Ide-cel vs standard regimens in triple-class–exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: updated KarMMa-3 analyses

  • Sikander Ailawadhi*
  • , Bertrand Arnulf
  • , Krina Patel
  • , Michele Cavo
  • , Ajay K. Nooka
  • , Salomon Manier
  • , Natalie Callander
  • , Luciano J. Costa
  • , Ravi Vij
  • , Nizar J. Bahlis
  • , Philippe Moreau
  • , Scott Solomon
  • , Ingerid Weum Abrahamsen
  • , Rachid Baz
  • , Annemiek Broijl
  • , Christine Chen
  • , Sundar Jagannath
  • , Noopur Raje
  • , Christof Scheid
  • , Michel Delforge
  • Reuben Benjamin, Thomas Pabst, Shinsuke Iida, Jesús Berdeja, Sergio Giralt, Anna Truppel-Hartmann, Yanping Chen, Xiaobo Zhong, Fan Wu, Julia Piasecki, Laurie Eliason, Devender Dhanda, Jasper Felten, Andrea Caia, Mark Cook, Mihaela Popa McKiver, Paula Rodríguez-Otero
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

35 Citations (Scopus)
43 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Outcomes are poor in triple-class–exposed (TCE) relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (R/RMM). In the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial, patients with TCE R/RMM and 2 to 4 prior regimens were randomized 2:1 to idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) or standard regimens (SRs). An interim analysis (IA) demonstrated significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point; 13.3 vs 4.4 months; P <.0001) and higher overall response rate (ORR) with ide-cel vs SRs. At final PFS analysis (median follow-up, 30.9 months), ide-cel further improved median PFS vs SRs (13.8 vs 4.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.63). PFS benefit with ide-cel vs SRs was observed regardless of number of prior lines of therapy, with greatest benefit after 2 prior lines (16.2 vs 4.8 months, respectively). ORR benefit was maintained with ide-cel vs SRs (71% vs 42%; complete response, 44% vs 5%). Patient-centric design allowed crossover from SRs (56%) to ide-cel upon progressive disease, confounding overall survival (OS) interpretation. At IA of OS, median was 41.4 (95% CI, 30.9 to not reached [NR]) vs 37.9 (95% CI, 23.4 to NR) months with ide-cel and SRs, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.73-1.40); median OS in both arms was longer than historical data (9-22 months). Two prespecified analyses adjusting for crossover showed OS favoring ide-cel. This trial highlighted the importance of individualized bridging therapy to ensure adequate disease control during ide-cel manufacturing. Ide-cel improved patient-reported outcomes vs SRs. No new safety signals were reported. These results demonstrate the continued favorable benefit-risk profile of ide-cel in early-line and TCE R/RMM. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03651128.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2389-2401
Number of pages13
JournalBlood
Volume144
Issue number23
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Aug 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American Society of Hematology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ide-cel vs standard regimens in triple-class–exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: updated KarMMa-3 analyses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this