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.
Noffar Bar, Joris Diels, Suzy van Sanden, João Mendes, Teresa Hernando, Heather Burnett, Patricia Cost, Jordan M Schecter, Nikoletta Lendvai, Nitin Patel, Tadao Ishida, Jeremy Er, Simon J Harrison, Nieves Lopez-Muñoz
{"title":"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.","authors":"Noffar Bar, Joris Diels, Suzy van Sanden, João Mendes, Teresa Hernando, Heather Burnett, Patricia Cost, Jordan M Schecter, Nikoletta Lendvai, Nitin Patel, Tadao Ishida, Jeremy Er, Simon J Harrison, Nieves Lopez-Muñoz","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2024.2391112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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]; <i>p</i> = 0.04), 1.3 times more likely to achieve very good partial response or better (RR: 1.34 [1.15-1.57]; <i>p</i> = 0.003), and 1.9 times more likely to achieve complete response or better (RR: 1.91 [1.54-2.37]; <i>p</i> < 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]; <i>p</i> = 0.0078).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2391112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
