Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Feb;38(2):365-371.
doi: 10.1038/s41375-024-02154-5. Epub 2024 Jan 20.

Real-world analysis of teclistamab in 123 RRMM patients from Germany

Affiliations

Real-world analysis of teclistamab in 123 RRMM patients from Germany

C Riedhammer et al. Leukemia. 2024 Feb.

Abstract

Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) × CD3 directed bispecific antibody, has shown high response rates and durable remissions in the MAJESTEC-1 trial in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We retrospectively assessed efficacy and tolerability in 123 patients treated at 18 different German centers to determine whether outcome is comparable in the real-world setting. Most patients had triple-class (93%) or penta-drug (60%) refractory disease, 37% of patients had received BCMA-directed pretreatment including idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) CAR-T cell therapy (21/123, 17.1%). With a follow-up of 5.5 months, we observed an overall response rate (ORR) of 59.3% and a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.7 months. In subgroup analyses, we found significantly lower ORR and median PFS in patients with extramedullary disease (37%/2.1 months), and/or an ISS of 3 (37%/1.3 months), and ide-cel pretreated patients (33%/1.8 months). Nonetheless, the duration of response in ide-cel pretreated patients was comparable to that of anti-BCMA naive patients. Infections and grade ≥3 cytopenias were the most frequent adverse events. In summary, we found that teclistamab exhibited a comparable efficacy and safety profile in the real-world setting as in the pivotal trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

BB has received honoraria from Janssen and GSK. MB has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca and Incyte and travel grants from Janssen. AC received consulting and/or lecture fees from Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer and Takeda and travel and congress participation grants from Janssen. HE has consulted for BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, GSK and Novartis, he has received research funding by BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi, honoraria from BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, GSK, Novartis and travel support from BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi. AN has consulted for Celgene, Roche, Takeda, Alexion, Janssen, BMS, Sanofi, Amgen and GSK. He received honoraria from Celgene, Roche, Takeda, Alexion, Janssen, BMS, Sanofi, Amgen, GSK and Jazz and research support from BMS, Janssen and Celgene. KMK received honoraria from from Abbvie, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer and Takeda. MM has received honoraria from Amgen, Takeda, BMS, Janssen, Stemline and Roche. MSR received honoraria and consulted for Janssen, BMS, Sanofi, Amgen, AbbVie and GSK. RT received honoraria and research funding from Janssen. RW consulted for Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Pfizer, Sanofi and Takeda, he received research funding from Janssen and Sanofi, and travel support from Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Pfizer and BMS. LR consulted for Janssen, Amgen, GSK, Pfizer, BMS, Sanofi, and received honoraria from Janssen, GSK, Pfizer, BMS, Sanofi and received research funding from Skyline Dx and BMS. CR, FBa, FBr, JFa, JFr, DG, SG-M, MHä, MHo, JK, MK, TL, CM, RM, AM declare no potential competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Rate of response in 123 patients and Kaplan–Meier analysis of response duration and of progression-free and overall survival.
Panel A shows the rates of near complete response and complete response (CR), very good partial response (VGPR), and partial response in 123 patients who were treated with teclistamab. Panel B illustrates progression-free survival and Panel C overall survival among the 123 patients. Panel D shows the duration of response to teclistamab therapy in the 73 patients who had an overall response (partial response or better). Tick marks indicate censored data. Bands indicate confidence bands around survival curves.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Response to teclistamab in subgroups.
Rate of response according to BCMA-pretreatment, PFS and DOR in ide-cel pretreatment and PFS in further subgroups (EMD, ISS 3, bone marrow infiltration ≥60%).

References

    1. Topp MS, Duell J, Zugmaier G, Attal M, Moreau P, Langer C, et al. Anti-B-cell maturation antigen BiTE molecule AMG 420 induces responses in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:775–83. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02657. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Munshi NC, Anderson LD, Jr, Shah N, Madduri D, Berdeja J, Lonial S, et al. Idecabtagene vicleucel in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:705–16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024850. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Martin T, Usmani SZ, Berdeja JG, Agha M, Cohen AD, Hari P, et al. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, an anti-B-cell maturation antigen chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: CARTITUDE-1 2-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:1265–74. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00842. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lesokhin AM, Tomasson MH, Arnulf B, Bahlis NJ, Miles Prince H, Niesvizky R, et al. Elranatamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial results. Nat Med. 2023;29:2259–67. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02528-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rasche L, Hudecek M, Einsele H. What is the future of immunotherapy in multiple myeloma? Blood. 2020;136:2491–7. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019004176. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances