Martinez, Mariola Alejandra Vazquez

Abstract Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), 2 B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, have transformed outcomes for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma; however, the 6 to 8 weeks manufacturing time risks disease progression or death in up to 10% of patients. Talquetamab, a G-protein–coupled receptor, family C, group 5, member D (GPRC5D)–targeting bispecific antibody, represents a promising option. We performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis across 20 centers (18 United States, 2 Germany) evaluating talquetamab as a bridging therapy prior to cilta-cel or ide-cel. Among 134 patients receiving talquetamab, 119 proceeded to CAR-T (n = 98 cilta-cel, n = 21 ide-cel). Reasons for not proceeding (n = 15) included progression (n = 7), manufacturing failure (n = 6), or patient decision (n = 2). Median age was 65 years and had median 5 prior lines of therapy. Notably, 85% would not have met CARTITUDE-1/KarMMa eligibility criteria. Talquetamab was administered for a median 23 days. Toxicity was manageable: no grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), 2% grade 3 immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) and grade 1 to 2 talquetamab unique toxicities (70% oral, 38% skin, and 17% nail; 60% resolved). Talquetamab achieved 71% response rate. After CAR-T, 88% responded (54% complete response), with low-grade toxicities (2 grade ≥3 CRS, 1 grade 3 ICANS, and 5% grade ≥3 infections). Two cases of facial palsy and 1 acute myeloid leukemia occurred. Talquetamab correlated with sustained soluble BCMA decline and peak CAR-T expansion around day 14. Talquetamab bridging appears safe, enabling the majority of difficult-to-treat patients to successfully proceed to BCMA CAR-T therapy.

Abstract Outcomes of bispecific antibodies in patients with renal impairment (RI) are not well characterized, given the exclusion of these patients from clinical trials. Herein, we evaluated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and RI treated with standard-of-care teclistamab. RI was defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) <40 mL/min. CrCl <30 mL/min or dialysis dependence was defined as severe RI. Of the 384 included patients, 81 (21%) had RI, including 45 (18%) with severe RI, and 18 (5%) on dialysis. Patients with RI were more likely to be older (median age, 71 vs 67 years; P = .002) and have a higher median number of previous lines of therapy (7 vs 6; P = .04). Rates and severity of cytokine release syndrome (51% vs 59%; grade ≥3: 1.2% vs 1%) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (16% vs 13%; grade ≥3: 2.5% vs 2.6%) were similar in patients with and without RI, respectively. Patients with RI had higher baseline and day 30 post-teclistamab grade ≥3 anemia and grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. Renal function did not worsen after teclistamab initiation in most patients with RI outside of the context of disease progression. Overall response rate (52% vs 56%; P = .61) and survival outcomes (median progression-free survival, 4.6 vs 6.5 months; P = .62) were comparable in patients with and without RI, respectively, after a median follow-up of 9.9 months. No differences in overall survival or non-relapse mortality were noted. Our findings suggest that treatment with teclistamab is feasible in patients with RI, including those on dialysis, with a similar safety and efficacy profile to patients without RI.