Current medical research and opinion · 2024
A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of elranatamab versus physician's choice of treatment in patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Mol Isha, Hu Yannan, LeBlanc Thomas W, Cappelleri Joseph C, Chu Haitao, Nador Guido, Aydin Didem, Schepart Alex, Hlavacek Patrick
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: For patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE/R MM), prognosis is poor and effective treatment options are limited. Elranatamab is a novel B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)- and CD3-directed bispecific antibody which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in August 2023 and demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with TCE/R MM in the phase 2, single-arm MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359). To compare the effectiveness of elranatamab vs physician's choice of treatment (PCT) in the absence of head-to-head comparative data, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted.
METHODS: Individual patient data from MagnetisMM-3 (Cohort A [BCMA-naïve] N = 123, 14.7 months of follow-up) were reweighted to match published summary data from two real-world studies of PCT in patients with TCE/R MM (LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH) using a propensity score-type logistic regression. Unanchored MAIC analyses were conducted according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit (DSU) 18 guidance.
RESULTS: Compared with PCT in LocoMMotion, elranatamab was associated with a significantly higher objective response rate (ORR rate difference: 37.52; 95% CI 26.20-48.83; odds ratio: 4.85; 95% CI 2.85-8.23) and complete or stringent complete response rate (≥CR rate difference: 42.29; 95% CI 31.84-52.74; odds ratio: 184.01; 95% CI 24.66-1372.86), longer progression-free survival (PFS HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.20-0.49), and overall survival (OS HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.94). Compared with PCT in MAMMOTH, elranatamab was associated with significantly higher ORR (rate difference: 28.14; 95% CI 16.77-39.52; odds ratio: 3.24; 95% CI 1.98-5.32) and ≥ CR (rate difference: 26.22; 95% CI 16.40-36.05; odds ratio: 5.48; 95% CI 2.88-10.44), as well as longer PFS (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.17-0.37) and OS (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.33-0.71). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base case.
CONCLUSION: In the MAIC, elranatamab was consistently associated with improved rates and depth of response and significantly longer PFS and OS versus PCT in LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH.
METHODS: Individual patient data from MagnetisMM-3 (Cohort A [BCMA-naïve] N = 123, 14.7 months of follow-up) were reweighted to match published summary data from two real-world studies of PCT in patients with TCE/R MM (LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH) using a propensity score-type logistic regression. Unanchored MAIC analyses were conducted according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit (DSU) 18 guidance.
RESULTS: Compared with PCT in LocoMMotion, elranatamab was associated with a significantly higher objective response rate (ORR rate difference: 37.52; 95% CI 26.20-48.83; odds ratio: 4.85; 95% CI 2.85-8.23) and complete or stringent complete response rate (≥CR rate difference: 42.29; 95% CI 31.84-52.74; odds ratio: 184.01; 95% CI 24.66-1372.86), longer progression-free survival (PFS HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.20-0.49), and overall survival (OS HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.94). Compared with PCT in MAMMOTH, elranatamab was associated with significantly higher ORR (rate difference: 28.14; 95% CI 16.77-39.52; odds ratio: 3.24; 95% CI 1.98-5.32) and ≥ CR (rate difference: 26.22; 95% CI 16.40-36.05; odds ratio: 5.48; 95% CI 2.88-10.44), as well as longer PFS (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.17-0.37) and OS (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.33-0.71). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base case.
CONCLUSION: In the MAIC, elranatamab was consistently associated with improved rates and depth of response and significantly longer PFS and OS versus PCT in LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH.