Das, Saurav

Introduction: Treatment options for multiple myeloma (MM) are evolving rapidly with recent introduction of BCMA-targeting CAR-T (Ide-cel, Cilta-cel) and bispecific antibody (Bi-Ab; Teclistamab) alternatives. These are complex, logistically demanding therapies, and patient awareness/knowledge can affect treatment decisions. There are traditionally underserved patients in MM, and awareness among them must be investigated to uncover disparities which may impact their access to and choice of novel therapies, contributing to disparate outcome. Methods: The study involved an anonymous 25-question online English language survey covering basic demographics, understanding of available T-cell directed MM treatments (CAR-T, Bi-Ab), and preferences for these agents. MM patients within the Mayo Clinic database and members of International Myeloma Foundation's MM support groups were sent a link to the voluntary survey. The survey was active from March 30 until July 12, 2023. Descriptive statistics were calculated with R language (Bluesky Statistics, V7.40), and categorical variables among outcome demographic groups were compared using Pearson Chi-square test (p-value ≤0.05 considered statistically significant). Multiple model logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis amongst statistically significant outcomes. Results: The survey had 2370 respondents with median age 68 years (range: 30-95) and median age at MM diagnosis 62 years (range: 18-88). Time since diagnosis was <5 years in 59.5%. Majority of the respondents (89.4%) were non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). Maximum education categories were high school (10.9%), some college but no degree (18.1%), associate/bachelor (39.7%), and master's/professional (32.3%). Geography and type of residence were reported as: West (24%), Midwest (46.2%), Northeast (3.3%), South (24.8%), outside U.S. (1.7%), and rural (26.7%), urban (21.4%), suburban (51.9%). The goals of MM treatment in order of reported importance were complete remission (66.1%), longer survival (55.3%) and low symptom burden (43.3%). Only 6.5% and 2.6% of respondents had received CAR-T and Bi-Ab, respectively, while 27.9% and 70.5% had never heard of CAR-T and Bi-Ab, respectively. A high proportion of respondents did not understand the risks/benefits of CAR-T (65.5%) or Bi-Ab (90.7%). Given a preference among CAR-T products, 5.4% would prefer Cilta-cel, 1.9% Ide-cel and 92.7% were not sure/no preference. Amongst only those who reported understanding the risks/benefits of CAR-T, the majority (73%) said they would prefer Cilta-cel. The majority (87.5%) were not sure of any differences between the two CAR-T products while some reported different targets (6.3%), response rate (5.9%), response duration (6.2%), side effects (4.9%), and manufacturing time (2.7%). The biggest concern for both CAR-T and Bi-Ab was side effects. Majority (89.4%) were not sure that Teclistamab Bi-Ab targeted BCMA, and nearly 70% felt that CAR-T was superior to Bi-Ab for treating MM. Reported sources of knowledge about MM treatment were healthcare team (82.6%), online resources (43.6%) and other patients/support groups (37.9%). Several demographic characteristics that significantly affected patient's responses to different questions in the survey. Selected questions and respondent categories with statistically significant results in multivariate analysis are shown in Table 1. Generally, higher education, living in northeast U.S., urban or suburban residency, and >5 years since MM diagnosis were associated with better awareness/understanding of CAR-T and Bi-Ab. Respondents with >70-year age were less likely to be aware of these agents or understand their risks/benefits. Race-ethnicity had no statistically significant associations in this cohort of predominantly NHW. Conclusions: This large cross-sectional study identifies lack of adequate awareness regarding CAR-T and Bi-Ab and provides a glimpse of current understanding of these complex therapies. There are disparate groups including rural, less educated, elderly and those with recent diagnosis of MM who have significantly lesser awareness. Some better-informed respondents had preferences among these treatments. Targeted awareness campaigns should be developed so that knowledge gaps can be bridged and patients across all sociodemographic groups are better equipped to take informed decisions about MM treatment.

While immunotherapies, such as CAR T therapy and bi-specific antibodies, have revolutionized the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), patients with AL amyloidosis have been excluded from trials with these agents due to concerns of underlying autonomic, cardiac, and renal dysfunction, leading to potentially fatal toxicities from these therapies. In this communication, we described the outcomes of two patients with AL amyloidosis and concurrent MM with underlying cardiac and/or renal dysfunction who underwent anti-BCMA CAR T cell therapy with ide-cel or cilta-cel, received cytokine release syndrome prophylaxis, and tolerated therapy well with manageable toxicities and achieved a MRD-negative state. We described the preliminary efficacy and safety of CAR T in patients with AL amyloidosis and highlighted the importance of patient selection and medical optimization of cardiac and renal function prior to CAR T.

AbstractIntroductionHealth information technology (HIT) has the potential to improve healthcare delivery and engagement. Studying racial‐ethnic disparities in HIT engagement will help understand and overcome challenges to healthcare utilization.MethodsWe undertook a patient‐reported survey among patients with lymphoid malignancies at two campuses of Mayo Clinic, Florida to explore HIT‐related disparities. Variables between Whites and non‐Whites, and non‐Whites from the two campuses were compared.ResultsThe survey was completed by 1004 respondents, with 71% whites, 27% non‐Whites (race‐ethnicity not reported by 2%). Non‐Whites included 30% responders at the main campus and 64% at an inner‐city campus. Whites were significantly older and had higher education, while non‐Whites had lesser access to a computer. Only 51% of non‐Whites were registered to use electronic medical records (EMR) as compared to 72% Whites (p < 0.001) and significantly lesser number of non‐Whites even knew that EMR existed (81% vs. 92%, p < 0.001). Encouragingly, a higher number of non‐Whites wanted to engage in EMR. Non‐Whites from the main campus were older, more educated and had more access to a computer as compared to those from the inner‐city campus. Similar disparate factors were noted among minorities from the two campuses, suggesting impact of socioeconomic backgrounds on EMR usage among non‐Whites. Linguistic barriers were more striking among inner‐city campus non‐Whites.ConclusionsNon‐Whites continue to struggle with suboptimal utilization of the healthcare system and barriers related to integration in HIT, including disparities representing socioeconomic differences. Efforts need to be made at several levels to help racial‐ethnic minorities overcome awareness, access, and linguistic barriers to HIT utilization.