Loncastuximab Tesirine Versus Polatuzumab Vedotin Plus Bendamustine and Rituximab in Relapsed/Refractory DLBCL After ≥ 2 Lines of Therapy: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

IF 3.4 3区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL

Advances in Therapy Pub Date : 2025-03-28 DOI:10.1007/s12325-025-03169-9

Koo Wilson, Francesca Chiodi, Abby Paine, Zalmai Hakimi, Victoria Ward, Tom Macmillan, Daniel Eriksson, Silvia Mappa

{"title":"Loncastuximab Tesirine Versus Polatuzumab Vedotin Plus Bendamustine and Rituximab in Relapsed/Refractory DLBCL After ≥ 2 Lines of Therapy: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.","authors":"Koo Wilson, Francesca Chiodi, Abby Paine, Zalmai Hakimi, Victoria Ward, Tom Macmillan, Daniel Eriksson, Silvia Mappa","doi":"10.1007/s12325-025-03169-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Despite recent approvals of new treatments, relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains challenging to treat, with limited durable responses and a high proportion of patients relapsing after two or more lines of therapy. Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) is a highly potent CD19-targeted antibody drug conjugate with convenient dosing for patients with third-line R/R DLBCL.Methods: In the absence of head-to-head trials, unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy and safety of Lonca with polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine and rituximab (Pola + BR).Results: Four studies included in the MAICs were identified via systematic review and hand-searching. Lonca (LOTIS-2) was compared with three comparator studies for Pola + BR (GO29365 extension study, COTA database, Dal et al. 2023). Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in overall response and complete response (CR) rates. Despite Pola + BR demonstrating a higher CR rate in the GO29365 extension study, this did not translate into significant improvements in progression-free or overall survival. Survival analyses indicated similar efficacy between treatments across studies, with most comparisons/meta-analyses showing no statistically significant differences. Lonca had significantly lower odds of Grade 3-4 infections, any serious adverse event (SAE), and specific SAEs including febrile neutropenia, pneumonia and pyrexia. Of the safety endpoints analyzed, none indicated significant differences in favor of Pola + BR.Conclusion: These results suggest no evidence of a difference in efficacy between the two treatments and potentially more favorable safety profile for Lonca compared with Pola + BR in patients with R/R DLBCL after two or more lines of treatment.","PeriodicalId":7482,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-025-03169-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Despite recent approvals of new treatments, relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains challenging to treat, with limited durable responses and a high proportion of patients relapsing after two or more lines of therapy. Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) is a highly potent CD19-targeted antibody drug conjugate with convenient dosing for patients with third-line R/R DLBCL.

Methods: In the absence of head-to-head trials, unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy and safety of Lonca with polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine and rituximab (Pola + BR).

Results: Four studies included in the MAICs were identified via systematic review and hand-searching. Lonca (LOTIS-2) was compared with three comparator studies for Pola + BR (GO29365 extension study, COTA database, Dal et al. 2023). Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in overall response and complete response (CR) rates. Despite Pola + BR demonstrating a higher CR rate in the GO29365 extension study, this did not translate into significant improvements in progression-free or overall survival. Survival analyses indicated similar efficacy between treatments across studies, with most comparisons/meta-analyses showing no statistically significant differences. Lonca had significantly lower odds of Grade 3-4 infections, any serious adverse event (SAE), and specific SAEs including febrile neutropenia, pneumonia and pyrexia. Of the safety endpoints analyzed, none indicated significant differences in favor of Pola + BR.

Conclusion: These results suggest no evidence of a difference in efficacy between the two treatments and potentially more favorable safety profile for Lonca compared with Pola + BR in patients with R/R DLBCL after two or more lines of treatment.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Advances in Therapy 医学-药学

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

2.60%

发文量

353

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Advances in Therapy is an international, peer reviewed, rapid-publication (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance) journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of therapeutics and interventions (including devices) across all therapeutic areas. Studies relating to diagnostics and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, communications and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world. Advances in Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.