Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the DREAMM-7 randomized phase 3 study comparing belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd) vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

Abstract

7543 Background: Belantamab mafodotin(belamaf), a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate targeting B-cell maturation antigen, acts through a multimodal mechanism including direct cell killing and immune-mediated mechanisms. The global, phase 3, open-label, randomized, DREAMM-7 trial (NCT04246047) met its primary endpoint of demonstrating statistically significant progression-free survival benefit favoring BVd vs DVd in patients with RRMM who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy; here, we report PRO findings for BVd vs DVd. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive BVd or DVd and completed electronic PRO measures at baseline and every 3 weeks (Q3W) during treatment. PRO measures included EORTC-QLQ-C30, EORTC-QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms (pain), PRO-CTCAE patient-reported tolerability, and OSDI vision-related functioning (Q3W up to the sixth dose of belamaf, then Q6W). Each domain was summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Among 494 patients (BVd, n=243; DVd, n=251), adherence to PRO assessments was >90% for most study visits. There was no difference in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality-of-life assessments between the study arms over time. Similarly, role functioning, physical functioning, fatigue, and pain were stable (change from baseline in EORTC score was within 10 points) over time and consistent between arms. Most symptomatic adverse events evaluated by PRO-CTCAE were reported at no to low severity, frequency, and interference (PRO-CTCAE ratings ≤2) in both arms throughout the study. The severity and interference of blurred vision and frequency of watery eyes were reported at higher levels (PRO-CTCAE ratings ≥3) in the BVd arm. Among patients in the BVd arm with a clinically meaningful deterioration in vision-related functioning (a change from baseline of ≥12.5 points), EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health status, role functioning, and physical functioning were comparable to the DVd arm over time. Conclusions: Overallquality of life, role functioning, physical functioning, fatigue, and pain were comparable in patients treated with BVd vs DVd. In patients treated with BVd who reported a clinically meaningful deterioration in vision-related functioning, overall quality of life was consistent with the DVd arm.