Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) eligible for transplantation and treated with isatuximab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (Isa-RVd) versus rvd alone: Results from part 1 of the GMMG-HD7 study
Abstract
Abstract Introduction. In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts) eligible for autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT), the phase 3 GMMG-HD7 trial (NCT03617731) Part 1 demonstrated that isatuximab, lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (Isa-RVd) induction significantly improved minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-) rates (odds ratio: 1.82; p<0.001) and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with RVd (hazard ratio, 0.70; p=0.0184), regardless of the maintenance therapy received post-ASCT. Consequently, the 2025 EHA-EMN guidelines recommended Isa-RVd as standard of care for induction in patients with NDMM eligible for ASCT. This analysis evaluated the effect of Isa-RVd vs RVd induction on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from first random assignment through post-ASCT. Methods. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC QLQ Multiple Myeloma Module 20-item (MY20), and the EuroQol 5-dimensional (EQ-5D-5L) visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline (BL), after induction, 60-90 days post-ASCT, and at the end of treatment (EOT). Prespecified analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population. Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analyzed the mean change from BL to post-ASCT. Time to first deterioration (TTFD) and time to first improvement (TTFI) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. Results. A total of 662 patients were randomized to Isa-RVd (n=331) or RVd (n=329) induction, followed by single or tandem ASCT and second randomization to maintenance with Isa-lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. PRO completion rates were high across time points in both arms (≥90% at BL, ≥87% after induction, and ≥92% 60-90 days post-ASCT). At BL, patients in both arms reported similar functioning and symptom burden, QLQ-C30 Global Health Status (GHS/QoL), and EQ-5D-5L VAS. Pts on Isa-RVd reported a statistically significant reduction in fatigue vs RVd (overall mean [95% CI] difference in LS mean change from BL: -4.02 [-7.68, -0.37]; p=0.0312). Median TTFD in fatigue was longer in the Isa-RVd arm vs RVd (8.48 mo vs 5.22 mo; HR=0.78; p=0.0340), while median TTFI was shorter for Isa-RVd vs RVd (8.84 mo vs 10.05 mo; HR=1.26; p=0.0611). Clinically meaningful reduction in pain occurred in both arms, with Isa-RVd showing a numerically greater reduction vs RVd (overall mean [95% CI] difference in LS mean change from BL: -3.39 [-7.43, 0.64]; p=0.0991). Median TTFD in pain was 12.62 mo for Isa-RVd vs. 12.16 mo for RVd (HR=0.83; p=0.2336), while median TTFI was 5.06 mo for Isa-RVd vs 5.26 mo for RVd (HR=1.18; p=0.1393). No clinically meaningful deterioration in other symptom scales were observed in either arm. Both Isa-RVd and RVd showed a small improvement in physical functioning (LS mean change [SE] from BL: 4.95 [2.00] vs 3.91 [2.00]; p=0.5189) and a clinically meaningful improvement in emotional functioning (LS mean change [SE]: 13.27 [1.97] vs 12.94 [1.97]; p=0.8380). No notable differences between arms were observed for the other functional scales. Both treatments showed clinically meaningful improvement in future perspective, as measured by MY20 after induction and post-ASCT. The overall difference between arms significantly favored Isa-RVd over RVd (overall mean [95% CI] difference in LS mean change from BL: +5.64 [2.15, 9.13], p=0.0016). Each arm demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL post-ASCT, with no statistically significant difference between Isa-RVd and RVd (LS mean change [SE]: 10.17 [1.82] vs 9.22 [1.81]; p=0.5197). Similarly, pts in both treatment arms experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in EQ-5D-5L VAS post-ASCT, with numerical trend in favor of Isa-RVd (overall mean [95% CI] difference in LS mean change from BL: +1.47 [-1.28, 4.21], p=0.2939). Conclusions. The addition of isatuximab to RVd significantly improves the likelihood of achieving MRD- and prolongs PFS in transplant-eligible NDMM pts. This enhanced efficacy is observed without compromising overall HRQoL, and importantly, is associated with significant improvement in fatigue and a favorable trend in pain reduction, compared to RVd alone. These findings underscore the favorable benefit-risk profile and value of Isa-RVd quadruplet for transplant eligible NDMM pts.
Article Details
Authors (35)
Elias K. Mai
Uta Bertsch
1Heidelberg Myeloma Center and German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG), Heidelberg University Hospital, Internal Medicine V, Hematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, Heidelberg, Germany
Roland Fenk
4University Hospital Düsseldorf, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Clinical Immunology, Düsseldorf, Germany
Britta Besemer
Department of Internal Medicine II, University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Amelie Boquoi
6University Hospital Essen, Department for Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Essen, Germany
Roland Schroers
18Medical Clinic II-Hematology and Oncology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Ivana von Metzler
Mathias Hänel
7Department III of Internal Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany
Christoph Mann
10University Hospital Gießen and Marburg, Department for Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, Marburg, Germany
Lisa Leypoldt
11University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Department of Oncology, Hematology and BMT, Hamburg, Germany
Bernhard Heilmeier
12Hospital Barmherzige Brueder Regensburg, Clinic for Oncology and Hematology, Regensburg, Germany
Stefanie Huhn
1Heidelberg Myeloma Center and German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG), Heidelberg University Hospital, Internal Medicine V, Hematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, Heidelberg, Germany
Christof Scheid
12Hospital Barmherzige Brueder Regensburg, Clinic for Oncology and Hematology, Regensburg, Germany
Igor Wolfgang Blau
14Charité University Medicine Berlin, Medical Clinic, Berlin, Germany
Steffen Luntz
15Coordination Centre for Clinical Trials (KKS) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Tobias A.W. Holderried
16University Hospital Bonn, Department of Hematology, Oncology, Stem Cell Transplantation, Immune and Cell Therapy, Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Bonn, Germany
Karolin Trautmann-Grill
3Department of Medicine I, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
Deniz Gezer
18RWTH Aachen University, Department of Hematology, Oncology, Hemostaseology, and Stem Cell Transplantation, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen, Germany
Maika Klaiber-Hakimi
19Marien Hospital Düsseldorf, Clinic for Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Düsseldorf, Germany
Martin Mueller
19Clinic for Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, Klinikum Siloah Hannover, Hannover, Germany
Evgenii Shumilov
1University Hospital Muenster, Department of Medicine A, Hematology, Oncology and Pneumology, Muenster, Germany
Christian Michel
23University Hospital Mainz, Department of Internal Medicine III, Mainz, Germany
Thomas Geer
24Diakoneo Clinic Schwäbisch-Hall, Department of Internal Medicine III, Schwäbisch-Hall, Germany
Hendrik Riesenberg
25Hematology/Oncology Center, Bielefeld, Germany
Christoph Lutz
Marc Raab
1Heidelberg Myeloma Center and German-speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG), Heidelberg University Hospital, Internal Medicine V, Hematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, Heidelberg, Germany
Martin Hoffmann
Erin Comerford
26Sanofi, Cambridge, United States
Maeva Kyheng
27Aixial, Sevre, France
Feng Lin
Stephanie Rhoten
29IQVIA, San Francisco, United States
Tatiana Lavrova
30Sanofi, Research and Development, Vienna, Austria
Hans Salwender
29Asklepios Tumorzentrum Hamburg, AK Altona and AK St Georg, Hamburg, Germany
Katja Weisel
Hartmut Goldschmidt
Internal Medicine V, Hematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group Study Group, Heidelberg University Hospital and National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany