Comparative Effectiveness of Teclistamab Versus Real-World Physician's Choice of Therapy in LocoMMotion and MoMMent in Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Teclistamab is the first approved B cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody with precision dosing for the treatment of triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC) in patients from the prospective, non-interventional LocoMMotion and MoMMent studies. METHODS: Patients treated with teclistamab from MajesTEC-1 (N = 165) were compared with an external control arm from LocoMMotion (N = 248) or LocoMMotion + MoMMent pooled (N = 302). Inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted for imbalances in prognostic baseline characteristics. The relative effect of teclistamab versus RWPC for overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate was estimated with an odds ratio using weighted logistic regression transformed into a response-rate ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Weighted proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment cohorts after reweighting. Patients treated with teclistamab had significantly improved outcomes versus RWPC in LocoMMotion: ORR (RR [95% CI], 2.44 [1.79-3.33]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.78 [3.74-8.93]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 113.73 [15.68-825.13]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.39 [0.24-0.64]; p = 0.0002), PFS (HR 0.48 [0.35-0.64]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.64 [0.46-0.88]; p = 0.0055). Teclistamab versus RWPC in LocoMMotion + MoMMent also had significantly improved outcomes: ORR (RR 2.41 [1.80-3.23]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.91 [3.93-8.88]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 132.32 [19.06-918.47]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.43 [0.26-0.71]; p = 0.0011), PFS (HR 0.49 [0.37-0.66]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.69 [0.50-0.95]; p = 0.0247). CONCLUSION: Teclistamab demonstrated significantly improved effectiveness over RWPC in LocoMMotion ± MoMMent, emphasizing its clinical benefit as a highly effective treatment for patients with TCE RRMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MajesTEC-1, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03145181 (phase 1) and NCT04557098 (phase 2); LocoMMotion, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04035226; MoMMent, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05160584.

A survey of quality-of-life tools used in the routine care of patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: New treatment options have significantly improved the life expectancy of myeloma patients such that their cause of death is increasingly likely to be from something other than myeloma. Furthermore, the adverse effects of short- or long-term treatments as well as the disease are impacting on quality of life (QoL) for longer periods of time. Understanding people's QoL and what is important to them, is part of providing holistic care. Although QoL data has been collected for many years in myeloma studies, they have not been used to inform patient outcomes. There is growing evidence that supports the assessment of 'fitness' and consideration of QoL as part of routine myeloma care. A national survey was carried out to discover which QoL tools are currently being used in the routine care of myeloma patients, by whom and at which time point. METHODS: An online survey using SurveyMonkey was adopted for flexibility and accessibility. The link to the survey was circulated via Bloodwise, Myeloma UK and Cancer Research UK contact lists. Paper questionnaires were circulated at the UK Myeloma Forum. RESULTS: Data about practices in 26 centres were collected. This included sites across England and Wales. Three out of 26 centres collect QoL data as part of standard care. QoL tools used include EORTC QLQ-My20/24, MyPOS, FACT-BMT and Quality of Life Index. Questionnaires were completed by patients before, during or after a clinic appointment. Clinical nurse specialists calculate the scores and create a care plan. CONCLUSION: Despite growing evidence to support an holistic approach to management of myeloma patients, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that health-related QoL is being addressed in standard care. This is an area that needs further research.

A retrospective real-world study of the current treatment pathways for myelofibrosis in the United Kingdom: the REALISM UK study.

Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a blood cancer associated with splenomegaly, blood count abnormalities, reduced life expectancy and high prevalence of disease-associated symptoms. Current treatment options for MF are diverse, with limited data on management strategies in real-world practice in the United Kingdom. Methods: The REALISM UK study was a multi-center, retrospective, non-interventional study, which documented the early management of patients with MF. The primary endpoint was the time from diagnosis to active treatment. Discussion: Two hundred patients were included (63% [n = 126/200] with primary MF; 37% [n = 74/200] with secondary MF). Symptoms and prognostic scores at diagnosis were poorly documented, with infrequent use of patient reported outcome measures. 'Watch and wait' was the first management strategy for 53.5% (n = 107/200) of patients, while the most commonly used active treatments were hydroxycarbamide and ruxolitinib. Only 5% of patients proceeded to allogeneic transplant. The median (IQR) time to first active treatment was 46 days (0-350); patients with higher risk disease were prescribed active treatment sooner. Conclusion: These results provide insight into real-world clinical practice for patients with MF in the United Kingdom. Despite the known high prevalence of disease-associated symptoms in MF, symptoms were poorly documented. Most patients were initially observed or received hydroxycarbamide, and ruxolitinib was used as first-line management strategy in only a minority of patients. Plain Language Summary: Background: Myelofibrosis is a rare blood cancer associated with symptoms that can seriously affect a patient's daily life, such as enlarged spleen and decreased white and red blood cells. Although several treatments are available for patients with myelofibrosis, it is not clear which ones clinicians use most frequently.Methods: We aimed to review which treatments are usually given to patients with myelofibrosis in the UK, by collecting information from the medical records of 200 patients with myelofibrosis treated in different centres across the UK.Results: The results showed that the symptoms patients experienced were not always written down in the medical records. Similarly, clinical scores based on patient characteristics (which clinicians use to try to predict if a patient will respond to treatment well or not) were also missing from the medical records. Clinicians also rarely asked patients to complete questionnaires that try to measure the impact of myelofibrosis and its treatment on their health. The most common approach for patients with myelofibrosis in the UK was 'watch and wait', which over half of patients received. The most common drugs used for treatment were hydroxycarbamide and ruxolitinib; only a very small proportion of patients received a bone marrow transplant. On average, patients waited for 46 days before receiving a treatment, although patients considered to have a more aggressive type of disease received treatment sooner.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that medical records can be missing key information, which is needed to decide which is the best way to treat a patient with myelofibrosis. They also suggest that clinicians in the UK prefer observation to treatment for a large number of patients with myelofibrosis. This could mean that the approach used for many patients with myelofibrosis does not help them to control symptoms that have an impact on their daily lives.

Preliminary piloting and validation of a questionnaire identifying basic clinical skills practised by research nurses.

Clinical research nurses (CRNs) need to be competent in both clinical and research skills. In the past 10 years there has been increasing focus on developing the research competencies of CRNs. Employers, however, use the nurses' registered status as a proxy measure of clinical competence to perform their duties. The true extent of what clinical skills are practised by CRNs in a large NHS trust is unclear and there is a lack of validated measures to obtain this information. By using a mixed-methods approach of questionnaire and semi-structured interview, we aimed to pilot and validate a questionnaire to identify CRNs' self-reported confidence with clinical skills.