Comparative Effectiveness of Teclistamab Versus Real-World Physician's Choice of Therapy in LocoMMotion and MoMMent in Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Overview

Journal Adv Ther

Date 2023 Dec 19

PMID 38110653

Authors

Philippe Moreau

Maria-Victoria Mateos

Maria Esther Gonzalez Garcia

Hermann Einsele

Valerio De Stefano

Lionel Karlin

Joanne Lindsey-Hill

Britta Besemer

Laure Vincent

Suriya Kirkpatrick

Michel Delforge

Aurore Perrot

Niels W C J van de Donk

Charlotte Pawlyn

Salomon Manier

Xavier Leleu

Joaquin Martinez-Lopez

Francesca Ghilotti

Joris Diels

Raul Morano

Claire Albrecht

Vadim Strulev

Imene Haddad

LiXia Pei

Rachel Kobos

Jennifer Smit

Mary Slavcev

Alexander Marshall

Katja Weisel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Teclistamab is the first approved B cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody with precision dosing for the treatment of triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC) in patients from the prospective, non-interventional LocoMMotion and MoMMent studies.

Methods: Patients treated with teclistamab from MajesTEC-1 (N = 165) were compared with an external control arm from LocoMMotion (N = 248) or LocoMMotion + MoMMent pooled (N = 302). Inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted for imbalances in prognostic baseline characteristics. The relative effect of teclistamab versus RWPC for overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate was estimated with an odds ratio using weighted logistic regression transformed into a response-rate ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Weighted proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment cohorts after reweighting. Patients treated with teclistamab had significantly improved outcomes versus RWPC in LocoMMotion: ORR (RR [95% CI], 2.44 [1.79-3.33]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.78 [3.74-8.93]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 113.73 [15.68-825.13]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.39 [0.24-0.64]; p = 0.0002), PFS (HR 0.48 [0.35-0.64]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.64 [0.46-0.88]; p = 0.0055). Teclistamab versus RWPC in LocoMMotion + MoMMent also had significantly improved outcomes: ORR (RR 2.41 [1.80-3.23]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.91 [3.93-8.88]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 132.32 [19.06-918.47]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.43 [0.26-0.71]; p = 0.0011), PFS (HR 0.49 [0.37-0.66]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.69 [0.50-0.95]; p = 0.0247).

Conclusion: Teclistamab demonstrated significantly improved effectiveness over RWPC in LocoMMotion ± MoMMent, emphasizing its clinical benefit as a highly effective treatment for patients with TCE RRMM.

Trial Registration: MajesTEC-1, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03145181 (phase 1) and NCT04557098 (phase 2); LocoMMotion, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04035226; MoMMent, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05160584.

Citing Articles

Impact of immunological aging on T cell-mediated therapies in older adults with multiple myeloma and lymphoma.

Ullrich F, Brockelmann P, Turki A, Khan A, Chiru E, Vetter M J Immunother Cancer. 2024; 12(12.

PMID: 39622581 PMC: 11624774. DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2024-009462.

Impact of COVID-19 on outcomes with teclistamab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the phase 1/2 MajesTEC-1 study.

van de Donk N, Bahlis N, Costa L, Mateos M, Nooka A, Perrot A Blood Cancer J. 2024; 14(1):186.

PMID: 39433732 PMC: 11494165. DOI: 10.1038/s41408-024-01160-1.

Measurable Residual Disease Testing in Multiple Myeloma Following T-Cell Redirecting Therapies.

Shim K, Fonseca R Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(19).

PMID: 39409909 PMC: 11476300. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16193288.

References

Tanenbaum B, Miett T, Patel S . The emerging therapeutic landscape of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2022; 102(1):1-11. PMC: 10888499. DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-05058-5. View

Franssen L, Mutis T, Lokhorst H, van de Donk N . Immunotherapy in myeloma: how far have we come?. Ther Adv Hematol. 2019; 10:2040620718822660. PMC: 6348514. DOI: 10.1177/2040620718822660. View

Dimopoulos M, Moreau P, Terpos E, Mateos M, Zweegman S, Cook G . Multiple Myeloma: EHA-ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up. Hemasphere. 2021; 5(2):e528. PMC: 7861652. DOI: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000528. View

Ravi P, Kumar S, Cerhan J, Maurer M, Dingli D, Ansell S . Defining cure in multiple myeloma: a comparative study of outcomes of young individuals with myeloma and curable hematologic malignancies. Blood Cancer J. 2018; 8(3):26. PMC: 5849889. DOI: 10.1038/s41408-018-0065-8. View

Ramasamy K, Gay F, Weisel K, Zweegman S, Mateos M, Richardson P . Improving outcomes for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: Challenges and considerations of current and emerging treatment options. Blood Rev. 2021; 49:100808. DOI: 10.1016/j.blre.2021.100808. View

Fonseca R, Usmani S, Mehra M, Slavcev M, He J, Cote S . Frontline treatment patterns and attrition rates by subsequent lines of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. BMC Cancer. 2020; 20(1):1087. PMC: 7656738. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07503-y. View

Mateos M, Weisel K, De Stefano V, Goldschmidt H, Delforge M, Mohty M . LocoMMotion: a prospective, non-interventional, multinational study of real-life current standards of care in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2022; 36(5):1371-1376. PMC: 9061296. DOI: 10.1038/s41375-022-01531-2. View

Gandhi U, Cornell R, Lakshman A, Gahvari Z, McGehee E, Jagosky M . Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy. Leukemia. 2019; 33(9):2266-2275. PMC: 6820050. DOI: 10.1038/s41375-019-0435-7. View

Martin T, Usmani S, Berdeja J, Agha M, Cohen A, Hari P . 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. 2022; 41(6):1265-1274. PMC: 9937098. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00842. View

10.

Munshi N, Anderson Jr L, Shah N, Madduri D, Berdeja J, Lonial S . Idecabtagene Vicleucel in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384(8):705-716. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024850. View

11.

Moreau P, Garfall A, van de Donk N, Nahi H, San-Miguel J, Oriol A . Teclistamab in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387(6):495-505. PMC: 10587778. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203478. View

12.

Chari A, Minnema M, Berdeja J, Oriol A, van de Donk N, Rodriguez-Otero P . Talquetamab, a T-Cell-Redirecting GPRC5D Bispecific Antibody for Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387(24):2232-2244. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204591. View

13.

Lesokhin A, Tomasson M, Arnulf B, Bahlis N, Prince H, Niesvizky R . Elranatamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial results. Nat Med. 2023; 29(9):2259-2267. PMC: 10504075. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02528-9. View

14.

Chari A, Vogl D, Gavriatopoulou M, Nooka A, Yee A, Huff C . Oral Selinexor-Dexamethasone for Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(8):727-738. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903455. View

15.

Moreau P, van de Donk N, Delforge M, Einsele H, De Stefano V, Perrot A . Comparative Efficacy of Teclistamab Versus Current Treatments in Real-World Clinical Practice in the Prospective LocoMMotion Study in Patients with Triple-Class-Exposed Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Adv Ther. 2023; 40(5):2412-2425. PMC: 10129954. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02480-7. View

16.

Durie B, Kumar S, Usmani S, Nonyane B, Ammann E, Lam A . Daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs standard-of-care regimens: Efficacy in transplant-ineligible untreated myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2020; 95(12):1486-1494. PMC: 7754114. DOI: 10.1002/ajh.25963. View

17.

Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson K, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P . International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(8):e328-e346. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6. View

18.

Austin P . Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009; 28(25):3083-107. PMC: 3472075. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3697. View

19.

Jansen J, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N . Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):417-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002. View

20.

Ravi G, Costa L . Bispecific T-cell engagers for treatment of multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2022; 98 Suppl 2:S13-S21. DOI: 10.1002/ajh.26628. View