Indirect treatment comparison of DVRd plus DR maintenance (PERSEUS study) versus DVTd or VTd with or without lenalidomide maintenance in transplant-eligible patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma

Read full text
Authors: Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, Mario Boccadoro, Hermann Einsele, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Cyrille Hulin, Aurore Perrot, Xavier P Leleu, Denis Caillot, Thierry T.F. Facon, Roberto Mina, Francesca Gay, Annemiek Broijl
+11 more Roman Hájek, Andrew G Spencer, Fredrik Hellem Schjesvold, Sonja Zweegman, Sandhya C. Nair, Eric M. Ammann, Jianming He, Marjorie Nobrega, Melissa Rowe, Anna Sitthi-Amorn, Pieter Sonneveld
Cited by: 0
References: 17

Abstract

AIMS: To compare the effectiveness of induction and consolidation with daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DVRd) plus maintenance therapy with daratumumab and lenalidomide (DR) with 2 treatment regimens that are widely used for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TE NDMM): bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd) or daratumumab-VTd (DVTd) followed by observation (Obs) or lenalidomide maintenance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient-level data from the PERSEUS (NCT03710603) and CASSIOPEIA (NCT02541383) trials were used to compare DVRd + DR with VTd + Obs and with DVTd + Obs. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline patient characteristics between the two trials; inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to adjust for the second randomization of CASSIOPEIA. Data from the CASSIOPEIA and Myeloma XI (EudraCT 2009-010956-93) trials were combined to model outcomes associated with lenalidomide (R) maintenance following induction with DVTd or VTd. RESULTS: DVRd + DR showed superior progression-free survival compared with DVTd + Obs (hazard ratio, 0.39 [95% CI = 0.26-0.59]), VTd + Obs (0.17 [95% CI = 0.12-0.25]), DVTd + R (0.62 [95% CI = 0.41-0.92]), and VTd + R (0.29 [95% CI = 0.18-0.43]). Sensitivity analyses showed results were consistent with the base case. LIMITATIONS: The indirect treatment comparison was unanchored due to a lack of common comparators and relied on external data from the Myeloma XI trial to model outcomes associated with DVTd or VTd followed by R maintenance. Despite best efforts to identify and adjust for important treatment effect modifiers, there is a potential for residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that DVRd followed by DR maintenance offers superior survival outcomes compared with current standards of care in TE patients with NDMM.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments Bone health and treatments Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies

Publication details

Journal / source
Journal of Medical Economics
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
421–430
Publication date
17 February 2026
Language
EN