Fu, Alex Z.

ABSTRACT Introduction A novel therapy for heavily pretreated triple‐class–exposed multiple myeloma (TCE MM) is B‐cell maturation antigen (BCMA)‐targeted immunotherapy. While the number of TCE+BCMA‐exposed patients is growing, real‐world data for this group are limited. Methods We present real‐world data from patients with TCE+BCMA‐exposed MM who initiated a subsequent line of therapy (LOT) using a US‐based claims database, Komodo's Healthcare Map. Results We identified 656 TCE+BCMA‐exposed patients; mean age was 66.5 years. Time from MM diagnosis to index was 5.4 years; mean number of prior LOTs was 5.9. The most prevalent prior therapy received within each drug class was daratumumab (98.5%), pomalidomide (86.0%), carfilzomib (85.8%) and belantamab mafodotin (74.5%). A total of 137 different subsequent treatment regimens were observed following TCE+BCMA exposure; the most common regimen was teclistamab (10.4%). The top three targeted agents within the subsequent regimen were carfilzomib (20.2%), pomalidomide (20.1%) and bortezomib (16.6%). Among this TCE+BCMA‐exposed population who received subsequent treatment, the median time to next treatment or death was 6.8 (95% CI, 6.1–7.5) months; time to treatment discontinuation or death was 3.5 (95% CI, 3.2–3.7) months. Conclusion This first real‐world analysis of patients with heavily pretreated TCE+BCMA‐exposed MM shows poor clinical outcomes, frequent therapy retreatment and no standard‐of‐care, highlighting the need for novel treatments. Clinical Trial Registration The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.

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.

Introduction: Despite the development of advanced treatment options, multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease. Most MM patients relapse and require further treatments. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) targeted immunotherapy is a novel MM therapy class that is now available to heavily pre-treated relapse/refractory MM (R/R MM) patients, who were triple class exposed (TCE) to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. As BCMA therapies continue to be further utilized and become an integral part of MM treatment, the proportion of TCE patients who are also BCMA exposed (TCE+BCMA exposed) is expected to grow. However, the clinical outcomes of TCE+BCMA exposed RRMM patients have not been previously assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world outcomes of TCE+BCMA exposed MM patients who started a subsequent LOT, describing their characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes. Subgroups of penta-drug exposed (at least two PIs, at least two IMiDs, and at least one anti-CD38) patients, as well as White and African American patients were also evaluated as penta-drug exposure status and race were known to impact clinical outcomes. Methods: Adult patients with MM who were TCE+BCMA exposed and started a subsequent LOT starting from July 03, 2019 (when additional new treatment options became available) were selected from the Komodo Healthcare Map (a US claims dataset) and were followed until the earliest of death, last claim, or end of study period (December 31, 2022). Index date was defined as the start date of the subsequent LOT following TCE and BCMA exposure. Descriptive statistics were provided for patient characteristics and treatment patterns. Clinical outcomes including time to treatment discontinuation or death (TTD) and time to next treatment or death (TTNT) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 344 TCE+BCMA exposed patients, who received the next LOT were included in the study, including 152 (44.2%) patients who were penta-drug exposed before index, 57 (16.6%) African American, and 185 (53.8%) White patients. Key baseline demographic characteristics and treatment history for the overall group and the three subgroups are listed in Table 1. The mean (SD) and median number of prior LOTs for the overall group before index date were 5.7 (1.7) and 6.0, respectively. The most prevalent prior treatments before the index date for the overall group were daratumumab (99.1%), belantamab mafadotin (91.9%), pomalidomide (84.3%), carfilzomib (83.1 %), bortezomib (76.2%) and lenalidomide (72.1%). Excluding corticosteroids, the most frequently used index treatments (i.e., treatment used post TCE+BCMA exposure) were carfilzomib- (21.9%), bortezomib- (20.8%), pomalidomide- (18.3%), and belantamab mafadotin- (18.3%) based regimens. The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTD was 3.7 (3.3, 4.4) months, and the median (95% CI) TTNT was 6.4 (5.5, 7.6) months. TTD and TTNT estimates for the three subgroups are listed in Table 2. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first real-world study of treatment patterns and outcomes for TCE+BCMA exposed MM patients who started a subsequent LOT. The findings showed that this group of heavily pretreated MM patients were often retreated with the same therapies or therapies in the same classes, as they have limited effective treatment options. TCE+BCMA exposed patients exhibited poor clinical outcomes, as demonstrated by the rapid treatment discontinuation and moving on to the next treatment shortly after initial treatment. Many patients were already penta-drug exposed, and they appear to have worse clinical outcomes than the overall patient group. A shorter TTD was observed, and a trend for shorter TTNT was observed among African American patients than White patients. The findings highlight the continued need for effective treatments for heavily treated MM patients and particularly those with poor outcomes.

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.