Citations

Abstract Teclistamab is an anti-CD3-/B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) bispecific antibody approved for use in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. We undertook a retrospective study of post-approval, real-world outcomes with teclistamab in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. Among 509 patients, 89% would have been ineligible for the MajesTEC-1 trial, primarily due to prior BCMA-directed therapy, cytopenias, or diminished performance status. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 54% (1.4% grade ≥3) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 11% (2.2% grade ≥3), with no fatal events. Infections occurred in 42% and contributed to death in 5%. Partial response (PR) or better was achieved in 53% and very good PR or better in 45%. With 10.1 months of median follow-up, the estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.8 months and 12-month overall survival was 61%. Independent predictors of less than very good PR and shorter PFS included BCMA-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in the previous 9 months, high disease burden, lymphopenia, and elevated ferritin. Significance: T cell–engaging bispecific antibodies such as teclistamab represent an important new treatment modality for multiple myeloma and other blood cancers. This study evaluates the real-world safety and efficacy of teclistamab, including its activity in populations not represented in the initial phase I/II study, and identifies clinical variables associated with treatment response. See related commentary by Zweegman et al., p. 542

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.

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.

PURPOSE Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), two B-cell maturation antigen–directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compare safety, efficacy, and survival among patients with RRMM treated with standard-of-care (SOC) ide-cel or cilta-cel. METHODS Data were from a retrospective chart review of patients with RRMM leukapheresed by December 31, 2022, with the intent to receive SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel at 19 institutions. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type. RESULTS A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by December 31, 2022, with ide-cel (n = 386) and cilta-cel (n = 255). Five hundred eighty-six patients were infused (n = 350 for ide-cel; n = 236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 12.6 and 13.0 months for ide-cel and cilta-cel, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well balanced. Cilta-cel was associated with higher likelihood of grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS; odds ratio [OR], 6.80 [95% CI, 2.28 to 20.33]), infections (OR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.92]), second primary malignancies (OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.89 to 3.56]), and delayed neurotoxicity (OR, 20.07 [95% CI, 4.46 to 90.20]). Cilta-cel was also associated with better treatment responses (≥complete response: OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.63 to 3.60]), longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.63]), and longer overall survival (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.97]). No associations were observed between therapy type and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenia at days 30 and 90, or nonrelapse mortality. We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time period as Food and Drug Administration approval for cilta-cel (≥March 2022). CONCLUSION Cilta-cel demonstrated superior efficacy and survival, with higher incidence of certain toxicities, compared with ide-cel.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec) received regulatory approval for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the MajesTEC-1 study. The risk of CRS and ICANS with Tec is well established with a manufacturer's recommendation of inpatient observation for 48-hours for CRS/ICANS monitoring after the initial 3 step up doses. There are limited real-world data on the characteristics of and risk factors for CRS and ICANS with Tec. Such data could inform management of Tec patients (pts), including patient selection for inpatient or outpatient step-up dosing. Methods: RRMM pts treated with standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in this analysis. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. CRS and ICANS classification was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the effects of covariates on CRS and ICANS events, with a particular focus on grade ≥2 CRS, any-grade ICANS, and the combination of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS. Results: 385 pts were included in the analysis, with a median of 6 lines of prior therapy. Median age was 68 years (range 31-92), 88 patients (25% of pts with available data) had ECOG ≥2, and 301 pts (78%) would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. 48 (33%) of 145 evaluable pts with a baseline bone marrow (BM) prior to Tec had >50% BM plasma cells, 139 pts (36%) had extramedullary disease (EMD) (either paraskeletal or true-EMD) and 5 pts (1%) had plasma cell leukemia prior to start of Tec. 224 pts (59%) received Tec with an accelerated step-up dosing regimen, defined as having at least one step-up dose interval of ≥ 2 days. 220 pts (57%) developed any-grade CRS [Grade 1: 46% (N=179), grade 2: 10% (N=37), grade 3: 0.8% (N=3), grade 4: 0.3% (N=1)]. Median time to CRS from start of Tec was 3 days (range, 0-15). Fifty-four pts (14%) developed any-grade ICANS [Grade 1: 7% (N=26), Grade 2: 5% (N=18), grade 3: 3% (N=10), grade 4: none]. There were no grade 5 CRS or ICANS events. Median time to onset of ICANS from start of Tec was 4 days (range, 0-25). There was one case of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the entire cohort. 38% of pts received tocilizumab and 17% of pts received corticosteroids. In univariate analysis (UVA), baseline platelet <50, triple-class refractory, penta-refractory status, and EMD prior to start of Tec were associated with increased risk for CRS grade ≥2 (p-values <0.1) and incorporated in MVA. Baseline platelet <50, age >60, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, and ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile were associated with increased risk for any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Baseline platelet <50, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile, and prior BCMA exposure were associated with increased risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Accelerated step-up dosing, renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) and baseline LDH in the upper quartile were not associated with an increased risk of either CRS or ICANS in UVA. Baseline BM plasma cells >50% was excluded from multivariable analysis (MVA) due to high number of missing data, since most pts (62%) did not undergo BM biopsy prior to start of Tec. In MVA, risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 included baseline platelet <50 at the start of Tec treatment (OR: 2.35, 95% CI 1.08-5.08; p=0.03) and penta-refractory disease (OR: 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.45; p=0.02). Risk factors for any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 4.18, 95% CI 1.88-9.28; p=0.0004), age >60 (OR: 7.54, 95% CI 1.63-34.89; p=0.01) and CRP in the upper quartile (OR: 2.51, 95% CI 1.16-5.43; p=0.02). Risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.94; p=0.002) and ECOG ≥2 (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.19-3.61; p=0.01). Conclusions: This real-world analysis of RRMM pts treated with Tec revealed comparable rates CRS and ICANS relative to the MajesTEC-1 study, and these were mostly limited to grade 1/2. MVA demonstrated a significantly higher risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in pts with baseline platelet <50 and/or ECOG ≥2, the former may reflect BM disease burden. These results may help identify pts who are at higher risk for IEC related toxicities with Tec that would warrant inpatient monitoring during initial step-up dosing. OP, AA, & LF: co-first authors. AG, HCL & JK: co-senior authors

*Authors contributed equally. Introduction. Two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have been FDA approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). Prior work from our consortium identified racial and ethnic differences in safety and response to ide-cel among patients treated in the standard of care (SOC) setting; despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity. Here, we extend this work to investigate racial and ethnic differences in safety, efficacy, and outcomes in a larger cohort of patients treated with SOC ide-cel with longer follow-up and patients treated with SOC cilta-cel. Methods. Data for RRMM patients who underwent leukapheresis by 12/31/2022 and were treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel were pooled across 19 institutions in the U.S. Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. We compared Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic (any race) patients, excluding other racial and ethnic groups due to small sample sizes that precluded sub-group investigations. Separately for each CAR T-cell therapy, racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics, safety, and treatment responses were examined using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were used to examine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by race and ethnicity. Results. Among 332 RRMM patients treated with ide-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 17% and 10% of the cohort, respectively. Hispanic patients were younger at infusion compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic White patients (55.5 vs. 63 vs. 66 years, p<0.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients had a higher disease burden (≥ 50% bone marrow plasma cell percentage) compared to Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic patients (35% vs. 20% vs. 19%, p=0.05), while a higher proportion of Non-Hispanic White patients had high-risk cytogenetics compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients (37% vs. 23% vs. 10%, p=0.003). Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to develop severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 30 (p<0.001) and day 90 (p=0.01) post-infusion, and these differences were particularly driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients at these time points. Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to achieve a best response of partial response (PR) or better (82%) compared to Non-Hispanic Black (75%) and Hispanic patients (63%, p=0.02). No other racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics (including cytopenias), safety, PFS, and OS were observed (p>0.05). Among 222 RRMM patients treated with cilta-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 12% and 9% of the cohort, respectively. At baseline, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have anemia (p=0.01), and Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have thrombocytopenia (p=0.02) and neutropenia (p=0.06) compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. No other differences in baseline patient characteristics were observed by race and ethnicity. While not statistically significant, a higher rate of severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 90 post-infusion was observed among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (33% vs. 44% vs. 21%, p=0.07), similar to the ide-cel cohort. This finding was primarily driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients and higher rates of anemia among Hispanic patients. No other racial and ethnic differences in safety, responses to cilta-cel, PFS, or OS were not observed in the cilta-cel cohort (p>0.05). Conclusion. In a large cohort of RRMM patients treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel, we observed a higher rate of cytopenias post-infusion and inferior ide-cel responses among racial and ethnic minority patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. Despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity, suggesting that both available CAR T-cell therapies for RRMM patients can be utilized across all populations. Future studies that include larger patient cohorts of racially and ethnically diverse patients should be conducted to confirm these findings and additionally evaluate long-term outcomes.

Background: Daratumumab (DARA) has demonstrated clinical benefit in multiple myeloma (MM) and is approved for the treatment of both newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and relapsed refractory MM (RRMM). While single-center studies have shown the benefit of DARA retreatment in patients (pts) who are refractory to DARA (D-Ref), there is a lack of real-world data on the characteristics of pts who are retreated with DARA across multiple lines of treatment (LOTs). In this study, we examine DARA retreatment patterns and outcomes among pts who are D-Ref and those who are sensitive to DARA (D-Sens) after the first DARA exposure in the US real-world clinical practice. Methods: This study used the Flatiron MM Core Registry data to identify pts with MM treated with a DARA-containing regimen in ≥2 separate LOTs between November 1, 2015, and March 31, 2024. The first DARA-based LOT was defined as D1, and the second DARA-based LOT was defined as the retreatment LOT (D2). The following criteria, developed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, were used to classify pts as Dara-retreated: 1) pts treated with the same DARA-containing regimens in consecutive LOTs were classified as Dara-retreated if there was a gap of >90 days between D1 and D2, 2) pts treated with different DARA-containing regimens in consecutive LOTs were classified as Dara-retreated, 3) pts treated with DARA-containing regimens had ≥1 LOTs between D1 and D2 they were classified as Dara-retreated, regardless of whether the regimens were the same or different. Derived disease progression reported in the Flatiron data was used for this analysis. If disease progression was reported during D1, or within 60 days of discontinuing D1, the pt was considered as D-Ref, otherwise, the pt was considered as D-Sens. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were conducted to evaluate duration of D2, proportion of pts not receiving subsequent treatment after D2, and progression-free survival (PFS) rates during D2. Results: Data for 201 pts retreated with DARA were identified in this analysis, 150 were D-Sens and 51 were D-Ref. In the D-Sens group, the median age at D2 initiation was 71 years, 44.0% of pts were female, 27.3% were ISS stage II and 16.0% were African American. In the D-Ref group, the median age at D2 initiation was 67 years, 45.1% of pts were female, 21.6% were ISS stage II, and 25.5% were African American. At D2 initiation, 64.7% (D-Sens) and 60.8% (D-Ref) of pts were frail, and 56.0% (D-Sens) and 52.9% (D-Ref) of pts had a Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥3, indicating a high burden of comorbidities. About 31% of pts in both groups had high cytogenetic risk abnormalities, and about 20% had a 1q21 gain or amplification. The median time from MM diagnosis to start of D1 and to start of D2 was shorter in the D-Sens group (10.8 and 34.9 months) than in the D-Ref group (18.4 and 44.4 months). D-Sens pts were less likely to receive D1 in the third LOT or later compared to D-Ref pts (30.0% vs 45.1%). The median number of LOTs before D2 was three in both groups. The median gap between D1 and D2 was 9.3 months in D-Sens pts and 9.0 months in D-Ref pts, however, more D-Sens pts received D1 and D2 LOTs consecutively compared to D-Ref pts (62.0% vs 51.0%). The most common regimen used in D1 was DARA + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (dex; 18.7%) and DARA + bortezomib + dex (18.7%) among D-Sens pts, and DARA + pomalidomide + dex (23.5%) among D-Ref pts. The most common regimen used in D2 was DARA mono (31.3%) in D-Sens pts, and DARA mono (17.6%) and DARA + carfilzomib + dex (17.6%) in D-Ref pts. Overall, 32.0% of D-Sens and 35.3% of D-Ref pts received agents from the same drug class in D1 and D2. The KM median duration of D2 was 7.4 months (95% CI: 5.5-9.5) among D-Sens pts and 6.4 months (95% CI: 3.8-23.5) among D-Ref pts. The proportion of pts that had not received subsequent treatment after D2 was 38.7% and 29.5% at 12 months in the D-Sens and D-Ref groups, respectively. PFS rates at 12 months after D2 initiation were 77.1% in the D-Sens group and 49.4% in the D-Ref group. Conclusion: DARA retreatment is utilized frequently and is effective in the real-world, suggesting the ability to use this approach in subsequent LOTs among pts with RRMM. In the absence of other feasible alternatives, this may be a treatment strategy for patient benefit, regardless of whether they are D-Sens or D-Ref. Future studies are needed to definitively investigate the benefit of DARA retreatment in combination with drugs with novel mechanisms of action.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors

Introduction. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), two anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T therapies, have demonstrated remarkable responses and improved survival among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the clinical trials and standard of care (SOC) setting. Here, we compare safety, efficacy, and survival for patients treated with SOC ide-cel and cilta-cel. Methods. Data were from a retrospective chart review of RRMM patients leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with the intent to receive SOC ide- or cilta-cel at 19 institutions in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type (cilta- vs. ide-cel), balancing on age, sex, race and ethnicity, performance status, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, prior BCMA therapy, bone marrow plasma cells, penta-refractory status, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, baseline ferritin, low cell dose, and bridging therapy response. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of treatment type with safety, efficacy, and survival accordingly, while adjusting for IPTW weights. We employed propensity score matching utilizing the same covariates to identify the association of treatment type with progression-free survival (PFS) within relevant patient sub-groups. Results. A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with ide-cel (n=386) and cilta-cel (n=255). 586 patients were infused (n=350 for ide-cel; n=236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 13.0 and 12.6 months, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well-balanced. Patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (OR=5.52, 95% CI=1.76-17.30, p=0.004), infections (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.44-2.97, p<0.001), and delayed neurotoxicity (NT) (OR=20.97, 95% CI=4.75-92.42, p<0.001) compared to patients treated with ide-cel. In the cilta-cel cohort, 24 patients (10%) experienced delayed NT compared to 2 patients (1%) in the ide-cel cohort. Although not statistically significant, patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have any second primary malignancies (SPMs) (OR=1.87, 95% CI=0.94-3.71, p=0.08) and any SPMs excluding non-melanoma skin cancers (OR=1.78, 95% CI=0.78-4.10, p=0.2) but no association was observed for odds of hematologic SPMs (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.26-3.61). No association was observed for therapy type with any or severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenias, and non-relapse mortality. Compared to ide-cel, cilta-cel was associated with better treatment responses of ≥ complete response (OR=2.38, 95% CI=1.61-3.51, p<0.001) and ≥ partial response (OR=1.74, 95% CI=0.99-3.05, p=0.06). Patients treated with cilta-cel had a longer PFS and overall survival (OS) than ide-cel (HR=0.47, 95% CI=0.35-0.62, p<0.001 and HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.42-0.93, p=0.02, respectively), and these findings were similar in the intention to treat cohort (PFS: HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.34-0.55, p<0.001; OS: HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.41-0.73, p<0.001, respectively). We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time-period as FDA approval for cilta-cel (≥ March 2022), restricting to patients with data on all covariates, and restricting to sites that contributed data for both products. In a propensity matched population, (n=380; n=190 for cilta-cel and n=190 for ide-cel), patients treated with cilta-cel had superior PFS compared to those treated with ide-cel in most subgroups with respect to age and disease characteristics including extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, and elevated baseline ferritin (p<0.05). Conclusion. Our results suggest superior efficacy of cilta-cel with a higher incidence of certain toxicities compared to ide-cel in the SOC setting. This study provides valuable information for patient counseling and guiding the selection of CAR T-cell therapy for specific patient populations. Further validation through similar large-scale real-world experiences or prospective studies is needed to confirm our results and enhance applicability in the clinical setting. *DH, LP, & DD are co-first authors * YL, KP, & SS are co-last authors