EFFICACY and safety: DURABILITY AND SUBGROUPS

REBLOZYL delivered durable RBC-TI1

Durable transfusion-free time exhibited across all patients1

Secondary endpoint: Median duration of RBC-TI ≥12 weeks (Week 1-EOT)

Duration of RBC-TI for ≥12 weeks2

 REBLOZYL (95% CI: 108.3, NR): 2.5 years (126.6 weeks) vs Epoetin Alfa (95% CI: 39.0, NR): 1.5 years (77.0 weeks). Tap over to KM Curve for details.

Analysis limitations: Duration RBC-TI >12 weeks was not powered to detect statistical significance.1

Data cutoff date: August 2022.

Patient receiving REBLOZYL expereinced 2.5 years (126.6 weeks) versus 1.5 years (77.0 weeks) for patients receiving epoetin alfa

From the full analysis 48-week follow-up

REBLOZYL results across key subgroups2

Response rates of the preplanned subgroup analysis of RBC-TI for ≥24 weeks (Weeks 1-48)2

Select graphic view or table view to explore data

REBLOZYL results across key subgroups chart. Tap over to table view for details.

 

Patients (%)

REBLOZYL

(n=182)

Epoetin Alfa

(n=181)
ITT POPULATION
63.7%
(n=116)
42.0%
(n=76)
BASELINE TB

<4 U/8 weeks
72.9% 55.9%
≥4 U/8 weeks 46.9% 20.0%
BASELINE sEPO

<200 U/L
71.0% 51.0%
>200 to <500 U/L 35.1% 7.9%
SF3B1 MUTATION
STATUS

Mutated
72.8% 41.6%
Non-mutated 49.2% 40.3%
RS STATUS

RS+
67.7% 39.2%
RS- 53.1% 50.0%

Analysis limitations:

  • Subgroup analyses were performed for the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints. Formal hypothesis testing was not performed
  • These analyses should not be interpreted to determine treatment differences between arms in these subgroups because of limited sample size, lack of statistical hypothesis testing, and the increased probability of a false-positive finding

*P<0.0001.
Data cutoff date: September 2023.

From the full analysis

Nearly 80% of patients in COMMANDS had baseline sEPO ≤200 U/L2†

Among patients with baseline sEPO ≤200 U/L

RBC-TI for ≥12 weeks and mean Hgb increase ≥1.5 g/dL3

REBLOZYL (n=96/145): 66.2% vs Epoetin Alfa (n=59/144): 41.0%. Tap over to KM Curve tab for details.

Duration of RBC-TI for ≥12 weeks2

REBLOZYL (95% CI:120.1, NR): 140.1 weeks vs Epoetin Alfa (95% CI: 62.9, 157.3): 89.7 weeks. Tap over to KM Curve tab for details.

On REBLOZYL, ~38% of EPO >200 patients achieved a mean Hgb increase of ≥1.5 g/dL and TI for ≥12 weeks vs ~11% of patients on epoetin alfa. REBLOZYL patients also achieved a mean of 1 year of TI compared to patients on epoetin alfa who only experienced a mean of 0.5 years of TI.2,3

The primary endpoint for Weeks 1-24, RBC-TI ≥12 weeks with concurrent mean Hgb increase ≥1.5 g/dL, was achieved by 86 (58.5%) patients in the REBLOZYL arm versus 48 (31.2%) patients in the epoetin alfa arm (P<0.0001).4

Analysis limitations:

  • Subgroup analyses were performed for the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints. Formal hypothesis testing was not performed
  • These analyses should not be interpreted to determine treatment differences due to limited sample size, lack of statistical hypothesis testing, and increased probability of a false-positive finding

145 patients in the REBLOZYL arm and 144 patients in the epoetin alfa arm had sEPO ≤200 U/L.2

Data cutoff date: March 2023.

Duration of RBC-TI for ≥12 weeks2

Patient receiving REBLOZYL expereinced 140.1 weeks versus 89.7 weeks for patients receiving epoetin alfa

From the full analysis 48-week follow-up

COMMANDS had 99 RS- patients, the most of any Phase 3, LR-MDS study3,5,6

Among RS- patients

RBC-TI for ≥12 weeks and mean Hgb increase ≥1.5 g/dL3

REBLOZYL (n=23/49): 46.9% vs Epoetin Alfa (n=25/50): 50.0%.

Duration of RBC-TI for ≥12 weeks2

REBLOZYL (95% CI:135.9, NR): NR vs Epoetin Alfa (95% CI: 74.9, NR): 95.1 weeks. Tap over to KM Curve tab for details.

Duration of RBC-TI for ≥12 weeks2

REBLOZYL (95% CI): 135.9, NR Epoetin Alfa (95% CI): 74.9, NR
Callout dots

Duration for REBLOZYL arm was not reached (NR) because >50% of patients were still transfusion independent at time of analysis2

Callout dots

The primary endpoint for Weeks 1-24, RBC-TI ≥12 weeks with concurrent mean Hgb increase ≥1.5 g/dL, was achieved by 86 (58.5%) patients in the REBLOZYL arm versus 48 (31.2%) patients in the epoetin alfa arm (P<0.0001).4

Analysis limitations:

  • Subgroup analyses were performed for the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints. Formal hypothesis testing was not performed
  • These analyses should not be interpreted to determine treatment differences due to limited sample size, lack of statistical hypothesis testing, and increased probability of a false-positive finding

Exploratory endpoint.

Data cutoff date: September 2023.

Watch clinical experts discuss treating key patient groups

Watch George Yaghmour, MD Video

Using sEPO ≤200 as a parameter in the LR-MDS treatment algorithm

George Yaghmour, MD
USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center & Hospital
Los Angeles, CA

Watch Jamie Koprivnikar, MD  Video

Clinical response and duration in the RS-subgroups

Jamie Koprivnikar, MD
John Theurer Cancer Center Hackensack University Medical Center
Hackensack, NJ

CI=confidence interval; EOT=end of treatment; EPO=erythropoietin; Hgb=hemoglobin; ITT=intent to treat; KM=Kaplan-Meier; LR-MDS=lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes; MDS=myelodysplastic syndromes; RBC=red blood cell; RBC-TI=red blood cell transfusion independent; RS=ring sideroblast; sEPO=serum erythropoietin; TB=transfusion burden; TI=transfusion independence.

References: 1. Platzbecker U, Della Porta MG, Santini V, et el. Efficacy and safety of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent-naive, transfusion-dependent, lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (COMMANDS): interim analysis of a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial (supplementary appendix). Lancet. 2023; published online June 10, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00874-7 2. Garcia-Manero G, Platzbecker U, Santini V, et al. Efficacy and safety of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa in erythropoiesis-stimulating agent-naive patients with transfusion-dependent lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: full analysis of the COMMANDS trial. Presented at: American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition. December 9-12, 2023. San Diego, CA. Abstract 193. 3. Data on file. BMS-REF-ACE-536-00689. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2024. 4. REBLOZYL [US Prescribing Information]. Summit, NJ: Celgene Corporation; 2024. 5. Fenaux P, Santini V, Spiriti MAA, et al. A phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled study assessing the efficacy and safety of epoetin-a in anemic patients with low-risk MDS. Leukemia. 2018;32(12):2648-2658. 6. Greenberg PL, Sun Z, Miller KB, et al. Treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome patients with erythropoietin with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: results of a prospective randomized phase 3 trial by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E1996). Blood. 2009;144(12):2393-2400.



REBLOZYL® is a trademark of Celgene Corporation, a Bristol Myers Squibb company.
Access Support® is a trademark of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
REBLOZYL® is licensed from Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates.

© 2024 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.   
2007-US-2400451   12/2024