-Author name in bold denotes the presenting author
-Asterisk * with author name denotes a Non-ASH member
Clinically Relevant Abstract denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant.

PhD Trainee denotes that this is a recommended PHD Trainee Session.

Ticketed Session denotes that this is a ticketed session.

541 Comparison of the Efficacy in Clinical Trials Versus Effectiveness in the Real-World of Treatments for Multiple Myeloma: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Type: Oral
Session: 905. Outcomes Research – Lymphoid Malignancies: Outcomes Research in Myeloma: What's New?
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
adult, Research, Non-Biological therapies, Plasma Cell Disorders, Clinical Research, Diseases, Therapies, real-world evidence, Lymphoid Malignancies, Human, Study Population
Sunday, December 10, 2023: 12:00 PM

Alissa Visram, MD, MPH1, Kelvin KW Chan, MD, PhD2*, Hsien Seow3*, Gregory Pond4*, Ana Gayowsky5*, Arleigh McCurdy, MD, BSc6, Irwindeep Sandhu7, Christopher P. Venner, MD8, Guido Lancman, MD, MSc9, Amaris Balitsky, MD10, Robert Bruins11*, Shaji Kunnathu Kumar, MD12, Rafael Fonseca, MD13 and Hira Mian, MD10

1Division of Hematology, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
2Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
3Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
4Escarpment Cancer Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
5Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
6The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
7Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada
8BC Cancer – Vancouver Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
9University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
10McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
11Eli Lilly Canada Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada
12Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
13Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ


Improvements in outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) depend on the use of regimens approved based on results from large phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy. However, many real-world (RW) patients would not have met the stringent RCTs inclusion criteria. Therefore, the effectiveness of these drugs in the RW setting is unknown. Understanding this efficacy-effectiveness gap is important to contextualize the expected outcomes in the current RW setting.

Therefore, we conducted a retrospective population-based study to compare the efficacy versus effectiveness of registration RCTs with RW patients using standard of care (SoC) MM regimens for the primary outcomes of 1) progression free survival [PFS]; 2) overall survival [OS] and 3) serious adverse events (AEs).


RW data was obtained from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, an administrative database capturing all health records in the publicly funded health care system in Ontario, Canada. Adult patients treated between Jan 2007 to Dec 2020 with SoC regimens were included. Only regimens with corresponding registrational phase III RCTs which led to the public reimbursement in Ontario were included (lenalidomide/dex [Rd] and bortezomib/Rd [VRd] for newly diagnosed transplant ineligible patients, and relapsed MM (RRMM) regimens included carfilzomib/Rd [KRd], carfilzomib/dex [Kd], daratumumab/Rd [DRd], daratumumab/bortezomib/dex [DVd], pomalidomide/dex [Pd]).

In the RW cohort, PFS was defined as the time from initiation of index regimen to death, initiation of subsequent MM treatment, or last follow-up, and patients remaining on the index regimen as last follow up were censored. Kaplan-Meier curves from pivotal phase 3 RCTs were manually digitized to provide individual patient-level estimates of PFS and OS. Meta-analyses were performed to compare the gap of PFS and OS outcomes of RW versus RCT patients, and effect estimates were summarized using hazard ratios (HR). The frequency of serious AE data was abstracted from published RCTs. Given that serious AEs in RCTs would have resulted in hospitalization, hospital admission during treatment with the index regimen was used as a surrogate for serious AEs in the RW cohort. Differences in RW and RCT safety outcomes were reported descriptively.

Results & Discussion:

A total of 3951 RW MM patients, treated with 7 standard of care MM regimens, were included. Baseline characteristics of patients in the RW and RCT cohorts are shown in table 1. Overall, patients in the RW cohort were older than in the RCTs. For relapsed regimens, there was a longer time between MM diagnosis and start of the regimen in the real-world versus RCT.

With regards to the efficacy-effectiveness gap, MM patients treated in routine practise in the RW had a worse PFS despite overestimated of RW PFS compared to highly selected RCT patients for 6 of the 7 MM regimens evaluated, with a pooled HR of 1.44 (95% CI 1.34-1.54) in the meta-analysis (Figure 1A). Similarly, RW patients had a worse OS compared to RCT patients treated with 6 of the 7 regimens, with a pooled HR of 1.75 (95% ci 1.63-1.88) in the meta-analysis (Figure 1B). RRMM patients in the RW had higher rates of prior lenalidomide exposure compared to RCT patients.

The only regimen which showed a trend towards performing better in the RW as compared to RCTs was Pd. The reason for this is likely multifactorial but perhaps patients included in the MM-003 RCT may have had more refractory MM (given the higher prior immunomodulatory drug exposure and longer time from diagnosis to treatment among Pd RCT patient) compared to RW patients in this study.

With regards to safety, the percentage of patients with inpatient hospitalization during treatment in the real-world cohort and reported serious AEs in RCT were comparable (VRD 57% vs not reported [NR]; Rd 64% vs NR; Kd 57% vs 59%; KRd 53% vs 60%; DVd 36% vs NR; DRd 46% vs 49%; Pd 59% vs 61%).


This is one the largest population-level studies highlighting the significant efficacy-effectiveness gap between registrational RCTs and RW usage of these regimens, with RW patients experiencing 44% worse PFS and 75% worse OS compared to RCT patients. Our data emphasize the importance of ongoing evaluation of RW data to contextualize effectiveness and toxicity of selected regimens in the clinic, and better inform both clinicians and patients for shared treatment decision making.

Disclosures: Visram: Apotex: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pond: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Profound Medical: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. McCurdy: Forus therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sandhu: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Forus: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Venner: BMS: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Forus: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria. Lancman: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Forus therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bruins: Sanofi: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Eli Lilly: Current Employment. Fonseca: FISH: Patents & Royalties: FISH; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antegene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS (Celgene): Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Consultancy; Binding Site: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AZBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aztrazenica: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Mian: Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK Awards: HHS Research Early Career Award from Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Forus: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene / BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >>
*signifies non-member of ASH