A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of elranatamab versus teclistamab in patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma

Figures & data

Table 1. Patient demographics and baseline characteristics.

	MagnestisMM-3 (cohort A; n = 116)	Majestec-1 (n = 165)
Age, median, years	68	64
≥75 years	18%	15%
Sex, male	55%	58%
Median time since diagnosis, years	6.2	6.0
High-risk cytogenetics	27%	23%
ISS risk stage
Stage I	30%	52%
Stage II	37%	35%
Stage III	20%	12%
ECOG status
0	39%	33%
1	61%	67%
Extramedullary disease	28%	17%
Number of prior lines, median	5	5
>3 lines of therapy	79%	74%
Refractory/exposure status
Triple-class refractory^a	97%	78%
Penta-drug refractory	41%	30%
Penta-drug exposed	71%	70%

ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; ISS: International Staging System.

^aTriple-class refractory status was not possible to adjust for in the MAIC due to the small size of the resulting ESS.

Table 2. ORR and ≥ CR for elranatamab versus teclistamab (naïve, base case adjusted, and sensitivity analysis results).

Analysis	Elranatamab	Teclistamab	ESS (n)	Rate difference (95% CI)	Odds ratio (95% CI)
ORR
Naïve comparison	62.1%	63.0%	116	−0.96 (–12.46, 10.54)	0.96 (0.59, 1.57)
Base case	75.3%	63.0%	75	12.30 (0.70, 23.90)	1.79 (1.01, 3.19)
Sensitivity analysis	75.5%	63.0%	89	12.44 (1.28, 23.60)	1.80 (1.04, 3.14)
≥CR rate
Naïve comparison	36.2%	39.4%	116	−3.19 (–14.68, 8.31)	0.87 (0.53, 1.43)
Base case	43.0%	39.4%	75	3.63 (–9.08, 16.33)	1.16 (0.69, 1.96)
Sensitivity analysis	43.1%	39.4%	89	3.70 (–8.50, 15.89)	1.16 (0.70, 1.93)

CI: confidence interval; ESS: effective sample size; ORR: objective response rate; CR: complete response.

Bold values denote statistical significance. Response outcome data for elranatamab and teclistamab from MagnetisMM-3 and MajesTEC-1 are based on a similar length of follow-up (14.7 and 14.1 months, respectively). n represents the ESS. ESS is the number of independent, non-weighted individuals needed for an estimate with the same precision as the weighted sample estimate. The ESS increased in the sensitivity analysis compared to the base case, due to the imputation of the missing values.

Figure 1. DoR results for elranatamab in cohort A of MagnetisMM-3 versus teclistamab in MajesTEC-1. While DoR is only captured among patients with a response, the MAIC weighs all patients (regardless of response). CI: confidence interval; DoR: duration of response; HR: hazard ratio; NE: not estimable.

Figure 2. PFS results for elranatamab in cohort A of MagnetisMM-3 vs. teclistamab in MajesTEC-1. CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; NE: not estimable; PFS: progression-free survival.

Figure 3. OS results for elranatamab in cohort A of MagnetisMM-3 versus teclistamab in MajesTEC-1. CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; NE: not estimable; OS: overall survival.

Table 3. DoR for elranatamab versus teclistamab (naïve, base case adjusted, and sensitivity analysis results).

Analysis	ESS (n)	HR (95% CI)	p value
Naïve comparison	116	0.78 (0.45, 1.36)	.38
Base case	75	0.64 (0.33, 1.23)	.18
Sensitivity analysis	89	0.77 (0.42, 1.39)	.38

CI: confidence interval; DoR: duration of response; ESS: effective sample size; HR: hazard ratio.

While DoR is only captured among patients with a response, the MAIC weighs all patients (regardless of response). n represents the ESS. ESS is the number of independent, non-weighted individuals needed for an estimate with the same precision as the weighted sample estimate. The ESS increased in the sensitivity analysis compared to the base case, due to the imputation of the missing values.

Data availability statement

Upon request, and subject to review, Pfizer will provide the data that support the findings of this study. Subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions, Pfizer may also provide access to the related individual de-identified participant data. See https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information.