Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Wiley, British Journal of Haematology, 4(204), p. 1293-1299, 2024

DOI: 10.1111/bjh.19302

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Efficacy and safety of idecabtagene vicleucel in patients with relapsed–refractory multiple myeloma not meeting the KarMMa‐1 trial eligibility criteria: A real‐world multicentre study

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

SummaryIde‐cel received approval for relapsed–refractory multiple myeloma based on the results of the KarMMa‐1 trial. However, patients with significant comorbidities, aggressive disease and prior B‐cell maturation antigen‐directed therapy (BCMA‐DT) were excluded. This retrospective study evaluated real‐world outcomes of patients who did not meet the KarMMa‐1 eligibility criteria and were treated with standard of care (SOC) ide‐cel. A total of 69 patients from three US centres who did not meet the KarMMa‐1 criteria underwent ide‐cel infusion. The main reasons for trial ineligibility included baseline grade 3–4 cytopenia (39%), prior BCMA‐DT (26%), renal impairment (19%) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 (14.5%). Cytokine‐release syndrome occurred in 81% vs. 84%, and immune effector cell‐associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 28% vs. 18% of SOC versus KarMMa‐1 patients, respectively. Early infection (≤8 weeks post‐infusion) and severe infection rates were 42% vs. 49% and 30% vs. 22% for the SOC versus KarMMa‐1 cohorts, respectively. Grade 3–4 cytopenias for SOC versus KarMMa‐1 cohorts were: neutropenia (87% vs. 89%), anaemia (51% vs. 60%) and thrombocytopenia (65% vs. 52%). Overall response rate was higher for the SOC cohort (93% vs. 73%), as was the complete response or better rate (48% vs. 33%). However, median progression‐free survival and overall survival were comparable between the two groups. Our findings support broadening the inclusion criteria of future trials evaluating ide‐cel.