Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Short Communication
28 April 2023

Teclistamab versus real-world physician’s choice of therapy in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Authors: Amrita Krishnan [email protected], Ajay K Nooka, Ajai Chari, Alfred L Garfall, Thomas G Martin, Sandhya Nair, Xiwu Lin, … Show All … , Keqin Qi, Anil Londhe, Lixia Pei, Eric Ammann, Rachel Kobos, Jennifer Smit, Trilok Parekh, Alexander Marshall, Mary Slavcev, and Saad Z UsmaniAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 12, Number 6
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2022-0186
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab versus real-world physician’s choice of therapy (RWPC) in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Materials & methods: MajesTEC-1 eligibility criteria were applied to the RWPC cohort. Baseline covariate imbalances were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Overall survival, progression-free survival and time to next treatment were compared. Results: After inverse probability of treatment weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts (teclistamab, n = 165; RWPC, n = 364 [766 observations]). Teclistamab treated patients had numerically better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.59–1.14]; p = 0.233) and significantly greater progression-free survival (HR: 0.43 [0.33–0.56]; p < 0.0001) and time to next treatment (HR: 0.36 [0.27–0.49]; p < 0.0001) versus the RWPC cohort. Conclusion: Teclistamab offered clinical benefit over RWPC in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Plain language summary

What is this article about?

This article looked at the outcomes of patients with triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), who were treated with the bispecific antibody teclistamab in the MajesTEC-1 trial and analyzed how they compared with outcomes of similar patients from the nationwide deidentified electronic health record derived Flatiron Health multiple myeloma cohort database (real-world physician’s choice cohort).

What were the results?

Patients treated with teclistamab in the MajesTEC-1 study had statistically better progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.43 [95% CI: 0.33–0.56]; p < 0.0001) and time to next treatment (HR: 0.36 [0.27–0.49]; p < 0.0001) and numerically better overall survival (HR: 0.82 [0.59–1.14]; p = 0.233), compared with patients in the real-world physician’s choice cohort. Any imbalances in baseline characteristics of prognostic significance in the two groups of patients were adjusted to ensure statistical comparability.

What do the results of the study mean?

These findings highlight the clinical benefit of teclistamab relative to other therapies for relapsed/refractory MM, which is particularly relevant for physicians caring for patients who are triple-class exposed and have limited remaining treatment options.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Stalker ME, Mark TM. Clinical management of triple-class refractory multiple myeloma: a review of current strategies and emerging therapies. Curr. Oncol. 29, 4464–4477 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma. Blood 111, 2962–2972 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Multiple myeloma. Version 5.2022. www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1445
Google Scholar
•• Guidelines for the treatment of multiple myeloma are provided.
5.
Dhanasiri S, Hollier-Hann G, Stothard C, Dhanda DS, Davies FE, Rodriguez-Otero P. Treatment patterns and outcomes in triple-class exposed patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: findings from the multinational ITEMISE study. Clin. Ther. 43, 1983–1996.e3 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Mateos MV, Weisel K, De Stefano V et al. LocoMMotion: a prospective, non-interventional, multinational study of real-life current standards of care in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia 36, 1371–1376 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Lonial S, Lee HC, Badros A et al. Belantamab mafodotin for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-2): a two-arm, randomised, open-label, Phase II study. Lancet Oncol. 21, 207–221 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Chari A, Vogl DT, Gavriatopoulou M et al. Oral selinexor-dexamethasone for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 727–738 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Munshi NC, Anderson LD Jr, Shah N et al. Idecabtagene vicleucel in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 705–716 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Martin T, Usmani SZ, Berdeja JG et al. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, an anti-B-cell maturation antigen chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: CARTITUDE-1 2-year follow-up. J. Clin. Oncol. 41(6), 1265–1274 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Janssen Biologics B.V. TECVAYLI. Summary of Product Characteristics. European Medicines Agency, 1–49. www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/tecvayli-epar-product-information_en.pdf
Google Scholar
12.
Janssen Biotech, Inc. TECVAYLI (teclistamab-cqyv). Janssen Biotech, Inc, PA, USA (2022).
Google Scholar
13.
Moreau P, Garfall AL, van de Donk NWCJ et al. Teclistamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 387, 495–505 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
•• The results of Phase I/II of the MajesTEC-1 trial are presented.
14.
Costa LJ, Hari P, Berdeja JG et al. Meta-analysis of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus physician's choice therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 38(10), 1759–1767 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Martin T, Krishnan A, Yong K et al. Comparative effectiveness of ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus physician's choice of therapy in the Flatiron Health multiple myeloma cohort registry for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. EJHaem 3, 97–108 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Flatiron versus cilta-cel indirect comparison.
16.
Martin T, Usmani SZ, Schecter JM et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 37, 1779–1788 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Shah N, Mojebi A, Ayers D et al. Indirect treatment comparison of idecabtagene vicleucel versus conventional care in triple-class exposed multiple myeloma. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 11(10), 737–749 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Weisel K, Krishnan A, Schecter JM et al. Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison to assess the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus belantamab mafodotin in DREAMM-2, selinexor-dexamethasone in STORM Part 2, and melphalan flufenamide-dexamethasone in HORIZON for the treatment of patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 22, 690–701 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Weisel K, Martin T, Krishnan A et al. Comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 vs physician's choice of therapy in the long-term follow-up of POLLUX, CASTOR, and EQUULEUS clinical trials for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Clin. Drug Investig. 42, 29–41 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Ma X, Long L, Moon S, Adamson BJS, Baxi SS. Comparison of population characteristics in real-world clinical oncology databases in the US: Flatiron Health, SEER, and NPCR. medRxiv (2020). www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.16.20037143v2
Crossref
Google Scholar
21.
Birnbaum B, Nussbaum N, Seidl-Rathkopf K et al. Model-assisted cohort selection with bias analysis for generating large-scale cohorts from the EHR for oncology research. arXiv (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09765
Crossref
Google Scholar
22.
Joseph NS, Kaufman JL, Dhodapkar MV et al. Long-term follow-up results of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone induction therapy and risk-adapted maintenance approach in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 1928–1937 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Gandhi UH, Cornell RF, Lakshman A et al. Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy. Leukemia 33, 2266–2275 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Real-world study of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).
24.
Usmani S, Ahmadi T, Ng Y et al. Analysis of real-world data on overall survival in multiple myeloma patients with ≥3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), or double refractory to a PI and an IMiD. Oncologist 21, 1355–1361 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Real-world study of RRMM.
25.
Kumar SK, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E et al. Natural history of relapsed myeloma, refractory to immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors: a multicenter IMWG study. Leukemia 31, 2443–2448 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
• Real-world study of RRMM.
|