Ling Cai, Jack Roos, Paulo A P Miranda, Bengt Liljas, Simon Rule, Michael Wang
{"title":"在复发/难治套细胞淋巴瘤中,对Acalabrutinib和Ibrutinib进行匹配调整后的间接比较。","authors":"Ling Cai, Jack Roos, Paulo A P Miranda, Bengt Liljas, Simon Rule, Michael Wang","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2024.2422227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to compare 2 Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This analysis compares the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib using a more mature dataset than a previously published MAIC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individual patient data from 122 patients treated with acalabrutinib in a phase 2 study were weighted to match aggregate baseline characteristics of patients pooled from 3 separate trials of ibrutinib. Patients were matched on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, simplified Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, lactate dehydrogenase, prior lines of therapy, tumor burden, and blastoid histology. Outcomes assessed included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, differences in PFS between acalabrutinib (median 17.8 months) and ibrutinib (median 12.8 months) were not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.15; <i>P</i> = 0.48). Similarly, after matching, OS differences between acalabrutinib (median 36.5 months) and ibrutinib (median 27.9 months) did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.64-1.17; <i>P</i> = 0.35). Acalabrutinib was associated with an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib, with statistically significantly lower rates of grade ≥3 atrial fibrillation and thrombocytopenia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This comparison of 2 BTKis used in the treatment of R/R MCL showed that PFS and OS risk was not statistically different between the treatments; however, acalabrutinib had an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of Acalabrutinib versus Ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma.\",\"authors\":\"Ling Cai, Jack Roos, Paulo A P Miranda, Bengt Liljas, Simon Rule, Michael Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13696998.2024.2422227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to compare 2 Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This analysis compares the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib using a more mature dataset than a previously published MAIC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individual patient data from 122 patients treated with acalabrutinib in a phase 2 study were weighted to match aggregate baseline characteristics of patients pooled from 3 separate trials of ibrutinib. Patients were matched on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, simplified Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, lactate dehydrogenase, prior lines of therapy, tumor burden, and blastoid histology. Outcomes assessed included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, differences in PFS between acalabrutinib (median 17.8 months) and ibrutinib (median 12.8 months) were not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.15; <i>P</i> = 0.48). Similarly, after matching, OS differences between acalabrutinib (median 36.5 months) and ibrutinib (median 27.9 months) did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.64-1.17; <i>P</i> = 0.35). Acalabrutinib was associated with an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib, with statistically significantly lower rates of grade ≥3 atrial fibrillation and thrombocytopenia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This comparison of 2 BTKis used in the treatment of R/R MCL showed that PFS and OS risk was not statistically different between the treatments; however, acalabrutinib had an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2422227\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2422227","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of Acalabrutinib versus Ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
Objective: In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to compare 2 Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This analysis compares the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib using a more mature dataset than a previously published MAIC.
Methods: Individual patient data from 122 patients treated with acalabrutinib in a phase 2 study were weighted to match aggregate baseline characteristics of patients pooled from 3 separate trials of ibrutinib. Patients were matched on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, simplified Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, lactate dehydrogenase, prior lines of therapy, tumor burden, and blastoid histology. Outcomes assessed included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
Results: After matching, differences in PFS between acalabrutinib (median 17.8 months) and ibrutinib (median 12.8 months) were not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.15; P = 0.48). Similarly, after matching, OS differences between acalabrutinib (median 36.5 months) and ibrutinib (median 27.9 months) did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.64-1.17; P = 0.35). Acalabrutinib was associated with an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib, with statistically significantly lower rates of grade ≥3 atrial fibrillation and thrombocytopenia.
Conclusions: This comparison of 2 BTKis used in the treatment of R/R MCL showed that PFS and OS risk was not statistically different between the treatments; however, acalabrutinib had an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication.
Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience