Treatment patterns and effectiveness of patients with multiple myeloma initiating Daratumumab across different lines of therapy: a real-world chart review study

Enhancing Fc-mediated effector functions of monoclonal antibodies: The example of HexaBodies

Since the approval of the CD20-targeting monoclonal antibody (mAb) rituximab for the treatment of lymphoma in 1997, mAb therapy has significantly transformed cancer treatment. With over 90 FDA-approved mAbs for the treatment of various hematological and solid cancers, modern cancer treatment relies heavily on these therapies. The overwhelming success of mAbs as cancer therapeutics is attributed to their broad applicability, high safety profile, and precise targeting of cancer-associated surface antigens. Furthermore, mAbs can induce various anti-tumor cytotoxic effector mechanisms including antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP), and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC), all of which are mediated via their fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain. Over the past decades, these effector mechanisms have been substantially improved through Fc domain engineering. In this review, we will outline the different approaches to enhance Fc effector functions via Fc engineering of mAbs, with a specific emphasis on the so-called "HexaBody" technology, which is designed to enhance the hexamerization of mAbs on the target cell surface, thereby inducing greater complement activation, CDC, and receptor clustering. The review will summarize the development, preclinical, and clinical testing of several HexaBodies designed for the treatment of B-cell malignancies, as well as the potential use of the HexaBody technology beyond Fc-mediated effector functions.

Modeling First-Line Daratumumab Use for Newly Diagnosed, Transplant-Ineligible, Multiple Myeloma: A Cost-Effectiveness and Risk Analysis for Healthcare Payers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two regimens regarded as the standard of care for the treatment of newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in Singapore: (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone and (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Additionally, it aimed to explore potential strategies to manage decision uncertainty and mitigate financial risk.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis from the healthcare system perspective was conducted using a partitioned survival model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with daratumumab-based treatment and the bortezomib-based regimen. The analysis used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials and incorporated local real-world data where available. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings, and a risk analysis was conducted to analyze various payer strategies in terms of their payer strategy and uncertainty burden (P-SUB), which account for the decision uncertainty and the additional cost of choosing a suboptimal intervention.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) was US $90,364 per QALY gained. The results were sensitive to variations in survival for DRd, postprogression treatment costs, cost of hospice care, and hazard ratio for progression-free survival. The scenarios explored indicated that structural assumptions, such as the time horizon of the analysis, significantly influenced the results due to uncertainties arising from immature trial data and treatment efficacy over time. Among the various payer strategies compared, an upfront price discount for daratumumab emerged as the best approach with the lowest P-SUB at US $14,708.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study finds that daratumumab as a first-line treatment for myeloma exceeds the cost-effectiveness threshold considered in this evaluation. An upfront price reduction is the recommended strategy to manage uncertainties and mitigate financial risks. These findings highlight the importance of targeted payer strategies to address specific types and sources of uncertainty.

Multiple myeloma refractory to lenalidomide: A systematic literature review of trials and real-world evidence

The growing use of frontline lenalidomide treatment in multiple myeloma (MM) is increasing the proportion of lenalidomide-refractory patients, which may limit the efficacy of subsequent lines of treatment (LOT). This systematic literature review (January 2008-October 2023) of clinical trials (CT) and real-world studies (RW) assessed treatment outcomes in adults with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) who were previously treated with ≥1 LOT, progressed and were lenalidomide-refractory. Medline, EMBASE and additional electronic databases were searched for articles published in English. Primary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall/objective response rate (ORR); 24 CT and 19 RW were included. For CT, the population-weighted mean of median PFS (CT = 14) and OS (CT = 6) were shorter in the lenalidomide-refractory cohort (months: 8.8 [n = 2699] and 21.7 [n = 1066], respectively) than the intent-to-treat population (months: 13.8 [n = 5380] and 35.9 [n = 2264], respectively); the population-weighted (N = 2142) mean ORR for lenalidomide-refractory patients (CT = 18) was 56.0%. RW reported considerable variation in PFS (RW = 7), OS (RW = 8) and ORR (RW = 8); and median PFS (RW = 2; months) was lower in lenalidomide/bortezomib-refractory (5.5/5.5; n = 81/n = 25) versus lenalidomide-refractory (7.3/8.0; n = 81/n = 61) patients. These data provide evidence that clinical trials and real-world outcomes are suboptimal in lenalidomide-refractory patients with RRMM, highlighting the need to improve treatment options for this population.

UK Stakeholder Perspectives on Surrogate Endpoints in Cancer, and the Potential for UK Real-World Datasets to Validate Their Use in Decision-Making

Duration of overall survival in patients with cancer has lengthened due to earlier detection and improved treatments. However, these improvements have created challenges in assessing the impact of newer treatments, particularly those used early in the treatment pathway. As overall survival remains most decision-makers' preferred primary endpoint, therapeutic innovations may take a long time to be introduced into clinical practice. Moreover, it is difficult to extrapolate findings to heterogeneous populations and address the concerns of patients wishing to evaluate everyday quality and extension of life. There is growing interest in the use of surrogate or interim endpoints to demonstrate robust treatment effects sooner than is possible with measurement of overall survival. It is hoped that they could speed up patients' access to new drugs, combinations, and sequences, and inform treatment decision-making. However, while surrogate endpoints have been used by regulators for drug approvals, this has occurred on a case-by-case basis. Evidence standards are yet to be clearly defined for acceptability in health technology appraisals or to shape clinical practice. This article considers the relevance of the use of surrogate endpoints in cancer in the UK context, and explores whether collection and analysis of real-world UK data and evidence might contribute to validation.

INSURE: a pooled analysis of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory myeloma in routine practice

Aim: We pooled data from three observational studies (INSIGHT MM, UVEA-IXA and REMIX) to investigate the real-world effectiveness of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Materials & methods: INSIGHT MM was a prospective study conducted in countries across Europe, Asia and North/Latin America while UVEA-IXA and REMIX were multicenter, retrospective/prospective studies conducted in Europe. Patients who had received IRd as ≥2nd line of therapy were analyzed. Primary outcomes were time-to-next treatment (TTNT) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Overall, 564 patients were included (median follow-up: 18.5 months). Median TTNT and PFS were 18.4 and 19.9 months; both outcomes were numerically longer for earlier versus later lines. Median treatment duration was 14.0 months. Overall response rate was 64.6%. No new safety concerns were noted. Conclusion: The effectiveness of IRd in routine practice appears similar to the efficacy observed in TOURMALINE-MM1. IRd benefit in earlier versus later lines was consistent with previous reports.

Clinical outcomes of pomalidomide-based and daratumumab-based therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A real-world cohort study in China

BACKGROUND

Comparative investigations evaluating the efficacy of pomalidomide-based (Pom-based) versus daratumumab-based (Dara-based) therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remain scarce, both in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 140 RRMM patients treated with Pom-based or Dara-based or a combination of pomalidomide and daratumumab (DPd) regimens in a Chinese tertiary hospital between December 2018 and July 2023.

RESULTS

The overall response rates (ORR) for Pom-based (n = 48), Dara-based (n = 68), and DPd (n = 24) groups were 57.8%, 84.6%, and 75.0%, respectively (p = 0.007). At data cutoff on August 1, 2023, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.5) for the Pom-based group, 10.5 months (5.2-15.8) for the Dara-based group, and 6.7 months (4.0-9.3) for the DPd group (p = 0.056). Multivariate analysis identified treatment regimens (Dara-based vs. Pom-based, DPd vs. Pom-based) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) as independent prognostic factors for PFS. In the subgroups of patients aged >65 years, with ECOG PS ≥2, lines of therapy ≥2, extramedullary disease or double-refractory disease (refractory to both lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors), the superiority of Dara-based regimens over Pom-based regimens was not evident. A higher incidence of infections was observed in patients receiving Dara-based and DPd regimens (Pom-based 39.6% vs. Dara-based 64.7% vs. DPd 70.8%, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world settings, Pom-based, Dara-based, and DPd therapies exhibited favorable efficacy in patients with RRMM. Dara-based therapy yielded superior clinical response and PFS compared to Pom-based therapy.

Efficacy and safety of melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results from the randomized, open-label, phase III LIGHTHOUSE study

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65]; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.

Real-world Duration of Use and Dosing Frequency of Daratumumab in Patients With Multiple Myeloma in the United States

Daratumumab (DARA) is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody approved as a combination therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and as monotherapy and combination therapy for relapsed or refractory MM cases. We assessed the length of DARA use across lines of therapy and the probabilities of treatment discontinuation in patients with MM in the real-world. We used the deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart database from Optum to identify patients with MM (n=2124) who received DARA-containing treatment between November 1, 2015 and March 31, 2021 in the United States. Patients were excluded if they had received a stem cell transplant. The duration of DARA use was defined as the time interval between the first initiation and discontinuation of DARA as a time-to-event outcome using the Kaplan-Meier method. A gap of more than 60 days between 2 consequent DARA claim dates was defined as DARA discontinuation. The median duration of continuous DARA use was 16.6 months. By 24 months, 33.1% of patients remained on DARA treatment. In a subgroup analysis of patients with 12 months or more continuous insurance coverage (n=1246), the median length of DARA use was 24.7 months; by 24 months, 51.8% remained on DARA treatment. The dose adherence ratios (observed DARA doses relative to the label) were close to 1.0, particularly among patients with longer follow-up, indicating that real-world DARA dosing frequency was similar to that on the approved label. In summary, this real-world analysis reported that the median duration of continuous DARA use is 16.6 months, with high dosing adherence in patients who have MM.

Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes among black and white patients with multiple myeloma initiating daratumumab: A real-world chart review study

BACKGROUND

Daratumumab was approved for multiple myeloma (MM) in 2015. While its safety and efficacy are well documented, there is limited real-world information on its use and outcomes in patients of different races.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients with MM initiating daratumumab in any line of therapy (LOT) between November 2015 and May 2020. De-identified data were retrieved from 2 US clinical sites; patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and response rate were described for black and white patients, stratified by LOT. Overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to next LOT (TTNT) were compared between black and white patients initiating daratumumab in second line (2L) or later, adjusting for age and number of prior lines.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-two patient charts (89 black, 163 white) were extracted. Black patients were younger at diagnosis (61.7 vs. 67.0 years) and had a similar proportion of females (black: 44.9%, white: 46.6%). Black patients had longer time between MM diagnosis and daratumumab initiation (43.2 vs. 34.1 months) and received more prior LOTs (median 3.0 vs. 2.0). ORR for black and white patients initiating daratumumab in 1L was 100.0%, with very good partial response or better in 75.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Similar trends were observed in 2L and 3L+. There were no significant differences in ORR, PFS, or TTNT between groups.

CONCLUSION

Daratumumab had similar clinical outcomes (ORR, PFS, and TTNT) in black and white patients. Black patients initiated daratumumab later in their treatment, suggesting potential discrepancies in access to new MM treatments.

Outcomes of daratumumab in the treatment of multiple myeloma: A retrospective cohort study from the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database

Daratumumab (dara) has significantly altered the therapeutic landscape of multiple myeloma (MM), especially in the relapsed setting. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of dara-containing regimens in the Canadian real-world setting among relapsed and refractory MM available within the national Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database (CMRG-DB). A total of 583 MM patients who received dara-based therapy in second-line or later treatment were included. After a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort were 13.1 and 32.9 months, respectively. The median PFS and OS were 23.5 and 49.1 months in second-line treatment and decreased to 12.8 and 43.0 months in third-line and 7.0 and 20.5 months in fourth-line treatment respectively. Dara in monotherapy with or without corticosteroids after a median of four prior lines of therapy resulted in a median PFS of 3.9 months and a median OS of 17.1 months. The addition of bortezomib, lenalidomide or pomalidomide to dara resulted in an improved median PFS and OS of 8.3 and 26.2 months; 26.8 and 43.0 months; and 9.7 and 31.4 months respectively. These retrospective data from the CMRG-DB suggest that outcomes are superior when dara is used in combination and in earlier lines of treatment.