Chari, Ajai

PURPOSE To evaluate the effects of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the phase III MAIA study. PATIENTS AND METHODS PROs were assessed on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item and the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system at baseline and every 3 months during treatment. By mixed-effects model, changes from baseline are presented as least squares means with 95% CIs. RESULTS A total of 737 transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomly assigned to D-Rd (n = 368) or Rd (n = 369). Compliance with PRO assessments was high at baseline (> 90%) through month 12 (> 78%) for both groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item global health status scores improved from baseline in both groups and were consistently greater with D-Rd at all time points. A global health status benefit was achieved with D-Rd, regardless of age (< 75 and ≥ 75 years), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score, or depth of response. D-Rd treatment resulted in significantly greater reduction in pain scores as early as cycle 3 ( P = .0007 v Rd); the magnitude of change was sustained through cycle 12. Reductions in pain with D-Rd were clinically meaningful in patients regardless of age, ECOG status, or depth of response. Similarly, PRO improvements were observed with D-Rd and Rd on the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system visual analog scale score. CONCLUSION D-Rd compared with Rd was associated with faster and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in PROs, including pain, in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma regardless of age, baseline ECOG status, or depth of treatment response.

AbstractTriple‐class‐refractory multiple myeloma (MM) describes MM refractory to proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies. In the Phase IIb STORM study (NCT02336815), oral selinexor plus low‐dose dexamethasone (Sel‐dex) demonstrated a 26.2% overall response rate in triple‐class‐refractory MM. Here, we compare overall survival (OS) of 122 patients with triple‐class‐refractory MM who received Sel‐dex in STORM Part 2 with that of 64 similar patients treated with other available therapies in a Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD) cohort. OS from the date that the patients’ MM became triple‐class‐refractory was longer in STORM versus FHAD, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (P = .0002; adjusted HR 0.35 [P = .011]). In a subset analysis of highly resistant patients receiving further therapies after their MM first became at least triple‐class‐refractory (i.e., who received Sel‐dex in STORM,n = 64, and non‐Sel‐dex in FHAD,n = 36), the OS was significantly longer in STORM with an unadjusted HR of 0.52 (P = .0331; adjusted HR 0.33 [P = .041]). Within the limits of this analysis, the OS of patients with at least triple‐class‐refractory MM was significantly better with Sel‐dex versus available therapies, suggesting that Sel‐dex may be associated with a meaningful OS benefit in these patients.

Abstract The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19–infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

Outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) have improved dramatically in the last two decades with the advent of novel therapies including immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. In recent years, immunotherapy for the treatment of MM has advanced rapidly, with the approval of new targeted agents and monoclonal antibodies directed against myeloma cell-surface antigens, as well as maturing data from late stage trials of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. Therapies that engage the immune system to treat myeloma offer significant clinical benefits with durable responses and manageable toxicity profiles, however, the appropriate use of these immunotherapy agents can present unique challenges for practicing physicians. Therefore, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened an expert panel, which met to consider the current role of approved and emerging immunotherapy agents in MM and provide guidance to the oncology community by developing consensus recommendations. As immunotherapy evolves as a therapeutic option for the treatment of MM, these guidelines will be updated.

8014 Background: TCR-MM is defined as being refractory to immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 mAbs, representing an urgent unmet medical need with a median OS of 3-5 months( Pick M et al, Eur J Haem 2018; Gandhi U et al, ASH 2018). Sd has shown a 26.2% overall response rate (ORR) in 122 patients (pts) with TCR-MM in the Phase 2b STORM study ( Chari A et al, ASH 2018). Here, we evaluate the OS of pts in the STORM study with Sd and in pts with bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab (“penta”)-exposed, TCR-MM from an observational cohort not receiving Sd. Methods: Data were drawn from STORM and a retrospective cohort from the nationally representative Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD). All pts from both sources had penta-exposed TCR-MM. In order to align study populations, OS was evaluated in pts in STORM whose first therapy after their MM reached TCR status was Sd and in pts in the FHAD who received ≥1 therapy after their MM reached TCR status. The index date for this evaluation was the start date of treatment after their MM reached TCR status. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed to assess the survival impact of Sd. In STORM, ORR was assessed by an Independent Review Committee based on IMWG criteria. Results: In the FHAD, 69 pts with TCR-MM were identified. Characteristics of the two groups of pts were similar, except that pts in STORM were more heavily pretreated, had a higher frequency of high-risk MM, a longer time since initial diagnosis of MM, and higher baseline hemoglobin and platelet values. Among the 122 pts in STORM, 64 received Sd as their first therapy after their MM became TCR, and ORR was 32.8%. Among the 69 pts from FHAD, 37 received ≥1 therapy after their MM became TCR. Median OS (N = 64) was 10.4 months for pts receiving Sd in STORM and 5.2 months (N = 37) for pts not receiving Sd in FHAD (HR = 0.49, p = 0.0241). Conclusions: The prognosis of TCR-MM in the real-world population appears very poor. Within the limits of this analysis, median OS of pts receiving Sd as their first therapy after their MM becomes TCR is significantly better than those not receiving Sd, suggesting that Sd may be associated with an OS benefit in pts with TCR-MM. Clinical trial information: NCT02336815.

Background: Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM), and has largely become the standard of care. However, toxicity leads to early discontinuation in nearly one-third of patients and additional options are needed (McCarthy, et al, JCO, 2017). Ixazomib is another maintenance option that has been shown to improve PFS; however, studies comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib are lacking. In this randomized phase 2 study, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of using lenalidomide and ixazomib as part of consolidation and maintenance therapies after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, were consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients received 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. Primary data on IRd consolidation were presented at ASH 2018 (Abstract 109920). One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients were randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or lenalidomide (10 mg daily months 1-3 followed by 15 mg for months 4+). The arms were stratified based on MRD-status post-consolidation. In total, 237 patients were enrolled from 10 US centers. This abstract coincides with planned interim analysis 3 which is the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. While the study was not powered to compare PFS between the two arms, the sample will provide a reasonable power to estimate non-inferiority. There is a planned stopping rule for non-inferiority set at a hazard ratio of &gt;1.3 in favor of lenalidomide. Secondary end-points include MRD-negativity following 12 cycles and toxicity. Results: At time of abstract submission, 215 patients had completed IRd consolidation and 191 had begun maintenance. 90 were randomized to ixazomib and 94 to lenalidomide. 7 patients were not randomized due to toxicity during consolidation; data from these patients are not included in the analyses. The characteristics of the two arms are summarized in Table 1. Hematologic toxicity has been infrequent with ixazomib with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurring in 11% and 23% of patients. In comparison, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 45% and 35% of patients on lenalidomide. The most common non-hematologic toxicities in both arms have been GI-related and infections, both expected events. 16% of patients on ixazomib have experienced Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity compared to 34% on lenalidomide. No grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy has been reported in either arm. 11% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued due to toxicity and another 9% have required a dose reduction to 3mg. Lenalidomide toxicity has led to discontinuation in 15% of patients and another 12% were dose reduced to 5mg. Only 45% of patients receiving 4+ cycles of lenalidomide were able to titrate to the 15mg dose. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months from randomization (19.7 months post-ASCT), 30% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. After a median follow-up of 12.3 months from randomization (20.2 months post-ASCT), 18% patients on lenalidomide have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. Conclusion: Ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance have been well tolerated to date. A comparison of PFS is currently being conducted as part of interim analysis 3 and final results will be presented, representing the first report directly comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib maintenance. Table 1: Disclosures Vij: Genentech: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Martin:Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche and Juno: Consultancy. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Kaufman:Celgene: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory:Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Berdeja:AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene Corporation, Constellation Pharma, Curis Inc, Genentech, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech Inc, Kesios Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen Inc, BioClinica, Celgene Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma Inc, Prothena, Servier, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Chari:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosko:Vyxeos: Other: Travel support.

Introduction: Proteasome inhibitors (PI), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and the CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab (dara) have transformed the management of MM, yet eventual refractoriness to these agents seems inevitable. Relapsed and refractory MM (RRMM) which becomes triple class refractory (TCR, i.e. refractory to a PI, an IMiD and Dara) uncommonly responds to further lines of therapy and survival is dismal. Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound targeting exportin 1 (XPO1) which is overexpressed in MM cells and essential for their survival. In the STORM study, selinexor in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (Sd) demonstrated promising efficacy in TCR, penta-exposed (TCR-PE, i.e. exposed to lenalidomide, pomalidomide, bortezomib, carfilzomib and dara) MM. Establishing the natural history for outcomes in the TCR-PE population can help provide context to understand the outcomes observed with Sd in STORM. In the retrospective MAMMOTH study, we reported the outcomes of patients with RRMM after they became refractory to dara, including a subset of patients who were TCR. We further analyzed the MAMMOTH dataset to generate a cohort of patients similar to patients in STORM in order to compare conventional care vs. Sd. Methods: We included all patients in STORM who received Sd as the first line therapy after they achieved TCR-PE status (n=64). We extracted from the MAMMOTH dataset all patients who were not exposed to Sd in a subsequent line of therapy, became TCR-PE and who received subsequent MM-directed therapy (n=128). Overall response rate (ORR) was evaluated according to IMWG criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of initiation of next line of therapy after TCR-PE status until death or last follow-up. We compared OS in STORM vs. MAMMOTH utilizing cox-regression analysis with adjustment for covariables potentially influencing the outcome. Results: Baseline patient characteristics and prior therapies are per table. The two cohorts were similar in terms of age, number of prior lines of therapy and presence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. STORM patients had longer time between MM diagnosis and post TCR-PE therapy with a higher proportion of refractoriness to carfilzomib. Patients in STORM had ORR to Sd of 32.8% vs 25.0% for patients receiving conventional care in MAMMOTH (P=0.078). In direct comparison, patients in STORM had better OS than patients in MAMMOTH (median 10.4 vs. 6.9 months) (P=0.043, figure). In multivariate analysis, STORM patients had lower risk of death in comparison with MAMMOTH patients (aHR=0.55, 95%C.I. 0.35-0.86, P=0.009). Refractoriness to carfilzomib (aHR=2.20, 95%C.I. 1.16-4.15, P=0.015) and high-risk cytogenetics (aHR-1.66, 95% C.I. 1.13-2.42, P=0.009) were also associated with inferior OS. Conclusion: Despite inherent limitations in comparison of trial enrollees vs. real world patients, this analysis suggests improved OS with Sd vs conventional care in patients with TCR-PE RRMM. Prognosis for these patients remains poor and underscores the need for therapeutic advancements. Disclosures Costa: Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Fujimoto Pharmaceutical Corporation Japan: Other: Advisor; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hari:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tang:Karyopharm: Employment. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jagannath:BMS: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Medicom: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Speakers Bureau. Chari:Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Ma:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Siegel:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Biran:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding. Lonial:BMS: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Richardson:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Malek:Adaptive: Consultancy; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Medpacto: Research Funding. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Usmani:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, SkylineDX, Takeda: Other: Consultant/Advisor; Amgen Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Takeda: Other: Research Grant. Kang:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy; InCyte Corportation: Research Funding. Cornell:Takeda: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy.

BACKGROUND: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) combined with an Rd backbone constitute commonly used regimens in RRMM in the US. Lack of data from head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy of these PI-Rd triplets and the extent to which efficacy translates to benefit in routine care highlight the need for real-world evidence. We conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis of time to next therapy (TTNT) of these PI-Rd triplet combinations in a real-world representative cohort of RRMM patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, RRMM patients who initiated an index regimen with IRd, KRd, or VRd in ≥2nd line of therapy (LOT 2+) were followed between 1/2014-9/2018 in Optum's deidentified national electronic health records database. This database captures information on all patients treated by >140,000 providers across 50 states in the US. It is representative of the US general population. Baseline data included: a modified frailty score utilizing age and Charlson Comorbidity Index1, ECOG performance status, CRAB symptoms, ISS stage, cytogenetic risk (high: del[17p], t[4;14], or t[14;16]), history of: cardiovascular disease, peripheral neuropathy, stem-cell transplant, and uncontrolled hypertension, prior PI and/or IMID exposure and refractory status, time from diagnosis to start of index LOT, time from start of frontline therapy to start of LOT 2, and treatment-free interval prior to index LOT. Duration of therapy (DOT) and TTNT were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using stratified (by LOT) ± baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models with a repeated measures analysis of pt-LOTs with robust sandwich estimators to account for inclusion of patients in multiple LOTs. The main analysis was repeated in subgroups a priori defined by frailty score, cytogenetic risk, prior PI and/or IMID exposure and LOT. Observations were censored at time of loss to follow up/end of study period (9/30/2018). RESULTS: Overall, 650 patients with 733 pt-LOTs (IRd, n=168; KRd, n=208; VRd, n=357) were included; 20% of the RRMM patients in this cohort were treated at academic centers. In the I-/K-/V-Rd groups, respectively, median age was 71/65/71 years and 42/22/38% patients were ≥75 years old; 39/55/46% and 28/14/29% patients had a modified frailty score of intermediate and frail, respectively; 71/88/80% had a symptomatic relapse with at least 1 CRAB symptom; 20/28/13% patients had high cytogenetic risk; 69/72/90% patients were treated in 2-3 LOT, and 63/70/32% patients had prior exposure to a PI+IMID (P<0.05 for all). The median follow-up was 14.4 months. Unadjusted median DOT of index LOT was 12.3/7.2/10.0 months, with a lower risk of discontinuation of the oral PI component for I in comparison to both K and V (HR[I vs K] of 0.66 and HR[I vs V] of 0.68) and R component in the IRd vs KRd and VRd groups (HR[I vs K] of 0.64 and HR[I vs V] of 0.75) (P<0.05 for all). Unadjusted median TTNT was 12.7/8.6/14.2 months for I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2; with HR for TTNT of 0.76 (IRd vs KRd; P<0.05); 1.01 (IRd vs VRd; P=0.96); 1.33 (KRd vs VRd; P<0.05). The adjusted HRs for TTNT I-/K-/V-Rd in LOT ≥2 were 0.82 (IRd vs KRd); 0.93 (IRd vs VRd); 1.13 (KRd vs VRd; P>0.05 for all), and were comparable between all 3 groups. A significant TTNT benefit for IRd vs KRd was observed among patients with high cytogenetic risk (HR: 0.47) and with intermediate frailtymodified score (HR: 0.60; P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world representative RRMM cohort, in unadjusted analyses, the IRd group had a longer DOT of the PI and R components and a longer TTNT in comparison with KRd. After adjusting for baseline confounders to separate the treatment effect, the I/K/V-Rd triplet combinations were comparable in TTNT, but IRd was significantly better than KRd in patients with high-risk cytogenetics and with an intermediate frailty score. Residual confounding is always a potential limitation of any non-randomized study. Conversely, the results of randomized, clinical trials are limited in generalizability as 40-60% of patients are excluded due to inability to meet eligibility criteria. This is especially pertinent in an elderly RRMM population as demonstrated in the real-world effectiveness results in this study. Ref: 1. Palumbo, et al. Blood. 2015;125:2068-2074 Figure Disclosures Chari: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Romanus:Takeda: Employment. Raju:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda to complete this analyses., Research Funding; Xcenda, LLC: Employment. Cain:Takeda: Employment. Blazer:Xcenda: Employment; Takeda: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda for completion of this analysis, Research Funding. Farrelly:Xcenda: Employment; Takeda: Other: Xcenda received funding from Takeda for completion of this analysis, Research Funding. Stull:Takeda: Employment. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding.