Current medical research and opinion · 2024
Comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus idecabtagene vicleucel in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with 2-4 prior lines of therapy: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bar Noffar, Diels Joris, van Sanden Suzy, Mendes João, Hernando Teresa, Burnett Heather, Cost Patricia, Schecter Jordan M, Lendvai Nikoletta, Patel Nitin, Ishida Tadao, Er Jeremy, Harrison Simon J, Lopez-Muñoz Nieves
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with 2-4 prior lines of therapy.
METHODS: Matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAICs) were performed using individual patient-level data (IPD) for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and CARTITUDE-4 and published aggregated data for ide-cel from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel patients who met inclusion criteria from KarMMa-3 were selected, and outcomes were compared against data for ide-cel using simulated IPD derived from aggregate-level data from KarMMa-3. Patient characteristics were adjusted by reweighting cilta-cel IPD to match the distribution of prognostic factors in KarMMa-3. Comparative efficacy was estimated for response outcomes using a weighted logistic regression analysis and for progression-free survival using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS: Patients treated with cilta-cel were 1.2 times more likely to achieve overall response (relative response ratio [RR]: 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.34]; p = 0.04), 1.3 times more likely to achieve very good partial response or better (RR: 1.34 [1.15-1.57]; p = 0.003), and 1.9 times more likely to achieve complete response or better (RR: 1.91 [1.54-2.37]; p < 0.0001) versus ide-cel patients from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel was associated with a significant 49% reduction in risk of disease progression or death versus ide-cel (hazard ratio: 0.51 [95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.84]; p = 0.0078).
CONCLUSION: For patients with triple-class exposed RRMM treated with 2-4 prior lines of treatment, cilta-cel was found to provide superior clinical benefit over ide-cel in terms of response and progression-free survival.
METHODS: Matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAICs) were performed using individual patient-level data (IPD) for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and CARTITUDE-4 and published aggregated data for ide-cel from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel patients who met inclusion criteria from KarMMa-3 were selected, and outcomes were compared against data for ide-cel using simulated IPD derived from aggregate-level data from KarMMa-3. Patient characteristics were adjusted by reweighting cilta-cel IPD to match the distribution of prognostic factors in KarMMa-3. Comparative efficacy was estimated for response outcomes using a weighted logistic regression analysis and for progression-free survival using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS: Patients treated with cilta-cel were 1.2 times more likely to achieve overall response (relative response ratio [RR]: 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.34]; p = 0.04), 1.3 times more likely to achieve very good partial response or better (RR: 1.34 [1.15-1.57]; p = 0.003), and 1.9 times more likely to achieve complete response or better (RR: 1.91 [1.54-2.37]; p < 0.0001) versus ide-cel patients from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel was associated with a significant 49% reduction in risk of disease progression or death versus ide-cel (hazard ratio: 0.51 [95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.84]; p = 0.0078).
CONCLUSION: For patients with triple-class exposed RRMM treated with 2-4 prior lines of treatment, cilta-cel was found to provide superior clinical benefit over ide-cel in terms of response and progression-free survival.