Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Daratumumab-Pomalidomide-Dexamethasone and Pomalidomide-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Wee Joo Chng, David Bin-Chia Wu, Cathy Kwang-Wei Wu, Aaron Springford, Caitlin H Daly, Sung-Hoon Jung
{"title":"Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Daratumumab-Pomalidomide-Dexamethasone and Pomalidomide-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.","authors":"Wee Joo Chng, David Bin-Chia Wu, Cathy Kwang-Wei Wu, Aaron Springford, Caitlin H Daly, Sung-Hoon Jung","doi":"10.1016/j.clml.2025.02.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Standard-of-care treatment for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) typically includes frontline lenalidomide until disease progression, making lenalidomide-refractoriness a challenge in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Lenalidomide-sparing triplet therapies, daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) and pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), demonstrated efficacy in lenalidomide-exposed patients in the APOLLO and OPTIMISMM trials, respectively. Without head-to-head trial data, we assessed the comparative effectiveness of DPd versus PVd via matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Using APOLLO individual patient data (IPD) and OPTIMISMM aggregate covariate data plus pseudo-IPD for outcomes, the APOLLO population was re-weighted to match OPTIMISMM aggregate baseline characteristics. Bayesian posterior distributions of DPd versus PVd for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using a likelihood-weighted Bayesian Cox model with fixed weights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At baseline, APOLLO included a higher proportion of patients who received ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, were refractory to prior therapies, and had advanced International Staging System stage versus OPTIMISMM, which would otherwise disadvantage APOLLO versus OPTIMISMM. The PFS hazard ratio (HR) favored DPd over PVd at 0.59 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.36, 0.89) with 99% probability of DPd superiority versus PVd. The OS HR appeared to favor DPd over PVd at 0.80 (95% CrI: 0.45, 1.30), with 83% probability of DPd superiority versus PVd; however, the estimated OS benefit was not conclusive.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This analysis suggests that DPd improves PFS and might improve OS versus PVd in patients with RRMM. Additional evidence from head-to-head trials or real-world patient databases are warranted to confirm these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":10348,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2025.02.007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Standard-of-care treatment for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) typically includes frontline lenalidomide until disease progression, making lenalidomide-refractoriness a challenge in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Lenalidomide-sparing triplet therapies, daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) and pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), demonstrated efficacy in lenalidomide-exposed patients in the APOLLO and OPTIMISMM trials, respectively. Without head-to-head trial data, we assessed the comparative effectiveness of DPd versus PVd via matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).

Materials and methods: Using APOLLO individual patient data (IPD) and OPTIMISMM aggregate covariate data plus pseudo-IPD for outcomes, the APOLLO population was re-weighted to match OPTIMISMM aggregate baseline characteristics. Bayesian posterior distributions of DPd versus PVd for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using a likelihood-weighted Bayesian Cox model with fixed weights.

Results: At baseline, APOLLO included a higher proportion of patients who received ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy, were refractory to prior therapies, and had advanced International Staging System stage versus OPTIMISMM, which would otherwise disadvantage APOLLO versus OPTIMISMM. The PFS hazard ratio (HR) favored DPd over PVd at 0.59 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.36, 0.89) with 99% probability of DPd superiority versus PVd. The OS HR appeared to favor DPd over PVd at 0.80 (95% CrI: 0.45, 1.30), with 83% probability of DPd superiority versus PVd; however, the estimated OS benefit was not conclusive.

Conclusion: This analysis suggests that DPd improves PFS and might improve OS versus PVd in patients with RRMM. Additional evidence from head-to-head trials or real-world patient databases are warranted to confirm these results.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
1606
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia is a peer-reviewed monthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia. Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of lymphoma, myeloma, leukemia and related disorders including macroglobulinemia, amyloidosis, and plasma-cell dyscrasias. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信