Supplementary materials: Teclistamab versus real-world physician’s choice of therapy in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

<b>These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article '</b><b>Teclistamab versus real-world physician’s </b><b>choice of therapy in triple-class exposed </b><b>relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma</b><b>' published in the</b><b> </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research</i></b><b>.</b><b>Data sources, study designs, and analysis methods</b>Patients treated with teclistamab in MajesTEC-1Flatiron Health databaseAnalysis populations and design<b>Aim: </b>We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab versus real-world physician’s choice of therapy (RWPC) in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. <b>Materials &amp; methods:</b> MajesTEC-1 eligibility criteria were applied to the RWPC cohort. Baseline covariate imbalances were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Overall survival, progression-free survival and time to next treatment were compared. <b>Results:</b> After inverse probability of treatment weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts (teclistamab, n = 165; RWPC, n = 364 [766 observations]). Teclistamab treated patients had numerically better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.59–1.14]; p = 0.233) and significantly greater progression-free survival (HR: 0.43 [0.33–0.56]; p &lt; 0.0001) and time to next treatment (HR: 0.36 [0.27–0.49]; p &lt; 0.0001) versus the RWPC cohort. Conclusion: Teclistamab offered clinical benefit over RWPC in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.