Kaila, Shuchita

ABSTRACTObjectivesThis final post hoc analysis evaluated patient‐reported outcomes from the Phase 3 MAIA study of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D‐Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) after median 64.5‐month follow‐up in transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), including patient subgroups.MethodsKey scales from the EORTC QLQ‐C30 (global health status [GHS], physical functioning, pain, and fatigue) were assessed. Scores were evaluated every 3 months for 1 year, then every 6 months until disease progression.ResultsThe intent‐to‐treat population (n = 737) included 46.3% frail, 35.4% 70 to < 75 years old, and 43.6% ≥ 75 years old. D‐Rd‐treated patients showed improvements from baseline that were sustained over 5 years in the intent‐to‐treat population and across subgroups by age, frailty, and bone lesions. Greater proportions of patients treated with D‐Rd versus Rd achieved minimally important changes for improvement at cycle 36 (year ~3) in GHS (odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.16–2.91]), physical functioning (1.93 [1.18–3.14]), pain (1.41 [0.90–2.22]), and fatigue (2.00 [1.24–3.23]). Greater proportions of patients with bone lesions improved with D‐Rd versus Rd on GHS and physical functioning.ConclusionsIn transplant‐ineligible patients with NDMM, D‐Rd improved health‐related quality of life over a 5‐year period versus Rd. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02252172

Background: Daratumumab (DARA) has demonstrated clinical benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) and is approved for the treatment of both newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and relapsed refractory MM (RRMM). While single-center studies have shown the benefit of DARA retreatment in patients (pts) who are refractory to DARA (D-Ref), there is a lack of real-world data on the characteristics of pts who are retreated with DARA across multiple lines of treatment (LOTs). In this study, we examine DARA retreatment patterns and outcomes among pts who are D-Ref and those who are sensitive to DARA (D-Sens) after the first DARA exposure in the US real-world clinical practice. Methods: This study used the Flatiron MM Core Registry data to identify pts with MM treated with a DARA-containing regimen in ≥2 separate LOTs between November 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024. The first DARA-based LOT was defined as D1, and the second DARA-based LOT was defined as the retreatment LOT (D2). The following criteria, developed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, were used to classify pts as Dara-retreated: 1) pts treated with the same DARA-containing regimens in consecutive LOTs were classified as Dara-retreated if there was a gap of &gt;90 days between D1 and D2, 2) pts treated with different DARA-containing regimens in consecutive LOTs were classified as Dara-retreated, 3) pts treated with DARA-containing regimens had ≥1 LOTs between D1 and D2 they were classified as Dara-retreated, regardless of whether the regimens were the same or different. Derived disease progression reported in the Flatiron data was used for this analysis. If disease progression was reported during D1, or within 60 days of discontinuing D1, the pt was considered as D-Ref, otherwise, the pt was considered as D-Sens. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were conducted to evaluate duration of D2, proportion of pts not receiving subsequent treatment after D2, and progression-free survival (PFS) rates during D2. Results: Data for 201 pts retreated with DARA were identified in this analysis, 150 were D-Sens and 51 were D-Ref. In the D-Sens group, the median age at D2 initiation was 71 years, 44.0% of pts were female, 27.3% were ISS stage II and 16.0% were African American. In the D-Ref group, the median age at D2 initiation was 67 years, 45.1% of pts were female, 21.6% were ISS stage II, and 25.5% were African American. At D2 initiation, 64.7% (D-Sens) and 60.8% (D-Ref) of pts were frail, and 56.0% (D-Sens) and 52.9% (D-Ref) of pts had a Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥3, indicating a high burden of comorbidities. About 31% of pts in both groups had high cytogenetic risk abnormalities, and about 20% had a 1q21 gain or amplification. The median time from MM diagnosis to start of D1 and to start of D2 was shorter in the D-Sens group (10.8 and 34.9 months) than in the D-Ref group (18.4 and 44.4 months). D-Sens pts were less likely to receive D1 in the third LOT or later compared to D-Ref pts (30.0% vs 45.1%). The median number of LOTs before D2 was three in both groups. The median gap between D1 and D2 was 9.3 months in D-Sens pts and 9.0 months in D-Ref pts, however, more D-Sens pts received D1 and D2 LOTs consecutively compared to D-Ref pts (62.0% vs 51.0%). The most common regimen used in D1 was DARA + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (dex; 18.7%) and DARA + bortezomib + dex (18.7%) among D-Sens pts, and DARA + pomalidomide + dex (23.5%) among D-Ref pts. The most common regimen used in D2 was DARA mono (31.3%) in D-Sens pts, and DARA mono (17.6%) and DARA + carfilzomib + dex (17.6%) in D-Ref pts. Overall, 32.0% of D-Sens and 35.3% of D-Ref pts received agents from the same drug class in D1 and D2. The KM median duration of D2 was 7.4 months (95% CI: 5.5-9.5) among D-Sens pts and 6.4 months (95% CI: 3.8-23.5) among D-Ref pts. The proportion of pts that had not received subsequent treatment after D2 was 38.7% and 29.5% at 12 months in the D-Sens and D-Ref groups, respectively. PFS rates at 12 months after D2 initiation were 77.1% in the D-Sens group and 49.4% in the D-Ref group. Conclusion: DARA retreatment is utilized frequently and is effective in the real-world, suggesting the ability to use this approach in subsequent LOTs among pts with RRMM. In the absence of other feasible alternatives, this may be a treatment strategy for patient benefit, regardless of whether they are D-Sens or D-Ref. Future studies are needed to definitively investigate the benefit of DARA retreatment in combination with drugs with novel mechanisms of action.

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.

8037 Background: Both daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are endorsed by NCCN guidelines as preferred regimens for the treatment of transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). DRd and VRd have each demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naive comparisons of efficacy across the 2 trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas S0777 enrolled a mixed transplant-not-intended (TNI) population, which included both TIE patients and patients choosing to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). Methods: The present study leveraged individual patient-level data (IPD) from both trials to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison of DRd vs VRd, adjusting for differences in trial eligibility criteria and baseline patient characteristics. Harmonized inclusion criteria (NDMM, age ≥65 years, ECOG performance status ≤2) were applied to both trial populations. Age ≥65 years served as a proxy for TIE status since S0777 enrolled a mixed TNI population. Propensity score (PS) reweighting was used to balance the 2 trial populations on key baseline prognostic factors including age, sex, ISS stage, ECOG performance status, hemoglobin, eGFR, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, and cytogenetic risk. Missing data were addressed with multiple imputation. After alignment of inclusion criteria and PS reweighting, an anchored indirect comparison was performed wherein within-trial progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratios (HRs) for DRd vs Rd and VRd vs Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for DRd vs VRd. Results: 727 MAIA participants and 198 S0777 participants were eligible for inclusion. After PS reweighting, the trial populations were balanced on the key baseline prognostic factors identified above (standardized difference < 0.1 for each). The adjusted PFS HRs were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.41–0.68; P< 0.0001) for DRd vs Rd in MAIA and 0.88 (0.63–1.23; P= 0.46) for VRd vs Rd in S0777. In the adjusted Rd-anchored indirect comparison, the PFS HR for DRd vs VRd was 0.60 (0.39–0.90; P= 0.02). Conclusions: In this adjusted indirect treatment comparison based on IPD from the MAIA and S0777 trials, PFS was significantly longer for DRd relative to VRd. In the absence of a head-to-head trial comparing DRd and VRd, the present study may help to inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.

PURPOSE: Median duration of daratumumab (DARA) administration for treatment of multiple myeloma is 3-7 hours for the intravenous formulation (DARA IV) and 3-5 minutes for the subcutaneous formulation (DARA SC). Here, we describe clinical administration characteristics of DARA using a novel method for data extraction from electronic health records. METHODS: Time-based measurements were extracted using a scheduling/pharmacy software program that tracked patient movement through appointments for patients initiating DARA in Mayo Clinic infusion centers from April 5, 2017, to October 14, 2021. Cohorts included patients who received DARA IV or DARA SC, or converted from DARA IV to DARA SC. The DARA SC cohort was further analyzed before (DARA SC initial) and after (DARA SC shortened) a reduction in the postadministration observation time mandated by the treatment plan. Events associated with administration-related reactions (ARRs) were also identified. RESULTS: Median total clinic times were 2.7-3.0 hours shorter for DARA SC versus DARA IV. Median clinic times were highest at dose 1 and decreased with subsequent doses. Median total chair times were 2.7-2.8 hours shorter for DARA SC versus DARA IV. Incidences of ARR-related events with DARA SC were low across doses. CONCLUSION: Reduced clinic times were observed with DARA SC, indicating that use of DARA SC as a treatment option results in time savings that may free clinic resources. Furthermore, novel methods of electronic health record data extraction can provide insights that may help inform clinic resource optimization.

Abstract Background Patients with high-risk, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (HR-NDMM) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) have limited first-line treatment options. Recent meta-analyses evaluating the impact of incorporating daratumumab in the backbone regimen on progression-free survival (PFS) have found mixed results in these patients. Materials and Methods A pooled analysis of patient-level data for ASCT-ineligible patients with HR-NDMM [ie, del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16)] from the MAIA and ALCYONE trials; stratified by study identifier and adjusting for cytogenetic abnormality subtype, baseline performance status, International Staging System stage, myeloma type, and renal impairment; was conducted. Impact of daratumumab on PFS and rates of complete response or better (≥CR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR, very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), and overall response (ORR) was compared to control. Results Among 101 patients in the daratumumab and 89 patients in the control cohort, median follow-up was 43.7 months. Daratumumab reduced the risk of progression or death by 41% (adjusted hazard ratio for PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.59 [0.41-0.85]) versus control. At 36 months, the estimated proportion of patients who did not progress and were still alive was 41.3% in the daratumumab and 19.9% in the control cohort. Rates of ≥CR (41.6% vs. 22.5%), MRD-negative CR (24.8% vs. 5.6%), ≥VGPR (75.2% vs. 46.1%), and ORR (92.1% vs. 74.2%) were higher for daratumumab versus control. Conclusion These findings demonstrate that incorporation of daratumumab in frontline treatment regimens reduced the risk of progression or death and improved response rates among ASCT-ineligible HR-NDMM patients.