Moreau, Philippe

7569 Background: MAIA and CEPHEUS trials demonstrated that daratumumab (Dara) with standard of care (SOC) VRd or Rd significantly improved clinical outcomes versus SOC in TIE NDMM. Here we describe efficacy and safety in TIE pts from both trials by age and baseline (BL) frailty using the latest data cuts. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to DRd (n=368) or Rd (n=369) in MAIA and 1:1 to DVRd (n=144) or VRd (n=145) in CEPHEUS. Progression-free survival (PFS), complete response or better (≥CR), overall MRD negativity (neg) at 10 -5 with ≥CR, sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (confirmed MRD neg ≥12 ± 1 months [mo] apart without MRD positivity in between), and safety were assessed by age (<70, 70–<75, or ≥75 years [y]) and BL frailty (assessed by IFM simplified frailty score: 0–1, non-frail; ≥2, frail). Results: Median follow-up was 64.5 mo in MAIA and 76.0 mo in CEPHEUS. In MAIA, 155 (21%) pts were <70 y, 261 (35%) 70–<75 y, and 321 (44%) ≥75 y; 341 (46%) pts were frail, 88.0 % of whom were ≥70 y. In CEPHEUS TIE pts, 70 (24%) pts were <70 y, 133 (46%) 70–<75 y, and 86 (30%) ≥75 y; 83 (29%) pts were frail, 86% of whom were ≥70 y. DRd or DVRd improved PFS, MRD neg rates, sustained MRD neg rates, and ≥CR rates vs Rd or VRd arms across age and frailty subgroups in both trials (Table). Safety was consistent with established individual drug profiles, and adverse event rates were generally comparable across treatment arms and subgroups within both trials. Additional data on patient-specific factors relevant to these subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: Dara-based regimens improved efficacy outcomes across subgroups in MAIA and CEPHEUS trials, reinforcing Dara-based regimens as SOC in TIE NDMM regardless of age or frailty. These data offer clinically relevant insights to help guide treatment selection for TIE pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03652064 ; NCT02252172 . PFS, hazard ratio (95% CI) ≥CR rate, % MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Age/ Frailty status MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** <70 y 0.35 (0.21–0.56) 0.60 (0.31–1.18) 56.4 vs 31.2 85.7 vs 68.6 35.9 vs 11.7 74.3 vs 42.9 25.6 vs 3.9 62.9 vs 28.6 70–<75 y 0.64 (0.45–0.89) 0.60 (0.37–0.99) 56.2 vs 31.3 77.9 vs 69.2 36.2 vs 12.2 55.9 vs 47.7 20.8 vs 5.3 45.6 vs 38.5 ≥75 y 0.59 (0.44–0.79) 0.46 (0.22–0.94) 44.4 vs 28.6 80.5 vs 44.4 26.9 vs 9.9 58.5 vs 26.7 13.8 vs 3.1 43.9 vs 15.6 Frail 0.64 (0.48–0.85) 0.62 (0.32–1.18) 44.8 vs 33.1 72.9 vs 54.3 25.6 vs 13.0 56.3 vs 34.3 15.7 vs 4.1 39.6 vs 17.1 Non-frail 0.48 (0.36–0.64) 0.51 (0.34–0.78) 56.6 vs 27.5 84.4 vs 63.6 37.8 vs 9.5 63.5 vs 41.8 21.4 vs 4.0 54.2 vs 32.7 *MAIA: DRd vs Rd; **CEPHEUS: DVRd vs VRd.

7563 Background: Subcutaneous (SC) drug delivery options have become more widely available in multiple myeloma (MM). SC delivery of isatuximab (Isa), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, has been investigated across clinical trials via a novel hands-free on-body injector (OBI). Isa SC OBI features a small, retractable needle, establishing the first device-enabled delivery of an oncologic treatment. The Phase 3 IRAKLIA, Phase 2 IZALCO, and Phase 1b (TCD15484) trials consistently demonstrated similar efficacy and safety of Isa SC OBI vs Isa IV in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) patients (pts). Here, we present a cross-trial analysis exploring safety and reliability of Isa SC OBI in RRMM pts. Methods: Pts with RRMM in IRAKLIA (N=263) and the Phase 1b expansion cohort (N=22) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (d). In IZALCO, RRMM pts (N=64) received 1400 mg Isa SC OBI + carfilzomib (K)-d. Pts were monitored for 4 hrs (IRAKLIA) or 1-2 hrs (IZALCO) following first administration and for 1 hr for the following cycle (C) 1 administrations to assess local tolerability. Pre-infusion medications included montelukast (C1), steroids, acetaminophen and H1 antihistamines. Pts without systemic infusion-related reactions (IRRs) after 4 consecutive administrations of Isa SC OBI had subsequent pre-medication reassessed at investigator’s discretion. Safety and device performance explored in this cross-trial analysis of company sponsored studies were assessed in the Isa SC OBI cohorts by the duration of injection, IRRs, local injection-site reactions (ISRs), and injection/device success, which were defined similarly across all trials. Results: The median duration of Isa SC OBI injection was 13 mins in IRAKLIA, 12 mins in IZALCO, and 10 mins in the Phase 1b trial (6426 total injections, N=349 pts). IRRs across trials occurred in 6/6426 (0.09%) injections and 4/349 (1.15%) pts. IRRs were mostly grade 1 (G; 3/6426, 0.05%) with 1 G3 (0.02%); none leading to discontinuation. In IRAKLIA, 80/263 (30.4%) pts did not require premedication (931/5145 injections, 18.1%); no IRRs occurred in this group. Across trials, ISRs occurred in 21/349 (6.02%) pts resulting in 35 (0.54%) ISR events. Most ISRs were G1 (33, 0.51%), the remaining were G2 (2, 0.03%) and generally occurred on the day of injection. 99.9% (6421/6426) of injections in 98.6% (344/349) pts were successful (completed without interruption) across all trials. Conclusions: These findings support overall low, self-limiting rates of IRRs and ISRs across trials, with >6000 (99.9%) Isa SC OBI injections successfully delivered. Isa SC OBI shows reproducible safety and reliability in IRAKLIA, IZALCO and Phase 1b trials, supporting it as a novel administration option for MM pts and its potential for future exploration in at-home administration. Clinical trial information: NCT04045795 , NCT05405166 , and NCT05704049 .