Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of Ibrutinib Versus Obinutuzumab + Chlorambucil in First-Line Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Ibrutinib (ibr) monotherapy and the combination of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (obi) are approved for previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). No trials directly comparing their efficacy are available. Therefore a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to provide insight into their relative efficacy in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). MAIC attempts to adjust for between-trial differences in factors known or suspected to influence treatment effects, to minimize bias.

Methods

A MAIC within a Bayesian framework was conducted using individual patient data from the RESONATE-2 study of ibr versus chlorambucil and published data from the CLL11 study of obi versus chlorambucil. Both studies were conducted in patients ineligible for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy. After matching, the reweighted adjusted relative efficacy measure of ibr versus chlorambucil from RESONATE-2 [hazard ratio (HR), 95% credible interval (CrI)] was compared with that of obi versus chlorambucil from CLL11 for each endpoint, using a Bayesian indirect comparison.

Results

Our results suggest that in a population with similar average baseline characteristics to CLL11, ibr would improve PFS and OS outcomes compared to obi. Before matching, the HRs for ibr versus obi were 0.48 [CrI = 0.22-1.02, p(HR <1) = 97%], 0.85 [CrI = 0.44-1.63, p(HR <1) = 69%], and 0.40 [CrI = 0.10-1.54, p(HR <1) = 91%] for PFS by investigator assessment, PFS by independent review committee, and OS, respectively. After matching on all available characteristics the HRs decreased to 0.12 [CrI = 0.02-0.97, p(HR <1) = 98%], 0.24 [CrI = 0.04-1.35, p(HR <1) = 95%], and 0.21 [CrI = <0.01-8.89, p(HR <1) = 79%], respectively. There was a large variance around the treatment effect for OS due to the low number of deaths.

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that ibrutinib is highly likely to provide greater PFS benefit than obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in older or less fit patients with previously untreated CLL. There is also an indication of improvement in OS, albeit with a higher uncertainty due to the low number of events.

Funding

Janssen-Cilag Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Van Sanden S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5504213 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOral targeted therapies have advanced the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). These therapies include Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, used as monotherapy, and the Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax, typically combined with the CD20 monoclonal antibody. Preclinical studies have shown synergy between Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors and the Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax.ObjectiveTo examine the rate of complete remission, complete remission with incomplete count recovery, and bone marrow-undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD) after treatment with the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax.Design, setting, and participantsA single-center, phase 2 nonrandomized trial enrolled patients from August 17, 2016, to June 5, 2018. Participants included previously untreated patients with CLL who met International Workshop on CLL 2008 criteria for treatment indication. Patients were required to have at least 1 of the following features: del(17p), TP53-mutated CLL, del(11q), unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable gene, or age 65 years or older.InterventionsTherapy consisted of ibrutinib, 420 mg/d, monotherapy for 3 cycles, thereafter combined with venetoclax (standard weekly dose ramp-up to 400 mg/d) for a total of 24 cycles of combination treatment. Responses were assessed at serial points according to International Workshop on CLL 2008 criteria. Measurable residual disease (MRD) was assessed by multicolor flow cytometry with a sensitivity of 10-4.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included complete remission, complete remission with incomplete count recovery, and bone marrow U-MRD rate.ResultsEighty patients (57 [71%] men) were treated; median age was 65 years (range, 26-83 years). The median follow-up for all 80 patients was 38.5 months (range, 5.6-51.1 months). Five patients discontinued the study during the ibrutinib monotherapy phase; the remaining 75 patients received combination therapy. On an intent-to-treat analysis of combined treatment, 45 (56%) patients achieved bone marrow U-MRD remission at 12 cycles and 53 (66%) patients achieved bone marrow U-MRD remission at 24 cycles. Overall, 60 (75%) patients achieved bone marrow U-MRD remission as their best response. Responses were seen across all high-risk subgroups, independent of the immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable gene mutation status, fluorescence in situ hybridization category, or TP53 mutation. The 3-year progression-free survival was 93%, and 3-year overall survival was 96%. No patient had CLL progression; 2 patients developed Richter transformation.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that combination therapy with ibrutinib and venetoclax might be beneficial for previously untreated patients with CLL. Remissions appeared to be durable during a follow-up of more than 3 years, with activity seen across high-risk disease subgroups, including those with del(17p)/TP53-mutated CLL.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02756897.

Project description:BackgroundAnchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), based on propensity score weighting, is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method in health technology assessment. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small.MethodsA modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The first model produces inverse probability weights that are combined with the odds weights produced by the second model. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials. Nevertheless, 2SMAIC can be applied in situations where the IPD trial is observational, by including potential confounders in the treatment assignment model. The simulation study also explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time.ResultsDespite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.ConclusionsTwo-stage approaches to MAIC can increase precision and efficiency with respect to the standard approach by adjusting for empirical imbalances in prognostic covariates in the IPD trial. Further modules could be incorporated for additional variance reduction or to account for missingness and non-compliance in the IPD trial.