Real-world comparison of progression-free and overall survival between idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and teclistamab in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Patients with triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have historically experienced poor clinical outcomes, prompting the development of novel therapeutic options. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for this population, while teclistamab became the first approved bispecific antibody. Both target B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and are increasingly used in real-world (RW) settings. Most comparative evidence to date is derived from single-arm clinical trials with cross-trial adjustments. RW studies offer an opportunity to directly compare these therapies and assess their relative effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis of ide-cel and teclistamab in patients with TCE RRMM using RW data from the United States Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived, deidentified database (January 2011 to April 2025 data cut). Adults who received either index therapy at any line of treatment after becoming TCE (ie, previously exposed to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody) were included. Exclusion criteria were prior exposure to CAR T cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, or belantamab mafodotin; absence of index treatment; or lack of post-index follow-up. Index dates (T0) represent the date of infusion for ide-cel and the start of treatment for teclistamab. Seventeen prognostic covariates were selected a priori based on published rankings and used to balance treatment groups via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with average treatment effect weights. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate unadjusted and IPTW-adjusted HRs with 95% CIs for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). As the ide-cel cohort only included infused patients, additional analyses were performed to emulate a real-world intention-to-treat population given the potential immortal time bias (patients in the ide-cel cohort were required to survive between apheresis and infusion). Specifically, patients in the teclistamab cohort who died within the first 24 days (median turnaround time for ide-cel manufacturing in United States in 2024) were excluded and 2 scenarios were performed to re-align T0 based on this 24-day period (either shifting teclistamab T0 forward or ide-cel T0 backward). Lastly, sensitivity analyses assessed differences in restricted mean survival time (dRMST) at 12 and 24 months. Results: A total of 281 patients met the inclusion criteria (ide-cel, N=106; teclistamab, N=175), with median follow-up of 22.4 and 13.7 months, respectively. IPTW adjustment balanced all covariates between groups (effective sample size: ide-cel, n=68; teclistamab, n=135). Adjusted analyses showed improved PFS with ide-cel versus teclistamab (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97), with median PFS of 11.3 versus 6.5 months. OS was also improved with ide-cel (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35–0.98); median OS was not reached in either group due to insufficient follow-up. There was a consistent trend of HRs favoring ide-cel versus teclistamab for both PFS and OS in both scenario analyses addressing the potential immortal time bias. Further, sensitivity analyses using dRMST confirmed statistically significant improvements in both PFS and OS with ide-cel across all scenarios at all time points evaluated. Conclusions: In this RW analysis, ide-cel was associated with superior PFS and OS compared with teclistamab in patients with TCE RRMM. These findings support emerging RW evidence favoring BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapies over bispecific antibodies and may inform treatment sequencing decisions in this high-risk population.