All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your Multiple Myeloma Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe Multiple Myeloma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. Digital educational resources delivered on the Multiple Myeloma Hub are supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. View funders.
Bookmark this article
Relapse remains common in multiple myeloma (MM), despite several recent clinical advances.1,2 Many patients experience triple-class exposure early in their treatment regimens and are left with limited options.1,2
Standard therapy approaches remain poorly defined, with suboptimal response rates and poor median survival outcomes.1 Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy was recently approved for the treatment of heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM and now represents a significant clinical option for improving outcomes in these patients.1,2
The KarMMa-3 trial evaluated idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen-directed CAR T-cell therapy, with standard regimens for the treatment of MM patients who had received 2–4 lines of previous therapy and were refractory on the last regimen. We are pleased to summarize the key findings of the trials below.
The KarMMa-3 trial study design has been illustrated in this previous Multiple Myeloma Hub article. Here, we summarize results published in The New England Journal of Medicine by Rodriguez-Otero et al.1 and presented by Rodriguez-Otero2 at the 5th European CAR T-Cell Meeting.
Patients were enrolled from May 2019 to April 2022 at 49 sites across 12 countries. A total of 254 patients were randomized to the ide-cel treatment arm and 132 to the standard care (SC) arm. Baseline patient characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics*
Characteristic, % (unless otherwise stated) |
Ide-cel |
Standard care |
---|---|---|
Age, median |
63.0 |
63.0 |
<65 years |
59.0 |
59.0 |
≥65 years |
41.0 |
41.0 |
≥75 years |
5.0 |
7.0 |
Median time from initial diagnosis to screening, years |
4.1 |
4.0 |
Median time to progression during last previous antimyeloma therapy, months |
7.1 |
6.9 |
Extramedullary disease |
24.0 |
24.0 |
High tumor burden |
28.0 |
26.0 |
ECOG performance status score |
||
0 |
47.0 |
50.0 |
1 |
52.0 |
47.0 |
≥2 |
<1.0 |
3.0 |
R-ISS disease stage |
||
I |
20.0 |
20.0 |
II |
59.0 |
62.0 |
III |
12.0 |
11.0 |
Unknown |
9.0 |
8.0 |
Median number of previous regimens |
3.0 |
3.0 |
Previous autologous HSCT |
84.0 |
86.0 |
Previous radiation therapy |
35.0 |
35.0 |
Double-class-refractory disease |
67.0 |
69.0 |
Triple-class-refractory disease |
65.0 |
67.0 |
Penta-refractory disease |
6.0 |
4.0 |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HSCT, hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation; |
The median follow-up time was 18.6 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in the ide-cel group at 13.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8–16.1) compared with 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.4–5.9) in the SC group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38–0.65; p < 0.001). The rates of PFS at the 6‑ and 12‑month timepoints are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Progression-free survival at 6 and 12 months*
Ide-cel, idecabtagene vicleucel; SC, standard care.
*Adapted from Rodriguez‑Otero, et al.1
Response rates were also significantly higher for ide-cel treatment, with 71% of patients achieving an overall response rate compared with 42% in the SC group (95% CI, 2.24–5.39; p < 0.0001). Moreover, the complete response (CR) rate was 39% for ide-cel as compared with 5% for the SC group. The median time to response was similar in both treatment groups whilst the median duration of response was longer in the ide-cel group (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Median time to response and median duration of response*
Ide-cel, idecabtagene vicleucel; SC, standard care.
*Adapted from Rodriguez‑Otero, et al.1
The proportion of patients who achieved negative measurable residual disease status within 3 months prior to the occurrence of CR was 20% (95% CI, 15.2–25.0) in the ide-cel group and 1% (95% CI, 0–2.2) in the SC group.
Safety outcomes from the ide-cel group and SC group are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Adverse events that occurred in ≥20% of patients*
Safety outcome, % |
Ide-cel |
SC |
---|---|---|
AE of any grade |
99 |
98 |
Grade 3 or 4 AE |
93 |
75 |
Grade 5 AE |
14 |
6 |
Serious AE |
52 |
38 |
Grade 5 TRAE |
3 |
1 |
Sepsis |
2 |
1 |
Most common hematologic AE of any grade |
||
Neutropenia |
78 |
44 |
Anemia |
66 |
36 |
Thrombocytopenia |
54 |
29 |
Infection |
||
Any grade |
58 |
54 |
Grade 3 or 4 |
24 |
18 |
Grade 5 |
4 |
2 |
CRS |
||
Any grade |
88 |
0 |
Grade 3 or 4 |
4 |
0 |
Grade 5 |
1 |
0 |
Neurotoxic event |
||
Any grade |
15 |
0 |
Grade 3 or 4 |
3 |
0 |
AE, adverse event; CRS, cytokine release syndrome: SC, standard care; |
Secondary primary malignancy was recorded in 6% of patients in the ide-cel group and 4% in the SC group. The mortality rate for the ide-cel group was 30% compared with 26% in the SC group. Death was most commonly due to disease progression and infection in both treatment groups.
During the KarMMa-2 trial, ide-cel therapy was also investigated for use in earlier lines of treatment.
Here, we summarize results from a subgroup analysis of cohort 2a presented by Patel3 at the 64th American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and Exposition. The analysis included a total of 37 patients, with a primary efficacy endpoint of CR. The key eligibility criteria were as follows:
The median follow-up was 21.5 months and 15 patients discontinued ide-cel treatment. Efficacy outcomes are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Efficacy outcomes*
Efficacy outcome, % (unless otherwise stated) |
N = 37 |
p value |
---|---|---|
ORR (95% CIa) |
83.8 (68.0–93.8) |
<0.0001 |
CRR (95% CIa) |
45.9 (29.5–63.1) |
— |
CR |
8.1 |
— |
sCR |
37.8 |
— |
VGPR |
21.6 |
— |
PR |
16.2 |
— |
MR |
5.4 |
— |
SD |
10.8 |
— |
Median PFS (95% CI), months |
11.4 (5.6–19.6) |
— |
Median duration of response in patients who achieved |
23.5 (10.2–NE)
|
— |
Median duration of response in patients who responded |
15.7 (7.6–19.8) |
— |
Median OS, months |
Not reached |
— |
CI, confidence interval; CIa, Clopper-Pearson confidence interval; CR, complete response; |
Measurable residual disease data were available for 34 patients and showed a negative rate of 85% after 6 months and 70% after 12 months in patients who achieved a CR.
The most common hematologic adverse event was neutropenia, with 94.6% of patients experiencing a Grade 3/4 event. The most common non-hematologic adverse event was infection/infestation, with 21.6% of patients experiencing a Grade 3/4 event and 5.4% experiencing a Grade 5 event. Grade 1/2 cytokine release syndrome was recorded in 81.1% of patients and Grade 1/2 neurotoxicity in 21.6% of patients.
Overall, ide-cel treatment has shown durable responses in very difficult-to-treat patient populations. In comparison with SC regimens, ide-cel was associated with longer PFS, deeper responses, and attained clinical benefits from only a single infusion. The safety profile was consistent with previous studies. The use of ide-cel as an earlier line of therapy resulted in both frequent and encouraging responses, with expansion and persistence data consistent with other heavily pretreated cohorts. As a result, the clinical risk-benefit profile combined with the high-risk patient population highlights the possibility of use in earlier lines of treatment.
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox