Dataset Information

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of liso-cel versus axi-cel in relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the absence of randomized studies directly comparing chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies, this study used matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL).

Methods

Primary data sources included individual patient data from the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (TRANSCEND [NCT02631044]; N = 256 for efficacy set, N = 269 for safety set) for liso-cel and summary-level data from the ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216; N = 101 for efficacy set, N = 108 for safety set) for axi-cel. Inter-study differences in design, eligibility criteria, baseline characteristics, and outcomes were assessed and aligned to the extent feasible. Clinically relevant prognostic factors were adjusted in a stepwise fashion by ranked order. Since bridging therapy was allowed in TRANSCEND but not ZUMA-1, the initial efficacy and safety analyses included bridging therapy use as a matching factor (TRANSCEND patients who received bridging therapy were removed). Subsequent sensitivity analyses excluded this matching factor.

Results

The initial analysis showed similar MAIC-weighted efficacy outcomes between TRANSCEND and ZUMA-1 for overall and complete response rates (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.40 [0.56-3.49] and 1.21 [0.56-2.64], respectively) and for overall survival and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.81 [0.44-1.49] and 0.95 [0.58-1.57], respectively). MAIC-weighted safety outcomes favored liso-cel, with significantly lower odds of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.03 [0.01-0.07] and 0.08 [0.01-0.67], respectively) and study-specific neurological events (0.16 [0.08-0.33] and 0.05 [0.02-0.15], respectively). Efficacy and safety outcomes remained similar in sensitivity analyses, which did not include use of bridging therapy as a matching factor.

Conclusions

After matching and adjusting for clinically relevant prognostic factors, liso-cel demonstrated comparable efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared with axi-cel in patients with third- or later-line relapsed or refractory LBCL.

Trial registration

NCT02631044 and NCT02348216.

SUBMITTER: Maloney DG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425084 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTafasitamab plus lenalidomide (TAFA + LEN) received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval and conditional European Medicines Agency approval for treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant. This study investigates the relative efficacy of TAFA + LEN versus comparator treatments.MethodsMatching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) of TAFA + LEN were performed using data from L-MIND, and comparator studies assessing rituximab-based combination therapies, including polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (POLA + BR) bendamustine + rituximab (BR), and gemcitabine + oxaliplatin + rituximab (R-GEMOX) to provide relative efficacy estimates for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response rate (CRR). Patient-level data from L-MIND were weighted to match reported distributions of clinically validated prognostic factors and effect modifiers in comparator trials. MAIC results versus multiple BR studies were pooled using meta-analysis.ResultsMAICs were feasible versus POLA + BR and BR. Compared to POLA + BR, TAFA + LEN was associated with significantly longer DOR [hazard ratio (HR) 0.34 (95% CI 0.12, 0.98); p = 0.045]. Due to concerns about the proportional hazard assumption for OS and PFS, separate HRs were estimated before and after 4 months of follow-up. OS after 4 months, was significantly greater for TAFA + LEN versus POLA + BR [HR 0.41 (95% CI 0.19, 0.90); p = 0.026]. Compared with BR, TAFA + LEN was associated with significantly improved OS [GO29365 comparator trial: HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18, 0.82); p = 0.014], PFS (pooled data: HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.29, 0.53); p < 0.001], DOR [pooled data: HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.25, 0.50); p < 0.001], and CRR [pooled data: odds ratio 2.43 (95% CI 1.33, 4.41); p = 0.004].ConclusionIn MAIC analyses, treatment with TAFA + LEN for R/R DLBCL provided better OS and PFS outcomes than standard treatment regimens. Validation from large, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials is required to confirm these results.

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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:No head-to-head studies have compared inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and blinatumomab (Blina) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), namely network meta-analysis (NMA), anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), and simulated treatment comparison (STC), were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these therapies. METHODS:Patient-level data from a study that evaluated InO with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy (INO-VATE-ALL) and published data from a study that evaluated Blina with SoC chemotherapy (TOWER) were used in the analyses. Endpoints evaluated included remission rate defined as complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS). For each outcome, treatment-effect modifiers were adjusted for in the anchored MAIC and STC analyses. RESULTS:Analyses showed statistically significant higher rates of remission and HSCT with InO compared to Blina irrespective of the ITC method used or measure of the effect (i.e., odds ratio [OR] or rate difference). The treatment effects derived from the MAIC and STC analyses were consistent and stronger than those estimated from the NMA. A trend favoring InO was detected for EFS. The ITC results for OS suggest no difference between InO and Blina. CONCLUSION:Results from these ITCs indicated a statistically significant advantage for InO over Blina for rates of remission and HSCT in adults with relapsed or refractory B cell precursor ALL. It was not possible to fully adjust for all treatment-effect modifiers, and the similarity in chemotherapy regimens used in the SoC comparator arms of the INO-VATE-ALL and TOWER studies is worthy of further exploration. Both studies, however, used chemotherapy regimens that have a low response rate; therefore, no significant differences in efficacy outcomes are expected between SoC arms. FUNDING:Pfizer Inc, New York, NY. Plain language summary available for this article.

Project description:IntroductionUpadacitinib and tofacitinib are Janus kinase inhibitors approved for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing their effectiveness, this study assessed the efficacy of upadacitinib 15 mg once-daily monotherapy/combination therapy against tofacitinib 5 mg twice-daily combination therapy among patients with RA using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).MethodsThe first of two MAICs used individual patient data (IPD) from the 14-week SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trial (upadacitinib [n = 217] vs. methotrexate [n = 216]) and published data from the ORAL Standard trial (tofacitinib + methotrexate [n = 204] vs. methotrexate [n = 108]). The second MAIC used IPD from the 26-week SELECT-COMPARE trial (upadacitinib + methotrexate [n = 647] vs. adalimumab + methotrexate [n = 324]) and published data from ORAL Strategy (tofacitinib + methotrexate [n = 376] vs. adalimumab + methotrexate [n = 386]). Data from patients in the upadacitinib trials were re-weighted based on age, sex, race, swollen joint count 66/28, tender joint count 68/28, C-reactive protein (CRP), and patients' global assessments to match the patient characteristics in tofacitinib trials. After matching, ACR20/50/70 and clinical remission (SDAI[CRP] ≤ 3.3, CDAI ≤ 2.8, DAS28-ESR/CRP < 2.6) were compared for upadacitinib vs. tofacitinib + methotrexate at month 3 and upadacitinib + methotrexate vs. tofacitinib + methotrexate at months 3 and 6 using Wald tests.ResultsAt month 3, upadacitinib monotherapy patients experienced significantly larger improvement in ACR70 compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate (mean difference in difference [DID]: 9.9%; p = 0.019), while upadacitinib + methotrexate was associated with higher ACR50 compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate (DID: 12.9%; p = 0.011). At month 6, upadacitinib + methotrexate patients experienced significantly larger improvement in SDAI/CDAI/DAS28-ESR clinical remission compared to tofacitinib + methotrexate, with DIDs of 9.1% (p = 0.011), 7.5% (p = 0.038), and 11.3% (p = 0.002), respectively.ConclusionsCompared to tofacitinib combination therapy, treatment with upadacitinib monotherapy and combination therapy were associated with improved outcomes at 3/6 months (monotherapy: ACR70; combination: ACR50, SDAI, CDAI, and DAS28-ESR remission).

Project description:IntroductionThe Phase III FUTURE I and II trials demonstrated the clinical efficacy of secukinumab in active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the absence of head-to-head trials, this study compared the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of adalimumab 40 mg versus secukinumab 150 and 300 mg for the treatment of active PsA.MethodsA matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using individual patient data from the ADEPT trial of adalimumab and published data from FUTURE I and II. To adjust for the cross-trial differences, individual patients in ADEPT were re-weighted so that the mean baseline characteristics (including age, weight, gender, race, baseline methotrexate use, psoriasis ≥3% body surface area, baseline PASI score, presence of dactylitis and enthesitis, and HAQ-DI) matched those in the FUTURE trials. Response rates relative to placebo and incremental costs per responder (CPR) over 24 weeks for ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75/90 were compared between adalimumab and secukinumab 150 and 300 mg from the German social health insurance (SHI) perspective.ResultsAfter matching, mean baseline characteristics were balanced across the ADEPT and the FUTURE I and II populations. The mean differences between adalimumab and secukinumab 150 mg in relative ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75/90 response rates were 9.5, 3.0, 6.0, 13.1, and 6.7%, respectively (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Post-match relative ACR 20/50/70 and PASI 75 to placebo were also higher with adalimumab compared to secukinumab 300 mg. Adalimumab had lower incremental costs per responder over 24 weeks for all outcomes compared with secukinumab 150 and 300 mg.ConclusionsIn the absence of direct comparisons between adalimumab and secukinumab, this study provides valuable and reliable evidence for physicians and payers. After adjusting for cross-trial differences in baseline characteristics, adalimumab was associated with higher relative ACR and PASI rates and lower incremental CPRs compared with secukinumab 150 mg or 300 mg at week 24 among patients with active PsA.FundingAbbVie.