalances remained for mean age, race, ethnicity, and index year, thus they were additionally adjusted for in doubly-robust Cox model. The median duration of follow-up was 20.2 months and 21.5 months among DRd and VRd patients, respectively. A total of 98 (32.4%) DRd patients and 175 (51.2%) VRd patients received a subsequent line of therapy or died, with the median TTNT or death being 37.8 and 18.7 months in the DRd and VRd cohorts, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.35, 0.81; p&lt;0.001; Figure 1). KM estimates for patients remaining on FL therapy were significantly higher for DRd than VRd at 6 months (93.0% vs. 80.1%), 12 months (80.0% vs. 61.0%), 18 months (64.9% vs. 51.3%), and 24 months (60.2% vs. 42.9%). Conclusion: In this retrospective cohort study using EMR data, TIE NDMM patients who initiated DRd had a significantly longer time to next treatment or death than patients who initiated VRd. Results from this real-world study fills an unmet data gap by providing information on the comparative effectiveness evidence for DRd versus VRd among TIE NDMM patients. These findings support the use of DRd as an effective treatment option in the TIE NDMM patient population.

Abstract Background Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn’s disease (CD) are at increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ); however, relevant cost and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data are limited. Methods We estimated HCRU (hospitalization, emergency department [ED], and outpatient visits) and costs in patients with UC or CD, with and without HZ, using administrative claims data (October 2015–February 2020). HCRU and costs (2020 US dollars) were compared at 1 month, 1 quarter, and 1 year after the index date, using propensity score adjustment and generalized linear models. Results In total, 20 948 patients were included: UC+/HZ+ (n = 431), UC+/HZ– (n = 10 285), CD+/HZ+ (n = 435), and CD+/HZ– (n = 9797). Patients with HZ had higher all-cause HCRU rates and all-cause total healthcare costs relative to those without HZ. In the first month, adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) for hospitalizations and ED visits for patients with UC and HZ compared with UC alone were 2.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93–4.27) and 2.66 (95% CI,1.74–4.05), respectively; for those with CD and HZ, aIRRs were 3.34 (95% CI, 2.38–4.70) and 3.31 (95% CI, 2.32–4.71), respectively, compared with CD alone (all P &lt; .001). Adjusted cost differences in UC and CD cohorts with HZ over the first month were $2189 and $3774, respectively, chiefly driven by higher inpatient costs. The incremental impact on HCRU and costs in cohorts with HZ predominantly occurred during the first quarter following diagnosis. Conclusions HZ is associated with increased HCRU and costs in patients with UC and CD, especially shortly after diagnosis.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ). We evaluated the incidence of HZ in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) patients and compared this with HZ incidence in a non-IBD population.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study (GSK study identifier: VEO-000043) of adults aged ≥18 years with UC and CD and without IBD who were identified from claims recorded in a US healthcare database between October 2015 and February 2020. Crude HZ incidence rates/1,000 person-years (PY) were calculated, and comparisons of HZ incidence rates between UC or CD and non-IBD cohorts were made using adjusted generalized linear models.ResultsThe study population comprised a total of 29,928 UC, 25,959 CD, and 11,839,329 non-IBD patients. Crude overall HZ incidence rates were 13.64/1,000 PY (UC), 15.94/1,000 PY (CD), and 7.95/1,000 PY (non-IBD). UC and CD patients had increased HZ incidence rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26–1.44) and 1.66 (95% CI, 1.56–1.77), respectively, compared with non-IBD patients. Stratified analysis indicated increased relative rates of HZ in progressively younger age strata in the UC and CD patients compared with non-IBD patients. HZ incidence rates were higher in UC and CD patients who had previously received thiopurines or methotrexate, TNF-inhibitors, or corticosteroids than in UC and CD patients who did not take those medicines.ConclusionUC and CD patients had increased HZ incidence rates compared with patients without IBD, demonstrating the importance of HZ prevention in IBD patients.