The mm 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 mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm 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, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
MAIA: Long-term results and patient reported outcomes with D-Rd in TI NDMM
|
The phase III MAIA trial (NCT02252172) demonstrated that daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved PFS (primary endpoint) and OS vs lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM (N = 737; D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369). Eligible patients had documented NDMM, an ECOG PS of 0 to 2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT due to age (≥65 years) or comorbidities.1 Facon et al.2 published updated efficacy and safety findings from MAIA (median follow-up, 64.5 months), including a subgroup analysis by patient age (<70 years, ≥70 years to <75 years, ≥75 years, and ≥80 years) in Leukemia. We summarize these findings, along with key findings from a final analysis of PROs published by Perot et al.3 in the European Journal of Hematology. |
| Key learnings |
| PFS was improved with D-Rd vs Rd (median, 61.9 months vs 34.4 months; HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45–0.67; p < 0.0001). Median OS was not reached in the D-Rd group vs 65.5 months in the Rd group (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53–0.83; p = 0.0003).2 |
| The estimated 60-month OS rates were 66.6% with D-Rd vs 53.6% with Rd. D-Rd achieved higher rates of ≥CR (51.1% vs 30.1%), MRD negativity (32.1% vs 11.1%), and sustained MRD negativity (≥18 months, 16.8% vs 3.3%) vs Rd (all p < 0.0001).2 |
| The ITT population consisted of 46.3% frail individuals, 35.4% aged 70 years to <75 years, and 43.6% aged ≥75 years. Patients treated with D-Rd experienced sustained improvements in HRQoL measures from baseline over 5 years, both in the overall ITT population and across subgroups defined by age, frailty, and bone lesions.3 |
| A higher proportion of patients treated with D-Rd vs Rd achieved minimally important changes for improvement at Cycle 36 in GHS, physical functioning, pain, and fatigue. A higher proportion of patients with bone lesions improved with D-Rd vs Rd on GHS and physical functioning.3 |
| These findings continue to support frontline use of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. The survival benefit associated with D-Rd is accompanied by long-term consistency or improvements in HRQoL, including in frail and elderly patients.2,3 |
Abbreviations: ASCT autologous stem cell transplant; CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; D-Rd, daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; GHS, global health status; HR, hazard ratio; HRQoL, health-related quality of life; ITT, intent-to-treat; MRD, minimal residual disease; NDMM, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; OR, odds ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; PRO, patient-reported outcome; Rd, lenalidomide-dexamethasone.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content
