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.

Key Summary Points

Why carry out this study? Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have a limited life expectancy, and new, more efficacious treatment options are needed to halt disease progression, extend survival, and improve quality of life. The ongoing single-arm MajesTEC-1 ( NCT04557098 ) study is investigating the efficacy and safety of teclistamab, a novel B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with RRMM who are triple-class exposed (TCE; previously received treatment with an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody). The objective of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with TCE-RRMM treated with teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 versus patients treated with real-world physician’s choice of therapy from the LocoMMotion study. What was learned from the study? Patients treated with teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 had most outcomes significantly improved compared with a matched patient cohort treated with real-world physician’s choice of therapy. These results indicate that teclistamab provides a highly effective treatment option in this population, filling an important unmet need.

Introduction

Survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has improved significantly in the last 10 years, with advances in treatment such as immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and monoclonal antibodies [ 1 – 6 ]. However, MM remains incurable, and most patients relapse, requiring multiple rounds of treatment [ 7 – 9 ]. Patients with MM who have received IMiDs, PIs, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies [i.e., triple-class exposed (TCE)] have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options, with a low likelihood of response to subsequent therapy [ 10 ]. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement for new, more efficacious therapy options to delay progression, prolong survival, and improve quality of life in these patients [ 10 – 12 ].

Teclistamab is an off-the-shelf, T-cell-redirecting, B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) × CD3 bispecific antibody that mediates T-cell activation and subsequent lysis of BCMA-expressing myeloma cells [ 13 , 14 ]. The safety and efficacy of teclistamab has been investigated in MajesTEC-1, a single-arm, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study in patients with triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory MM (TCE-RRMM) who previously received ≥ 3 lines of therapy (LOTs). Initial results from the cohort with no previous exposure to anti-BCMA therapy demonstrated that weekly teclistamab at the recommended phase 2 dose of 1.5 mg/kg was well tolerated, with an overall response rate of 63% [ 15 ]. In the absence of a control arm in MajesTEC-1, indirect adjusted treatment comparisons can be performed to assess the benefits of treatment relative to regimens used in clinical practice [ 16 ]. LocoMMotion was the first prospective study of real-world physician’s choice of therapy (RWPC) in patients with TCE-RRMM [ 17 ], which created an external real-world control arm for comparison with MajesTEC-1. In the study reported here, individual patient data (IPD) from MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion were analyzed to assess the comparative effectiveness of teclistamab versus currently available RWPC in patients with TCE-RRMM.

Methods

Patient Populations

Detailed descriptions regarding data sources, study designs, outcomes, and analysis methods are presented in the Supplementary Materials Appendix S1. IPD from MajesTEC-1 ( NCT04557098 ) and LocoMMotion ( NCT04035226 ) were used to conduct adjusted comparisons between teclistamab and RWPC. IPD from MajesTEC-1 were included from all patients treated with teclistamab 1.5 mg/kg weekly ( n = 165; clinical cut-off of March 16, 2022) and compared with data from patients in LocoMMotion ( n = 248 enrolled between August 2019 and October 2020; clinical cut-off of November 2, 2021). The index date for both MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion was the date of treatment initiation.

For both MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion, all patients provided written informed consent, and an independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each study center approved the study protocol (Supplementary Material Tables S1 and S2). MajesTEC-1 was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. The LocoMMotion study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Efficacy Endpoints

Overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR), complete response or better (≥ CR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between teclistamab and RWPC.

Statistical Analyses

The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, using the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT) approach [ 18 ], was implemented to balance the RWPC population to the teclistamab cohort, on prognostic baseline characteristics available in both cohorts. The prognostic baseline characteristics to be adjusted for in the statistical analyses were based upon consultations with clinical experts, and included refractory status, International Staging System (ISS) stage, time to progression on previous LOT, extramedullary disease, number of previous LOTs, years since MM diagnosis, average duration of previous LOTs, age, hemoglobin levels, lactate dehydrogenase levels, creatinine clearance, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, sex, type of MM, and previous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Due to a high rate of missingness, cytogenetic risk was not included in the adjusted analyses. In addition, race was also not included in adjusted analyses, as inclusion induced unstable estimates and increased imbalance for other factors. This was caused by the high weights assigned to the small number of non-White patients enrolled in LocoMMotion, in order to balance with the higher proportion of non-White patients in MajesTEC-1. However, sensitivity analyses were run, including these two variables in the ATT-adjustment.

The ATT approach involved two steps. First, propensity scores, estimated using multivariable logistic regression including all baseline factors, were transformed into ATT weights assigned to the RWPC cohort in such a way that baseline factors of the reweighted RWPC cohort became similar to the teclistamab population. The degree of imbalance between groups was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs), with values > 0.2 considered to reflect important differences. In a second step, weighted logistic regression was used for response outcomes to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), converted to response rate ratios (RR) [ 19 ]. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% CIs for time-to-event endpoints. When results indicate the relative treatment effect changed over time, time-dependent HRs were estimated.

Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) and R versions 3.6.1 and 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Patient Characteristics

The median follow-up was 14.1 months in MajesTEC-1 (data cut-off: March 16, 2022) and 16.13 months in LocoMMotion (data cut-off: November 2, 2021). Baseline characteristics for the MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion study populations before and after weighting are shown in Table 1 . Before reweighting, substantial (SMD > 0.2) differences were observed for many of the base case variables, with the MajesTEC-1 population having a higher proportion of participants with ISS stage I disease, with immunoglobulin G subtype, who were < 65 years of age, who were penta-drug refractory, who had a previous hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and who had creatinine clearance between 60 and 90 mL/min. In contrast to MajesTEC-1, the RWPC cohort had a greater proportion of participants with ISS stage III disease, who were triple refractory, and who had creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min. After reweighting of the RWPC cohort, baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two cohorts, with all SMD values below 0.10, except for refractory status (SMD = 0.14) (Supplementary Material Fig. S1). Table 1 Group demographic balance before and after IPTW-ATT weighting Covariate Categories Teclistamab (MajesTEC-1) (%) ( n = 165) Unadjusted ATT-adjusted RWPC cohort (%) ( n = 248) SMD RWPC cohort (%) ( n = 248) SMD Refractory status a ≤ Double 22.4 26.2 0.406 22.5 0.139 Triple b 12.1 23.8 12.4 Quadruple c 35.2 32.3 29.2 Penta d 30.3 17.7 35.8 ISS stage at study entry I 53.3 34.3 0.566 54.3 0.022 II 34.5 32.3 33.7 III 12.1 33.5 11.9 Time to progression in previous line < 3 months 30.3 23.8 0.147 32.6 0.050 ≥ 3 months 69.7 76.2 67.4 Extramedullary disease e Yes 17.0 13.3 0.102 17.4 0.010 No 83.0 86.7 82.6 Number of previous LOTs ≤ 4 47.3 50.8 0.071 44.0 0.067 > 4 52.7 49.2 56.0 Years since diagnosis < 6 49.7 48.0 0.034 45.8 0.077 ≥ 6 50.3 52.0 54.2 Average duration of prior lines < 10 months 24.8 22.6 0.122 25.1 0.047 10–14 months 30.9 26.6 29.2 ≥ 15 months 44.2 50.8 45.7 Age ≥ 65 years 47.9 64.5 46.4 < 65 years 52.1 35.5 0.340 53.6 0.031 Hemoglobin (g/dL) < 12 75.2 73.0 0.050 77.1 0.045 ≥ 12 24.8 27.0 22.9 LDH (units/L) < 280 74.5 71.8 0.063 75.1 0.012 ≥ 280 25.5 28.2 24.9 Creatinine clearance (mL/min) < 60 26.7 40.3 0.285 26.9 0.048 60 to < 90 44.2 33.9 41.9 ≥ 90 29.1 25.8 31.2 ECOG PS 0 33.3 26.2 0.156 32.6 0.017 1 66.7 73.8 67.4 Sex Male 58.2 54.4 0.076 54.2 0.081 Female 41.8 45.6 45.8 MM type IgG 55.2 41.5 0.275 57.4 0.045 Non-IgG 44.8 58.5 42.6 Previous hematopoietic stem cell transplant Yes 81.8 64.5 0.398 82.7 0.024 No 18.2 35.5 17.3 Summary diagnostics Unadjusted ATT-adjusted % of SMDs with absolute value > 0.2 40 0 Mean absolute SMD 0.206 0.048 The pre-weighting and post-weighting distributions of baseline prognostic factors by intervention group are shown. SMDs > 0.2 are considered to indicate important imbalances between groups. Results were adjusted for refractory status, ISS stage, time to progression on last regimen, extramedullary plasmacytomas, number of previous LOTs, years since MM diagnosis, average duration of previous lines, age, hemoglobin levels, LDH levels, creatinine clearance, ECOG PS, sex, type of MM, and previous hematopoietic stem cell transplant ATT average treatment effect in the treated population, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, IgG immunoglobulin G, IMiD immunomodulatory drug, IPTW inverse probability treatment weighting, ISS international staging system, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, LOT line of therapy, MM multiple myeloma, MoAB monoclonal antibody, PI proteasome inhibitor, RWPC real-world physician’s choice of therapy, SMD standardized mean difference a Refractoriness was defined as from the case report form as progressive disease/relapse (physician’s choice cohort) and by International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria (MajesTEC-1) b Refractory to two IMiDs and one PI; or two PIs and one IMiD c Refractory to two IMiDs and two PIs d Refractory to at least two IMiDs, two PIs, and an anti-CD38 MoAB e Refers to soft-tissue mass that is not in contact with bone; does not include bone-based plasmacytomas

Treatment Regimens Received in Real-World Clinical Practice

Approximately 90 unique regimens were used in LocoMMotion, including PIs, IMiDs, anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, alkylating agents, corticosteroids, and combinations thereof (Supplementary Material Table S3). Patients received a median of 4.0 (range, 1–25) cycles of therapy, and 162 (65.3%) patients were treated with a combination of ≥ 3 drugs. The most frequently used PIs, IMiDs, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies were carfilzomib (25.4%), pomalidomide (29.8%), and daratumumab (9.3%), respectively. Only a limited number of patients were initiated at baseline with belantamab mafodotin ( n = 6) or selinexor ( n = 2), as these agents only became available during the LocoMMotion recruitment period. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) were not approved at end of enrollment in LocoMMotion. At the time of data cut-off, 139 patients received subsequent anti-myeloma therapy, of whom 64 (46.0%) received at least one novel agent, mainly belantamab ( n = 42) and selinexor ( n = 20), but also bispecific antibodies ( n = 10) and CAR-T ( n = 1) (both as part of a clinical trial).

Comparative Analysis of Efficacy Outcomes

Figure 1 and Table 2 summarize the observed response rates and adjusted treatment comparisons for teclistamab versus RWPC. After IPTW-ATT adjustment, ORR [RR = 2.31, (95% CI 1.77–2.85)], ≥ VGPR [RR = 5.19 (3.26–7.12)] and ≥ CR [RR = 148.25 (20.63–1065.4)] were significantly higher with teclistamab than RWPC (all p < 0.0001). ATT adjusted DOR [HR 0.32 (0.19–0.54), p < 0.0001] was significantly longer for teclistamab (median = 18.43 months) versus RWPC (adjusted median = 5.78 months). Similarly, PFS [HR 0.48 (0.35–0.65), p < 0.0001] was significantly longer for teclistamab (median = 11.30 months) versus RWPC (adjusted median = 4.14 months) (Fig. 2 , Table 3 ). OS was numerically better [HR 0.77 (0.55–1.09), p = 0.142] in MajesTEC-1 (median = 18.27 months) compared to the RWPC cohort (adjusted median = 13.54 months). Figure 2 a, b suggests that the relative effect for both PFS and OS for teclistamab increased beyond 3 months when patients start to reach responses, with PFS HR of 0.30 (0.20–0.46, p < 0.001), and HR for OS of 0.60 (95% CI 0.40–0.90, p = 0.014) in patients who were progression free and alive at 3 months. This is also related to the long duration of response in the subgroup of responders. Fig. 1 Response outcomes. CI confidence interval, ≥ CR complete response or better, OR odds ratio, ORR overall response rate, PR partial response, RR response rate ratio, RWPC real-world physician’s choice of therapy, ≥ VGPR very good partial response or better Table 2 Summary of observed and adjusted rates of clinical response Outcome/analysis Teclistamab ( n = 165) RWPC ( n = 248) RR [95% CI] OR [95% CI] p value a ORR Unadjusted 63.0% 31.5% 2.00 [1.57–2.44] 3.72 [2.46–5.62] < 0.0001 Adjusted 63.0% 27.3% 2.31 [1.77–2.85] 4.54 [2.98–6.93] < 0.0001 ≥ VGPR rate Unadjusted 58.8% 13.3% 4.42 [2.90–5.94] 9.29 [5.75–15.02] < 0.0001 Adjusted 58.8% 11.3% 5.19 [3.26–7.12] 11.16 [6.77–18.40] < 0.0001 ≥ CR rate Unadjusted 39.4% 0.4% 97.70 [13.69–697.16] 160.55 [21.98–1172.86] < 0.0001 Adjusted 39.4% 0.3% 148.25 [20.63–1065.40] 243.97 [21.31–2792.62] < 0.0001 CI confidence interval, ≥ CR complete response or better, OR odds ratio, ORR overall response rate, RR response-rate ratio; RWPC real-world physician’s choice of therapy, ≥ VGPR very good partial response or better a p values valid for both RR and OR Fig. 2 Unadjusted and adjusted Kaplan–Meier curves for a OS, b PFS, and c DOR. CI confidence interval, DOR duration of response, HR hazard ratio, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, RWPC real-world physician’s choice of therapy Table 3 Unadjusted and adjusted results for time-to-event outcomes Outcome/analysis HR [95% CI] p value DOR Unadjusted 0.36 [0.23–0.57] < 0.0001 Adjusted 0.32 [0.19–0.54] < 0.0001 PFS Unadjusted 0.53 [0.40–0.69] < 0.0001 Adjusted 0.48 [0.35–0.65] < 0.0001 OS Unadjusted 0.78 [0.58–1.05] 0.0965 Adjusted 0.77 [0.55–1.09] 0.1419 CI confidence interval, DOR duration of response, HR hazard ratio, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival

Discussion

Despite recent advances, outcomes for many patients with TCE-RRMM remain poor, and there is an urgent need for novel therapies in this population. Teclistamab, an off-the-shelf, BCMA × CD3 bispecific antibody, has demonstrated deep and durable clinical responses and a predictable safety profile in MajesTEC-1 in patients with heavily pre-treated RRMM. MajesTEC-1 was performed as a single-arm study, because a randomized controlled trial was not feasible as there was no established standard of care and a lack of clinical equipoise. When direct comparisons are not feasible, indirect treatment comparisons can be performed between different treatment regimens using statistical methods that control for baseline differences in patient characteristics between populations [ 20 ]. The adjusted comparisons presented here represent high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of teclistamab relative to RWPC.

Data for RWPC were obtained from LocoMMotion, which includes patients from nine European countries and the United States and is therefore representative of RWPC across different settings. A key advantage of LocoMMotion was the availability of a wide range of clinically relevant baseline risk factors and outcomes consistent with those captured in MajesTEC-1, which allowed generation of robust comparative analyses on all relevant endpoints, including response and survival outcomes, with proper adjustment for confounding bias due to imbalance in prognostic baseline characteristics.

Our analyses demonstrated clinically and statistically significant advantages in response and survival outcomes with teclistamab over RWPC in patients with triple-class-exposed RRMM who received ≥ 3 previous LOTs. Patients treated with teclistamab were 2.3-fold, 5.2-fold, and 148.3-fold more likely to achieve a response (ORR), ≥ VGPR, and ≥ CR, respectively, versus RWPC. The superior depth of response is demonstrated by the fact that, within the responding teclistamab patients, nearly all reached ≥ VGPR (94%) and the majority (63%) reached ≥ CR, while the majority (58%) of the RWPC responders only reached PR as best response, and only 1.5% reached ≥ CR. The significantly higher rate of ≥ CR with teclistamab is particularly important, given that ≥ CR rate is a common measure of depth of response and associated with prolonged remission [ 21 ]. This is also related to the substantially longer DOR for teclistamab, with a 68% reduction in the risk of progression or death since onset of response compared to the responders in the RWPC-cohort. Patients on teclistamab also had significantly better PFS and numerically better OS compared with RWPC. Additionally, the benefit of teclistamab in improving PFS and OS was observed beyond 3 months of treatment initiation (Fig. 2 ). The main findings were consistent with those from sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the effect of varying the statistical methods and covariates used.

There are some limitations to our study. As in any non-randomized study, residual confounding cannot be excluded. However, the prospective nature of the LocoMMotion study allowed all patient characteristics as captured in MajesTEC-1 to be collected at baseline, which enabled data analyses to adjust for clinically important prognostic factors. The list of clinically important prognostic factors to be adjusted for was identified a priori based on a review of the literature and consultations with clinical experts, and was further validated by the prognostic strength of these factors in the MajesTEC-1 and RWPC cohorts. Clinical experts were consulted at multiple stages of the analysis to ensure clinical validity of the chosen covariates. Imbalances between cohorts on all these risk factors were minimal after ATT-weighting, strengthening the validity of the adjusted comparisons. Cytogenetic risk was not included in the reported analyses, due to high missingness, which reflects that this is not routinely captured in real-world practice. Also, race was not included, due to low numbers for non-White RWPC patients. However, sensitivity analyses (not reported here) additionally including both factors did not show any major impact on the comparative results.

A further limitation is that there were no restrictions on treatment types used in LocoMMotion, thereby allowing physicians to prescribe based on clinical judgement. Although comparison of teclistamab to individual therapies was not possible due to the highly varied and individualized therapies selected by physicians for their patients, the comparator group was representative of regimens that are widely available to clinicians for use in clinical practice.

Another limitation was the limited availability of newer treatments in the RWCP cohort. Although new therapies for treatment of patients with TCE-RRMM have recently emerged, including selinexor, belantamab mafodotin, ide-cel, and cilta-cel, their use has been largely limited to participants in clinical trials [ 22 – 25 ]. During recruitment for LocoMMotion, selinexor was only available in the United States, and belantamab mafodotin was approved in the United States and the European Union for 3 months during the LocoMMotion recruitment period, so both agents were received by only a few patients in the study in the treatment line initiated at baseline. No patients initiated CAR-T treatment (ide-cel or cilta-cel), as these were not approved at time of enrollment in LocoMMotion. However, of all the RWPC patients who received subsequent treatment after the treatment line initiated at baseline, 46% were treated with at least one novel agent, indicating that OS observed for RWPC may reflect the benefit of other novel agents.

Conclusions

The comparison of MajesTEC-1 with the prospective LocoMMotion study of RWPC provides robust comparative evidence for a single-arm trial. Results from adjusted treatment comparisons demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvements with teclistamab compared with RWPC in TCE (PI, IMiD, anti-CD38 antibody)-RRMM and highlight the clinical benefit of teclistamab as a novel and highly effective therapy to address unmet treatment needs in this patient population.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary file1 (PDF 486 KB)

Acknowledgements

We thank all patients who participated in the MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion studies and the families and caregivers, physicians, and nurses who cared for the patients and supported the studies. We also thank the staff members at the MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion sites involved in data collection, data analysis, and interpretation, and acknowledge the contributions of Nichola Erler-Yates and Jedelyn Cabrieto (Janssen) to the data analyses.

Funding

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. MajesTEC-1 was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. LocoMMotion was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC and Legend Biotech, Inc. Funding for the publication of this study, including the journal’s Rapid Service and Open Access fees were provided by Janssen Global Services, LLC.

Medical Writing, Editorial, and Other Assistance

Medical writing support was provided by John Bilbruck, PhD, and Linda Wychowski, PhD, of Eloquent Scientific Solutions, and funded by Janssen Global Services, LLC.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Author Contributions

Philippe Moreau, Aurore Perrot, Rachel Kobos, Jennifer Smit, and Maria-Victoria Mateos: Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing-Reviewing and Editing Niels W. C. J. van de Donk, Michel Delforge, Hermann Einsele, Valerio De Stefano, Britta Besemer, Charlotte Pawlyn, Lionel Karlin, Salomon Manier, Xavier Leleu, Katja Weisel, and Ahmed Elsada: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing-Reviewing and Editing Francesca Ghilotti: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing original draft, Writing-Reviewing and Editing Joris Diels: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing original draft, Writing-Reviewing and Editing Raul Morano and Mary Slavcev: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing-Reviewing and Editing Vadim Strulev: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing original draft, Writing-Reviewing and Editing Lixia Pei: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-Reviewing and Editing.

Prior Presentation

This manuscript is based on work that was previously presented at the 2022 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting; June 3–7, 2022; Chicago, IL, USA and online. Niels W.C.J van de Donk, et al. Comparative efficacy of teclistamab (tec) versus current treatments (tx) in real-world clinical practice in the prospective LocoMMotion study in patients (pts) with triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 16; abstr 8016).

Disclosures

Philippe Moreau has held a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi; and received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Oncopeptides, and Sanofi. Niels W. C. J. van de Donk has received honoraria from Celgene; held a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Servier, and Takeda; and received research funding from Amgen, BMS, Cellectis, and Janssen. Michel Delforge has held a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen; and received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen. Hermann Einsele has held a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda; received travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda; received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda; and received research funding from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Janssen. Valerio De Stefano has received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, and Takeda. Aurore Perrot has received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Takeda. Britta Besemer has received travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Janssen-Cilag; and received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag. Charlotte Pawlyn has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Lionel Karlin reports employment (family member) by Aguettant; has received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; has held a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and has received travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Salomon Manier has received research funding from AbbVie, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, and Takeda. Xavier Leleu has held a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Roche, and Takeda; received travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Takeda; and received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. Katja Weisel has held a consulting or advisory role for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; has received travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda; received honoraria from AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Takeda; and has received research funding from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, and Sanofi. Francesca Ghilotti is employed by Janssen. Joris Diels is employed by and has stock/other ownership interests in Janssen. Ahmed Elsada was employed by Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the research and publication development; he is currently an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Raul Morano is employed by Janssen. Vadim Strulev is employed by and has stock/other ownership interests in Janssen. Lixia Pei is employed by and has stock/other ownership interests in Janssen. Rachel Kobos is employed by and has stock/other ownership interests in Janssen. Jennifer Smit is employed by, has stock/other ownership interests in, and has received travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen. Mary Slavcev is employed by and has stock/other ownership interests in Janssen. Maria-Victoria Mateos has held a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda; and received honoraria from AbbVie/Genentech, Amgen, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, and Takeda.

Compliance With Ethics Guidelines

Data analyzed in this study were received from the MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion studies. MajesTEC-1 was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. All patients provided written informed consent. An independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each study center approved the study protocol. The LocoMMotion study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written informed consent. An independent ethics committee/institutional review board at each center approved the study protocol.

Data Availability

Data used for this study were based on the MajesTEC-1 and LocoMMotion studies. MajesTEC-1 data sharing is governed by the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson data sharing policy that is available online. As noted on policy, requests for access to the study data can be submitted through Yale Open Data.

References

1. Orlowski RZ Nagler A Sonneveld P Randomized phase III study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy improves time to progression J Clin Oncol 2007 25 3892 3901 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.5460 17679727

2. Dimopoulos MA Moreau P Terpos E EHA Guidelines Committee; multiple myeloma: EHA-ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann Oncol. 2021 32 309 322 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.11.014 33549387

3. Chen C Baldassarre F Kanjeekal S Herst J Hicks L Cheung M Lenalidomide in multiple myeloma—a practice guideline Curr Oncol 2013 20 e136 e149 10.3747/co.20.1252 23559881 PMC3615865

4. Gay F Jackson G Rosiñol L Maintenance treatment and survival in patients with myeloma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis JAMA Oncol 2018 4 1389 1397 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2961 30098165 PMC6233774

5. Bird SA Boyd K Multiple myeloma: an overview of management Palliat Care Soc Pract 2019 13 1178224219868235 32215370 10.1177/1178224219868235 PMC7065505

6. Usmani SZ Weiss BM Plesner T Clinical efficacy of daratumumab monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2016 128 37 44 10.1182/blood-2016-03-705210 27216216 PMC4937359

7. Raab MS Cavo M Delforge M Multiple myeloma: practice patterns across Europe Br J Haematol 2016 175 66 76 10.1111/bjh.14193 27291397

8. Lee JH Kim S-H Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma Blood Res 2020 55 S43 53 10.5045/br.2020.S008 32719176 PMC7386890

9. Ramasamy K Gay F Weisel K Zweegman S Mateos MV Richardson P Improving outcomes for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: challenges and considerations of current and emerging treatment options Blood Rev 2021 49 100808 10.1016/j.blre.2021.100808 33863601

10. Gandhi UH Cornell RF Lakshman A Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy Leukemia 2019 33 2266 2275 10.1038/s41375-019-0435-7 30858549 PMC6820050

11. Kumar V Ailawadhi M Dutta N Trends in early mortality from multiple myeloma: a population-based analysis Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2021 21 e449 e455 10.1016/j.clml.2020.12.023 33485835

12. Robak P Drozdz I Szemraj J Robak T Drug resistance in multiple myeloma Cancer Treat Rev 2018 70 199 208 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.09.001 30245231

13. Pillarisetti K Powers G Luistro L Teclistamab is an active T cell-redirecting bispecific antibody against B-cell maturation antigen for multiple myeloma Blood Adv 2020 4 4538 4549 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002393 32956453 PMC7509877

14. Usmani SZ Garfall AL van de Donk NWCJ Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MajesTEC-1): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1 study Lancet 2021 398 665 674 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01338-6 34388396

15. Moreau P Garfall AL van de Donk NWCJ Teclistamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2022 387 495 505 10.1056/NEJMoa2203478 35661166 PMC10587778

16. Durie BGM Kumar SK Usmani SZ Daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone vs standard-of-care regimens: efficacy in transplant-ineligible untreated myeloma Am J Hematol 2020 95 1486 1494 10.1002/ajh.25963 32804408 PMC7754114

17. Mateos M-V Weisel K De Stefano V 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 1371 1376 10.1038/s41375-022-01531-2 35332278 PMC9061296

18. Li F Morgan KL Zaslavsky AM Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting J Am Stat Assoc 2018 113 390 400 10.1080/01621459.2016.1260466

19. Austin PC Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples Stat Med 2009 28 3083 3107 10.1002/sim.3697 19757444 PMC3472075

20. Kumar S Durie B Nahi H Propensity score matching analysis to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daratumumab versus real-world standard of care therapies for patients with heavily pretreated and refractory multiple myeloma Leuk Lymphoma 2019 60 163 171 10.1080/10428194.2018.1459609 29741423

21. Harousseau J-L Attal M Avet-Loiseau H The role of complete response in multiple myeloma Blood 2009 114 3139 3146 10.1182/blood-2009-03-201053 19638622

22. Chari A Vogl DT Gavriatopoulou M Oral selinexor-dexamethasone for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2019 381 727 738 10.1056/NEJMoa1903455 31433920

23. Lonial S Lee HC Badros A Belantamab mafodotin for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-2): a two-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 2 study Lancet Oncol 2020 21 207 221 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30788-0 31859245

24. Munshi NC Anderson LD Jr Shah N Idecabtagene vicleucel in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 2021 384 705 716 10.1056/NEJMoa2024850 33626253

25. Berdeja JG Madduri D Usmani SZ Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CARTITUDE-1): a phase 1b/2 open-label study Lancet 2021 398 314 324 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00933-8 34175021