Reshef, Ran

Abstract Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was approved in 2022 for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report outcomes with cilta-cel in the standard-of-care setting. Patients with RRMM who underwent leukapheresis for cilta-cel manufacturing between 1 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 at 16 US academic medical centers were included. Overall, 255 patients underwent leukapheresis and 236 (92.5%) received cilta-cel, of which 54% would not have met CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria. In treated patients (N = 236), cytokine release syndrome was seen in 75% (grade ≥3, 5%), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 14% (grade ≥3, 4%), and delayed neurotoxicity in 10%. Overall and complete response rates were as follows: all patients who received cilta-cel (N = 236), 89% and 70%; patients receiving conforming cilta-cel (n = 191), 94% and 74%; and conforming cilta-cel with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion (n = 152), 95% and 76%, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality was 10%, most commonly from infection. After a median follow-up of 13 months from cilta-cel, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, with 12-month estimate being 68% (95% confidence interval, 62-74). High ferritin levels, high-risk cytogenetics, and extramedullary disease were independently associated with inferior PFS, with a signal for prior B-cell maturation antigen–targeted therapy (P = .08). Second primary malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers were seen in 5.5% and myeloid malignancies/acute leukemia in 1.7%. We observed a favorable efficacy profile of standard-of-care cilta-cel in RRMM, despite more than half the patients not meeting the CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria.

Abstract Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grading systems that use only clinical symptoms at treatment initiation such as the Minnesota risk identify standard and high-risk categories but lack a low-risk category suitable to minimize immunosuppressive strategies. We developed a new grading system that includes a low-risk stratum based on clinical symptoms alone and determined whether the incorporation of biomarkers would improve the model’s prognostic accuracy. We randomly divided 1863 patients in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) who were treated for GVHD into training and validation cohorts. Patients in the training cohort were divided into 14 groups based on similarity of clinical symptoms and similar nonrelapse mortality (NRM); we used a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm to create three Manhattan risk groups that produced a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 6-month NRM than the Minnesota risk classification (0.69 vs 0.64, P = .009) in the validation cohort. We integrated serum GVHD biomarker scores with Manhattan risk using patients with available serum samples and again used a CART algorithm to establish 3 MAGIC composite scores that significantly improved prediction of NRM compared to Manhattan risk (AUC, 0.76 vs 0.70, P = .010). Each increase in MAGIC composite score also corresponded to a significant decrease in day 28 treatment response (80% vs 63% vs 30%, P < .001). We conclude that the MAGIC composite score more accurately predicts response to therapy and long-term outcomes than systems based on clinical symptoms alone and may help guide clinical decisions and trial design.

Abstract The significance of biomarkers in second-line treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) has not been well characterized. We analyzed clinical data and serum samples at the initiation of second-line systemic treatment of acute GVHD from 167 patients from 17 centers of the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) between 2016 and 2021. Sixty-two patients received ruxolitinib-based therapy, whereas 102 received other systemic agents. In agreement with prospective trials, ruxolitinib resulted in a higher day 28 (D28) overall response Frate than nonruxolitinib therapies (55% vs 31%, P = .003) and patients who received ruxolitinib had significantly lower nonrelapse mortality (NRM) than those who received nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 35% vs 61%, P = .002). Biomarker analyses demonstrated that the benefit from ruxolitinib was observed only in patients with low MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs) at the start of second-line treatment. Among patients with a low MAP, those who received ruxolitinib experienced significantly lower NRM than those who received nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 12% vs 41%, P = .016). However, patients with high MAP experienced high NRM regardless of treatment with ruxolitinib or nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 67% vs 80%, P = .65). A landmark analysis demonstrated that the relationship between the D28 response and NRM largely depends on the MAP level at the initiation of second-line therapy. In conclusion, MAP measured at second-line systemic treatment for acute GVHD predicts treatment response and NRM. The outcomes of patients with high MAP are poor regardless of treatment choice, and ruxolitinib appears to primarily benefit patients with low MAP.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a major cause of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Algorithms containing either the gastrointestinal (GI) GVHD biomarker amphiregulin (AREG) or a combination of 2 GI GVHD biomarkers (suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 [ST2] + regenerating family member 3 alpha [REG3α]) when measured at GVHD diagnosis are validated predictors of NRM risk but have never been assessed in the same patients using identical statistical methods. We measured the serum concentrations of ST2, REG3α, and AREG by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at the time of GVHD diagnosis in 715 patients divided by the date of transplantation into training (2004-2015) and validation (2015-2017) cohorts. The training cohort (n = 341) was used to develop algorithms for predicting the probability of 12-month NRM that contained all possible combinations of 1 to 3 biomarkers and a threshold corresponding to the concordance probability was used to stratify patients for the risk of NRM. Algorithms were compared with each other based on several metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, proportion of patients correctly classified, sensitivity, and specificity using only the validation cohort (n = 374). All algorithms were strong discriminators of 12-month NRM, whether or not patients were systemically treated (n = 321). An algorithm containing only ST2 + REG3α had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (0.757), correctly classified the most patients (75%), and more accurately risk-stratified those who developed Minnesota standard-risk GVHD and for patients who received posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based prophylaxis. An algorithm containing only AREG more accurately risk-stratified patients with Minnesota high-risk GVHD. Combining ST2, REG3α, and AREG into a single algorithm did not improve performance.

Abstract The absence of a standardized definition for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) flares and data on its clinical course are significant concerns. We retrospectively evaluated 968 patients across 23 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) transplant centers who achieved complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) within 4 weeks of treatment. The cumulative incidence of flares within 6 months was 22%, and flares were associated with a higher risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.19-7.36; P < .001). Flares were more severe (grades 3/4, 41% vs 16%; P < .001) and had more frequent lower gastrointestinal (LGI) involvement (55% vs 32%; P < .001) than the initial GVHD. At CR/VGPR, elevated MAGIC biomarkers predicted the future occurrence of a flare, along with its severity and LGI involvement. In multivariate analyses, higher Ann Arbor (AA) biomarker scores at CR/VGPR were significant risk factors for flares (AA2 vs AA1: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.32-2.48; P = .001]; AA3 vs AA1: aHR, 3.14 [95% CI, 1.98-4.98; P < .001]), as were early response to initial treatment (aHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.21-2.80; P = .004) and HLA-mismatched unrelated donor (aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.00-3.02; P = .049). MAGIC biomarkers also stratified the risk of NRM both at CR/VGPR and at the time of flare. We conclude that GVHD flares are common and carry a significant mortality risk. The occurrence of future flares can be predicted by serum biomarkers that may serve to guide adjustment and discontinuation of immunosuppression.

Introduction: Risk stratification approaches using clinical criteria or biomarkers in acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) have traditionally been implemented at diagnosis or initiation systemic treatment with corticosteroids. For patients who require second-line treatment, the significance of biomarkers at salvage therapy and the relationship between biomarker risk and choice of therapy are unknown. Methods: We studied adult patients who received second-line treatment for acute GVHD between January 2016 and December 2021 in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD Consortium (MAGIC) database, which collects clinical data and longitudinal serum samples from allogeneic HCT recipients using a rigorous PRoBE study design. Exclusion criteria included relapse of underlying malignant disease prior to second-line therapy, missing response data, or missing serum sample. Serum samples collected from 7 days prior to 3 days after initiation of second-line therapy met criteria for biomarker analysis. The MAGIC algorithm probability (MAP) was calculated as a single value based on concentrations of ST2 and REG3α and was stratified at a threshold of 0.290 to define high MAP and low MAP groups. The primary objective evaluated the association between MAP and survival for patients receiving second-line therapy for acute GVHD. The key secondary objective was to investigate the MAP and choice of second-line systemic agent on Day 28 overall response rate (ORR) and survival. Results: In total, 316 adult patients received second-line treatment for acute GVHD; 149 patients (47%) were excluded for disease relapse (n=27), missing response data (n=48), or missing sample (n=74).Of the 167 evaluable patients, most had steroid-refractory acute GVHD (n=146, 87%), rather than steroid-dependent (n=8, 5%) or steroid-sensitive (n=14, 8%) disease. 62 patients received ruxolitinib while 102 received other systemic agents (best available therapy: BAT). Baseline clinical characteristics of the study population according to treatment choice were similar, except for donor type (Rux: MRD 15%, MUD 74%, haplo 11%; BAT: MRD 30%, MUD 67%, haplo 3%; P=0.014) and median days from corticosteroids to second-line treatment (Rux: 18, BAT: 12; P=0.02).In total, 81 patients had high MAPs and 86 patients had low MAPs, with similar distribution in each treatment cohort (P=0.53). For the entire cohort, the median follow-up for survivors was 22 months (range, 1.5-27).The MAP separated patients into 2 groups (high vs low) with significantly different mortality (NRM at 2 years, 76% vs 29%, P<.0001) and survival (OS at 2 years, 12% vs 63%, P<.0001). Patients who received ruxolitinib as second-line therapy had lower mortality (NRM at 2 years, 35% vs 60%, P<.002) and improved survival (OS at 2 years, 51% vs 32%, P<.008), compared to those who received other systemic agents. However, the outcomes of patients with high MAP were poor, regardless of second-line treatment choice ( Figure 1A). The MAP (low vs high), time from corticosteroids to second-line treatment (≥14 days vs < 14 days), GVHD grade at second-line (0-2 vs 3-4), and choice of second-line therapy (Rux vs BAT) were all significant (P<0.05) predictors of lower NRM and higher OS in multivariate analysis. The MAP also separated patients into 2 groups with significantly different D28 ORR (low: 49%, high: 30%, P<.0001). In agreement with prospective trials, ruxolitinib resulted in higher D28 response rates compared to other systemic therapies (ORR 54.9% vs 30.5%, P=0.005), which was observed in both low MAP (ORR, 64.5% vs 38.5%, P=0.017) and high MAP cohorts (ORR, 42.9% vs 22.6%, P=0.06) ( Figure 1B). The MAP (low vs high), GVHD grade at second line (0-2 vs 3-4), and choice of second-line therapy (Rux vs BAT) were significant predictors (P<0.05) of higher D28 ORR in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: The MAP measured at the initiation of second-line systemic treatment for acute GVHD predicts NRM and OS, as well as treatment response. The outcomes of patients with high MAP are poor, regardless of second-line treatment choice, and the higher CR rate in low MAP patients may drive higher survival rates. Incorporation of MAP into clinical trials in this setting warrants investigation. The results also support the current use of ruxolitinib as second-line treatment for acute GVHD, particularly in patients with low MAP.

[Background] The current standard first-line treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), systemic high-dose steroids, induces clinical responses in a majority of patients. Flares of GVHD after initial improvement often occur during tapering or discontinuation of immunosuppression. There is no consensus regarding the definition of GVHD flare and little has been published regarding its natural history. [Methods] We retrospectively evaluated clinical data and blood samples from 968 allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients from 23 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) transplant centers who achieved complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) within 4 weeks of acute GVHD treatment between 2014 and 2021. VGPR was defined as the complete resolution of acute GVHD manifestations except residual stage 1 skin disease. Flares were defined as a recurrence of acute GVHD after achievement of CR/VGPR if (1) patients had an increased symptom severity of at least 1 organ stage; (2) received intensified treatment (increase in steroid dose ≥ 0.25 mg/kg or initiation of additional systemic immunosuppression); and (3) had no prior history of primary disease relapse or donor lymphocyte infusion preceding the flare. Serum samples obtained at the time of CR/VGPR and at the time of flares were analyzed for ST2 and REG3α concentrations that generated MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs) resulting in previously validated Ann Arbor (AA) scores (1, 2, and 3). [Results] The median recipient age at HCT was 55 years (range: 0 to 79); 18.6% of patients had grades III-IV acute GVHD before CR/VGPR. The median maximum daily dose of corticosteroids before CR/VGPR was 1 mg/kg methylprednisolone equivalent (range, 0.1 to 3.2 mg/kg). Flares developed within 6 months following CR/VGPR in 210/968 (21.7%) patients with a median onset of 28 days (range: 2 to 448). Symptom severity at the onset of flare symptoms varied widely (grade I: 22%; grade II: 38%; grade III-IV: 41%) and the development of a flare was associated with a five-fold increase in NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 4.84 [95% CI, 3.19-7.36], P < 0.001) when considered as a time-dependent covariate in a multivariate regression model. The large majority of non-relapse deaths after flares (54/71, 76%) were due to acute GVHD or complications from its treatment. The AA scores at the time of first CR/VGPR successfully stratified patients for risk of six-month NRM (AA1: 5%, AA2: 11%, AA3: 34%, P < 0.001) (Figure A). Increasing AA score at CR/VGPR was also associated with significantly increased risk of GVHD flares (Figure B). Not only did the risk of flare increase with each rising AA score, but the number of patients with severe (grade III/IV) symptoms at flare onset also increased (AA1: 34%, AA2: 43%, AA3: 54%). We next generated a multivariate regression model of risk factors for the development of flares. High AA scores at the time of CR/VGPR (AA2: HR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.32-2.48], P = 0.001; AA3: HR, 3.14 [95% CI, 1.98-4.98], P < 0.001), HCT from HLA mismatched unrelated donor (HR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.00-3.02], P = 0.049), and interestingly, rapid achievement of CR/VGPR from the time of initial treatment (≤14 days) (HR, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.21-2.80], P = 0.004) were all identified as significant risk factors. Meanwhile, no other transplant, GVHD, or treatment characteristics associated with the development of flares including maximum GVHD severity, maximum steroid dose, and use of additional immunosuppressive agents other than steroids before CR/VGPR. AA scores measured at the onset of flare symptoms in 98 patients also predicted six-month NRM (AA1, 6%; AA2, 19%; AA3 42%, P = 0.01). [Conclusion] Despite advances in treatment, flares of GVHD symptoms following excellent (CR/VGPR) responses still occur in over one fifth of patients in current practice and are associated with a five-fold increase in six-month NRM. AA scores from serum biomarkers predict outcomes despite the absence of symptoms, suggesting that MAGIC biomarkers detect subclinical damage to GI crypts that can drive later recrudescence of clinical GVHD. Measurement of the MAP at the time of response to GVHD treatment may thus help to risk-stratify tapering strategies of immunosuppressive therapy.

The overall response rate (ORR) 28 days (D28) after treatment has been adopted as the primary endpoint for clinical trials of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD). ORR combines complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) because CR and PR have very similar non relapse mortality (NRM). D28 ORR has some disadvantages: first, physicians usually decide to modify immunosuppression much earlier than D28, and second, NRM does not always correlate well with ORR at D28, particularly for patients who present with intermediate risk or low risk disease. MAGIC serum biomarkers at day 14 (D14) of GVHD treatment have been shown to correlate better with NRM than clinical symptom response (Srinagesh et al, Blood Advances, 2019). We therefore hypothesized that a combination of clinical symptom severity and biomarkers at D14 of treatment would predict NRM at least as well and possibly better than clinical response at D28. We studied 1144 patients from 23 MAGIC sites who were systemically treated with at least 0.25 mg/kg/day of systemic steroids (prednisone equivalents) and had clinical data and serum samples available in the MAGIC database and biorepository. We divided the patients into a training set (n=764) and a validation set (n=380). We used 12-month NRM from the time of acute GVHD onset as the primary outcome of interest. We first trained a recursive partitioning algorithm in the training set to create a response model (MAGIC D14 clinical response) according to overall GVHD grade at both onset and D14 that predicted 12-month NRM and then applied it to the validation set. Patients that either progressed to grade III/IV GVHD, continued having grade III/IV GVHD, or only improved to grade II at D14 from grade III/IV at D0 had high NRM and were classified as non-responders. Patients with grade I/II GVHD at day 0 who had grade 0-II GVHD at day 14 and patients who improved to grade 0/I at day 14 from grade III/IV at day 0 had low NRM and were classified as responders. Although counterintuitive, responders included patients whose GVHD remained at grade II because the 12 month NRM of this group was only 20%. The new clinical model predicted NRM as well as the D28 standard response model in the validation set. When we integrated the D14 MAP biomarker score (low: ≤ 0.290 vs high: >0.290) with the new D14 clinical response (D14 MAGIC integrated response), we observed three response groups of integrated response with strikingly different 12 month NRM (8%, 35%, 76%, p<0.001), in contrast to the D28 standard response (Figure 1A, 1B). D14 complete response required MAGIC clinical response with low MAP; D14 partial response required either MAGIC clinical response with high MAP or MAGIC clinical non-response with low MAP; and D14 non-response required MAGIC clinical non-response with high MAP. The D14 response groups also displayed significant differences in 12 month OS (82%, 58%, 14% respectively, p<0.001) We then compared the D14 integrated response with the D28 standard response for 12 month NRM prediction. This D14 integrated response model was superior for time-dependent AUC (0.78 vs 0.71, P=0.03), sensitivity (0.71 vs 0.54), positive predictive value (0.52 vs 0.48) and negative predictive value (0.92 vs 0.89), with minimal loss in specificity (0.85 vs 0.87) in the prediction of 12-month NRM compared to the D28 standard response model. Using decision curve analysis, the D14 integrated response displayed higher net benefit (correct identification of patients that will experience NRM by 12 months) over the whole range of threshold probabilities/preferences for changing immunosuppression when 12-month NRM was used as the outcome. We conclude first, that the definition of response that uses onset and D14 grades is as accurate as D28 ORR model; and second, that a model using clinical grades and biomarkers on D14 more accurately predicts long term NRM than the standard D28 definition and may be useful as a clinical trial endpoint.

Introduction Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) have a higher risk of progression/death following an inadequate response to frontline ASCT (van de Velde Eur J Haematol 2017). Therapies (Tx) with novel mechanisms of action may further improve response outcomes. Ide-cel previously demonstrated frequent, deep, and durable responses in KarMMa (Munshi N Engl J Med 2021) and significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) versus standard regimens in KarMMa-3 (Rodríguez-Otero N Engl J Med 2023) in pts with triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory MM. KarMMa-2 (NCT03601078) is a multicohort, phase 2, multicenter trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of ide-cel in pts with MM; cohort 2c included pts with NDMM who had an inadequate response to frontline Tx with ASCT. In cohort 2c, with a median follow-up of 27.9 months, ide-cel demonstrated deep and durable responses; complete response (CR) rate was 74.2% (ORR, 87.1%), with a 24-month PFS rate of 83.1% (Dhodapkar Blood 2022). Here, we report results with an additional 11.5 months of median follow-up for updated efficacy and safety data, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in cohort 2c. Methods Eligible pts had NDMM, received ≥ 3 cycles of induction Tx (including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and dexamethasone), had < very good partial response (VGPR) 70-110 days after ASCT (single/tandem), and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1. Pts received a single infusion of ide-cel (dose range: 150-450 × 10 6 CAR+ T cells) after lymphodepletion and could receive maintenance Tx post-infusion at investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint CR rate and secondary endpoints ORR, duration of response (DOR), PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes on HRQoL, assessed via European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core 30 Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and EORTC Quality of Life Multiple Myeloma Module 20 Questionnaire (QLQ-MY20), are reported. The exploratory endpoint of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (sensitivity, 10 -5) is also reported. Results At data cutoff (May 3, 2023), with a median follow-up of 39.4 (range, 31.6-44.7) months, all 31 pts who were infused with ide-cel were alive; 28 (90.3%) remained in follow-up, with 3 (9.7%) having discontinued due to disease progression. The ORR and CR rates were 87.1% and 77.4%, respectively ( Table); best overall response in 1 pt improved from VGPR to stringent CR. The median DOR was not reached (NR; 95% CI, NR-NR), neither was median PFS (95% CI, 38.0-NR) or median OS (95% CI, NR-NR); the 36-month event-free rates were 80.9%, 76.8%, and 100.0%, respectively. In pts who did not receive lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance, 9 (29.0%) had disease progression; of the 8 pts who received LEN maintenance post ide-cel infusion, none experienced disease progression. At 36 months, MRD negativity was confirmed in 9/14 (64.3%) evaluable pts; all 9 achieved ≥ CR. In this extended follow-up, safety results were generally consistent with the previous data cutoff. All pts experienced ≥ 1 any-grade adverse event (AE), most commonly hematologic, including neutropenia (80.6%), anemia (38.7%), leukopenia (32.3%), and thrombocytopenia (29.0%); infection and infestation AEs occurred in 74.2% of pts. No grade 5 AEs were reported. Incidence of any-grade cytokine release syndrome (58.1%; no grade ≥ 3) was unchanged and there were no additional reports of parkinsonism since the previous report. Overall, HRQoL improved ( Figure) and MM disease symptoms were stable over time based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20, respectively, following ide-cel treatment; by month 3, > 75% of pts had improved or stable global health status/QoL. Conclusions Ide-cel continued to demonstrate deep, durable responses in pts with an inadequate response to frontline ASCT, no new safety signals were observed with extended follow-up, and no deaths were reported. No pts who received LEN maintenance post ide-cel experienced disease progression. Ide-cel treatment resulted in stable or improved HRQoL. Overall, ide-cel continued to demonstrate a favorable clinical benefit-risk profile in NDMM after ASCT. Study support 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Introduction: Lymphodepletion (LD) chemotherapy is critical for the efficacy of CAR-T therapy by eradicating immunosuppressive cells, inducing costimulatory molecules, and promoting expansion and persistence of CAR-T cells. It also can contribute to an increased risk of infections, cytopenia, and other toxicities. We evaluated the utilization of varying LD regimens used in standard-of-care (SOC) autologous B-cell maturation antigen-directed (BCMA) CAR-T therapy with ide-cel or cilta-cel for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and the effect on outcomes and toxicity. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from patients with RRMM who underwent LD and CAR-T cell infusion by December 31, 2022, from 13 US academic institutions with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel. Response rates and other categorical variables, specifically LD regimen, were tested for association using Wilcoxon rank-sum (or Kruskal-Wallis for three or more groups) or Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Results: A total of 523 patients were infused at the time of data cut-off with 489 patients evaluable for safety and survival analyses; 368 (75%) were infused with ide-cel and 121 (25%) with cilta-cel. The median age was 65 years old (range 30-90) with 206 females (42%) and 283 males (58%), and 13% with ECOG performance status ≥ 2 at time of LD. Fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy) LD was used in 422 patients while 67 patients received other LD regimens including bendamustine-based (n = 35, 52%), cladribine-based (n = 25, 37%) or cyclophosphamide alone (n = 7, 10%). The primary reason for use of Flu/Cy LD was institutional guidance or SOC in 378 patients (90%), while the primary reason for use of other LD regimens was due to the fludarabine shortage in 65 patients (97%) with 3% citing physician's choice or institutional guidance. No significant difference was identified among response outcomes, with those receiving Flu/Cy LD achieving an ORR of 84% compared to 81% with other LD regimens (p = 0.59) and no difference observed in rates of ≥ VGPR (66% Flu/Cy LD vs 60% other LD; p = 0.48). Of those evaluable for MRD at 1 and 3 months, the MRD negative rate at 10 -6 for those with Flu/Cy LD was 77% (n= 137) and 77% (n=113) and with other LD regimens was 66% (n=35) and 79% (n=28), respectively. At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, no statistically significant difference was noted in median progression free survival (mPFS) with Flu/Cy vs other LD regimens (9.3 mos vs NR) or overall survival (OS) (19.4 mos vs NR). When stratified by type of CAR-T therapy, treatment with bendamustine-based LD was associated with an inferior mPFS compared to those receiving Flu/Cy LD in patients treated with ide-cel (3.8 vs 8.5 mos; p=0.0056), though not by multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis of patients treated with ide-cel between Flu/Cy and bendamustine LD did not reveal any significant differences in age, gender, ECOG, R-ISS stage, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics or renal dysfunction (Cr < 45 ml/min). LD regimen was not a predictor for PFS on multivariable analyses amongst patients treated with ide-cel, while ECOG ≥ 3 (hazard ratio [HR]= 4.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.40, 14.08) and t(4,14) (HR= 2.02, 95% CI=1.14, 3.59) were associated with worse PFS. No difference in mPFS by LD regimen was observed in patients receiving cilta-cel, which was a smaller cohort (mPFS: Flu/Cy 11.7 mos, bendamustine-based NR, cladribine-based NR, cyclophosphamide NR). Rates of all grade CRS (81% vs 70%), Grade ≥ 3 CRS (3% vs 3%), all grade ICANS (19% vs 12%, and Grade ≥ 3 ICANS (4% vs 2%) were similar among those receiving Flu/Cy or other LD regimens, respectively. Patients receiving Flu/Cy LD were less likely to have any grade cytopenia at 1 month (33% vs 55%, p < 0.001) and 3 months (52% vs 69%, p < 0.001), with no observed difference in infection rate. Conclusions: The fludarabine shortage experienced in the US in late 2022 necessitated the use of alternative LD regimens with BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy with most centers relying on bendamustine- or cladribine-based regimens. Use of bendamustine-based LD was associated with inferior PFS in patients receiving ide-cel on univariate analysis, but not on multivariate analysis after adjusting for other prognostic factors. In summary, there is no clear difference in efficacy or safety between Flu/Cy and non-Flu/Cy LD in patients receiving BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy. *Authors contributed equally