Incidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), infections and cardiovascular events between chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy products in multiple myeloma (MM): A nationwide

Abstract Introduction: CAR T-cell therapy represents a pivotal treatment for individuals with relapsed or refractory (R/R) MM. Currently, two CAR T-cell therapeutics have received regulatory approval: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel, ide-cel) and Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel, cilta-cel). Although direct comparative investigations delineating the efficacy of these modalities are absent, clinical trials have shown significant disparities in response and remission rates between these therapies. Both agents are implicated in the manifestation of CRS and ICANS; however, variations in the frequency and severity of these adverse effects have been observed. We harnessed data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to gain a deeper understanding of the incidence of different adverse events associated with both CAR T products in MM. Method: In this retrospective study, the 2022 NIS database was used to identify hospitalizations with MM and those who received ide-cel or cilta-cel using appropriate ICD-10-CM diagnostic and ICD-10-PCS procedure codes. Data on CRS, ICANS, infections, and adverse cardiac events were extracted using relevant ICD-10-CM codes. These outcomes were compared between the two CAR-T products using Pearson's chi-square analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was also performed, adjusting for demographics, hospital-specific characteristics, and comorbidities. Results: We identified 805 patients with MM who received CAR T-cell therapy, among whom 530 patients (60.4% male; 67% Caucasian, 14.6% African American and 17.5% other ethnicities) received ide-cel and 275 patients (70.9% male; 79.6% Caucasian, 14.3% African American and 6.1% other ethnicities) received cilta-cel. The incidence of CRS was 72.6% for ide-cel and 56.4% for cilta-cel, and the difference was almost statistically significant by chi-square analysis (p = 0.051). This difference was not statistically significant after multivariate analysis [Adjusted Odds ratio (OR) = 0.5, CI 0.2 to 1.3, p=0.154]. The incidence of ICANS was 19.8% for ide-cel and 18.2% for cilta-cel, and it was not statistically significant by chi-square analysis (p = 0.825). Among cardiovascular events, there was no significant difference in the incidence of cardiogenic shock (ide-cel vs cilta-cel, 0.9% vs 0%, p = 0.497), stroke (0.9% vs 1.8%, p = 0.661) and arrhythmias (22.6% vs 21.8%, p = 0.892) between these CAR T-cell therapies. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the incidence of infectious complications, including pneumonia (1.9% vs 0%, p = 0.334), sepsis (0.9% vs 3.6%, p = 0.247), or septic shock (0.9% vs 0%, p = 0.430) between these CAR T-cell therapies. There was no significant difference in all-cause in-hospital mortality between these therapies (1.9% vs 5.5%, p = 0.181). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the occurrence of CRS and ICANS between ide-cel and cilta-cel in our study. Both CAR T-cell therapies have the potential to cause infections and cardiovascular issues, necessitating careful monitoring, early detection, and timely treatment. When choosing between these CAR T-cell therapies, several factors should be considered, including the patient's previous treatment history, manufacturing time, cost, availability, and potential short-term and long-term side effects. Our study has some limitations, including its retrospective design, dependence on ICD-10 codes for identifying patients with adverse events, and the lack of long-term longitudinal data on adverse effects. However, this study provides important insights for hematologists regarding the rates of specific adverse events associated with both the CAR T-cell products in a real-world setting.