Mahmoudjafari, Zahra

PURPOSE Initial reports indicate that access to contemporary therapies currently used in North America for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) varies internationally. No studies have quantitatively reported the extent of disparities in the access to MM therapies worldwide, with a goal to investigate access to MM therapies and barriers globally. METHODS From June 18 to July 15, 2023, an electronic survey was distributed to 176 oncologists treating MM outside the United States. MM drugs were categorized by accessibility, with the cutoff for adequate access set at 60% of respondents affirming easy/moderate access. RESULTS Ninety-five (54%) respondents from 33 countries completed the survey. Fifty-one percent of the respondents were from university-based academic programs, and 17% of the responders treated only plasma cell disorders. Most respondents had adequate access to noncellular MM therapies, except for isatuximab, ixazomib, selinexor, and elotuzumab. Among the cellular therapies, 17% had access to Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell therapy, whereas 23% had access to approved T-cell engagers (TCEs). Financial stress on patients and health care systems has emerged as a primary barrier to global inaccessibility of treatment drugs. CONCLUSION Global access to novel MM therapies remains challenging, and we have identified barriers and suggested strategies to bridge this gap.

The use of 4-drug induction regimens for treatment naïve newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is associated with improved depth of response and progression-free survival (PFS). However, head-to-head trials of 4-drug combinations are lacking, and instead, these regimens are typically compared to 3-drug backbones; limiting the ability to discern whether any additional benefit (or toxicity) is simply additive or represents a synergy (or interaction). We conducted a meta-analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that randomized treatment naïve NDMM patients to either a 4-drug or 3-drug induction regimen. We included 11 trials which represented 6509 unique patients. PFS for all trials in the meta-analysis was 54 months with a 4-drug induction and 8.9 months with a 3-drug induction (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.45; 0.54), but there was no benefit to using a 4-drug induction that did not include an anti-CD38 antibody (PFS 4-drug 8.1 months, PFS 3-drug 8.0 months; HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86; 1.06). Adverse events were more frequent with the quadruplet regimens but were predominately mild. High-grade (≥3) adverse events (AEs) that were more common with 4-drug regimens were infections (RR: 1.34; 95% CI 1.17; 1.54) and thrombocytopenia (RR: 1.39; 95% CI 1.12; 1.74). This study suggests that 4-drug induction regimens which include an anti-CD38 antibody improve efficacy although with additional toxicity in NDMM patients.

Introduction The treatment of cancer is associated with high risk for toxicity and high cost. Strategies to enhance the value, quality, and safety of cancer care are often managed independently of one another. Oncology stewardship is a potential framework to unify these efforts and enhance outcomes. This landscape survey establishes baseline information on oncology stewardship in the United States. Methods The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) distributed a 38-item survey composed of demographic, institutional, clinical decision-making, support staff, metrics, and technology sections to 675 HOPA members between 9 September 2022 and 9 October 2022. Results Most organizations (78%) have adopted general pharmacy stewardship practices; however, only 31% reported having established a formalized oncology stewardship team. More than 70% of respondents reported implementation of biosimilars, formulary management, and dose rounding as oncology stewardship initiatives in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Frequently cited barriers to oncology stewardship included lack of clinical pharmacist availability (74%), lack of oncology stewardship training (62%), lack of physician/provider buy-in (32%), and lack of cost-saving metrics (33%). Only 6.6% of survey respondents reported their organization had defined “value in oncology.” Lack of a formalized stewardship program was most often cited (77%) as the rationale for not defining value. Conclusions Less than one-third of respondents have established oncology stewardship programs; however, most are providing oncology stewardship practices. This manuscript serves as a call to action for stakeholders to work together to formalize oncology stewardship programs that optimize value, quality, and safety for patients with cancer.

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell malignancy and is the second most common type of hematologic cancer worldwide. Treatment options for MM have evolved in the last two decades with the introduction of novel therapeutic agents such as immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PI), anti-CD-38 monoclonal antibodies (anti-CD38 MoAb), and recently BCMA-directed therapies (BDT). The variable access globally, especially for novel agents, has been a concern. We aim to study the global availability of 14 chemoimmunotherapy options in addition to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) which is approved in the US (excluding BDT due to limited availability), to identify regions with restricted access and analyze the main barriers to access. Methods A global cohort of oncologists outside the USA who treat MM participated in an online survey to evaluate the patterns of accessibility of MM therapies worldwide. The survey, conducted in collaboration with the US Myeloma Innovations Research Collaborative (USMIRC), was sent electronically to 176 oncologists worldwide (outside the US) from June 18th, 2023, to July 17th, 2023. It included questions on demographics, access, and perceived barriers. The respondents chose a response for each therapy as being “easily accessible”, “moderately accessible,” “not readily accessible” or “no access”. Countries were then classified as having “adequate access” if 80-100% of respondents affirmed easy/moderately easy access, while <30% were considered “limited access”, 60-79% were “high-intermediate access” and 30-59% were “low-intermediate access”. We classified countries into low- and high-income (LIC and HIC) based on the United Nations (UN) World Economic Classifications based on per capita gross national income (GNI). Means were calculated for regions of interest. An interim analysis is reported. Results Demographics: Ninety-Five (54%) oncologists from 33 countries completed the survey. Most were from Asia (56%). Others were Europe (19%), South America (12%), Africa (7%), Oceania (3%), and North America (Canada and Mexico, excluding the US) (3%). Only 17% specialized in plasma cell disorders; 50.5% were affiliated with university academic centers; 18% with private or community practices; 12% with community academic centers; and 17% were hybrid. Public-funded centers represented 61.1%, while 76% were transplant centers. Global Patterns: Most countries had adequate access to chemotherapies, IMiDs, PIs, Anti-CD38, MoAbs, and ASCT (Figure 1). Notably, ixazomib, isatuximab, and selinexor had low intermediate access, while elotuzumab had limited access. Access by Income: Most MM therapies were available in LIC and HIC. Of the therapies listed, 6 were adequately available in LIC and HIC: cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, daratumumab, bortezomib, and ASCT (Table 1). Elotuzumab and selinexor were limited in both LIC and HIC. Ixazomib and isatuximab were also limited in LIC but were low-intermediate in HIC. Access by Continent: Out of the 14 therapies, Europe had adequate or high-intermediate access to most modalities (12), followed by Oceania and Asia (10), and South America (9). North America and Africa had the lowest number of adequate or high intermediate access therapies (7) (Table 1). Barriers: The most common reason cited for limited access to MM therapies globally was the financial burden for the healthcare system, followed by limitations in local agency approval, inadequate chemotherapy suite resources, and inadequate staffing. Conclusion While most therapies were available, novel therapies such as isatuximab, ixazomib, selinexor, and elotuzumab were less readily accessible. Moreover, North America and Africa had the least access to therapies. This is likely because LIC and HIC have prioritized access to treatments with the best evidence of cost-effectiveness, while those with lower cost-effectiveness are generally limited. The financial burden on healthcare is a major limiting factor. USMIRC plans to investigate potential solutions and pursue global collaborative efforts to reduce disparities in therapies.

Introduction: Novel B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) directed therapies including chimeric antigen receptor- T (CART) such as idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) have been approved since 2021. More recently in 2022, the first BCMA-directed T-cell-engager (TCE), teclistamab (tec), was also approved for the treatment of relapsed/ refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Unfortunately, limited access to these therapies worldwide appears to be a major challenge. This study aims to gain insight into the variation in access to these therapies, and barriers to access. Methods: This study was an electronic survey of 176 hematologists/oncologists in centers across the globe outside the USA who treat MM and was conducted in collaboration with US Myeloma Innovations Research Collaborative (USMIRC). The survey was distributed from June 18 th 2023, to July 15 th 2023. Sections included demographics of respondents, availability of drugs in the country, and barriers to access. The respondents categorized each medication as “easily accessible”, “moderately accessible,” “not readily accessible” or “no access”. To categorize a country/region as having “adequate access”, the cut-off was 60% of responders affirming easy/moderately easy access. We investigated whether higher healthcare spending in a country is associated with better drug accessibility. Health expenditure (HE) of a country's Gross domestic product (GDP) from the World Bank was utilized to categorize countries into two groups: “High healthcare investing nations” (HHIN), which included countries spending >10% of their GDP on healthcare, while “Low healthcare investing nations” (LHIN) included countries spending <10% on healthcare. An interim analysis is reported. Results: There were 95 (54%) completed responses from 33 countries. Most (51%) were university-based academic centers and only 17% were centers with a dedicated focus in plasma cell disorders. Only 17% reported adequate access to ide-cel and 16% to cilta-cel, while a limited, yet higher number of respondents had adequate access to tec (23%). Refer to Table 1 Access to CART (ide-cel and cilta-cel): Globally, only 3 of the 33 (9%) countries had access to ide-cel, cilta-cel or both (France, Morocco, Saudi-Arabia). All other countries had limited access. When grouped by continent, none of the continents had adequate access to CART. Both HHIN and LHIN countries had limited access to CART. Access to TCE (tec): Seven of the 33 (21%) countries had adequate access to tec (Switzerland, Netherlands, France, Portugal, Czech Republic, Morrocco, Saudi Arabia). All other countries had limited access. When grouped by continent, although Europe had the most access, none of the continents had adequate access to TEC. Both HHIN and LHIN countries had limited access to TCE, although relatively, TEC was more accessible compared to CART. Figure 1 summarizes access to CART and TCE Barriers to access: Other than Europe, the most common barrier for ide-cel, cilta-cel and tec was cited as financial burden for patients. Financial burden for patients as a top barrier for each of the products by continent was as follows: Asia (83%), South America (64%), Africa (71%) Australia (100%), and North America (100%). In Europe, for CART, financial burden remained a top barrier (50%) along with local agency approval (50% for ide-cel, 44% for cilta-cel). In Europe, the most cited barrier for TCE was the financial burden for patients (44%), while (33%) of oncologists reported no barrier to TCE. Reimbursement for CART and TCE in Europe requires phase 3 randomized controlled trial data, which is just emerging since 2022 for CART and relatively increased access may be due to the presence of compassionate use programs. Conclusion : The survey is the first attempt to highlight the significantly limited global access to novel therapies (ide-cel, cilta-cel, and tec) for the treatment of RRMM. All continents including HHIN had limited access to CART and TCE. Noticeably, CART is less accessible than TCE, even though approved earlier. The main barrier to both CART and TCE is reported as financial burden for patients. USMIRC in collaboration with oncologists worldwide, global agencies, governments, regulatory agencies, policymakers and industry partners, is planning to further explore restrictions to access to CART and TCE and strategies to overcome these barriers.

Despite advances in treatment, outcomes remain poor for patients with penta-relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated the survival outcomes of penta-RRMM patients treated with (BCMA)- directed therapy (BDT). We identified 78 patients with penta-RRMM. Median age was 65 years, 29 (37%) had R-ISS stage III disease, 63 (81%) had high-risk cytogenetics, and 45 (58%) had extra-medullary disease. Median LOT prior to penta-refractory state was 5 (3–12). Amongst penta-RRMM, 43 (55%) were treated with BDT, 35 (45%) were not treated with BDT. Type of BDT received included belantamab mafadotin 15 (35%), Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell therapy 9 (21%), BCMA monoclonal antibody 6 (14%), and Bispecific T-cell engager 2 (5%). Eleven (25%) patients received more than one BDT. No significant differences were identified between baseline characteristics for the two groups. Patients treated with a BDT had better median overall survival, 17 vs. 6 months, HR 0.3 p-value < 0.001. Poor performance status, white race, and high-risk cytogenetics were associated with worse outcomes, whereas using a BDT was associated with better outcomes. Patients with penta-refractory MM have poor outcomes. Our retrospective analysis showed a significant survival benefit using BDT when compared to non-BDT for patients with penta-RRMM.