Dataset Information

Tafasitamab Plus Lenalidomide Versus 3 Rituximab-Based Treatments for Non-Transplant Eligible Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Tafasitamab 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.

Methods

Matching-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.

Results

MAICs 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].

Conclusion

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Cordoba R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9122850 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tafasitamab Plus Lenalidomide Versus 3 Rituximab-Based Treatments for Non-Transplant Eligible Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

Cordoba Raul R Prawitz Thibaud T Westley Tracy T Sharma Anuj A Ambarkhane Sumeet S Kapetanakis Venediktos V Sabatelli Lorenzo L

Advances in therapy 20220411 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Tafasitamab 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.<h4>Methods</h4>Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) of TAFA + LEN were performe ...[more]

PMID: 35403948

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTafasitamab, an Fc-modified, humanized, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody, in combination with lenalidomide, demonstrated efficacy in transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), in the single-arm, phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085). RE-MIND, a retrospective observational study, generated a historic control for L-MIND to delineate the contribution of tafasitamab to the efficacy of the combination.Patients and methodsData were retrospectively collected from patients with R/R DLBCL treated with lenalidomide monotherapy for comparison with tafasitamab + lenalidomide-treated patients (L-MIND). Key eligibility criteria were aligned with L-MIND. Estimated propensity score-based Nearest Neighbor 1:1 Matching methodology balanced the cohorts for nine prespecified prognostic baseline covariates. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).ResultsData from 490 patients going through lenalidomide monotherapy were collected; 140 qualified for matching with the L-MIND cohort. The primary analysis included 76 patients from each cohort who received a lenalidomide starting dose of 25 mg/day. Cohort baseline covariates were comparable. A significantly better ORR of 67.1% (95% confidence interval, 55.4-77.5) was observed for the combination therapy versus 34.2% (23.7-46.0) for lenalidomide monotherapy [odds ratio, 3.89 (1.90-8.14); P < 0.0001]. Higher CR rates were achieved with combination therapy compared with lenalidomide monotherapy [39.5% (28.4-51.4) vs. 13.2% (6.5-22.9)]. Survival endpoints favored combination therapy. Lenalidomide monotherapy outcomes were similar to previously published data.ConclusionsRE-MIND enabled the estimation of the additional treatment effect achieved by combining tafasitamab with lenalidomide in patients with R/R DLBCL.

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:BackgroundFor nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), 3 drugs under patent protection-apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide-were approved based on randomized, placebo-controlled trials; 1 drug with generic availability, abiraterone acetate, showed efficacy in a single-arm trial and is commonly prescribed. Lacking head-to-head trials, the optimal treatment for nmCRPC is unknown, despite widely varied treatment costs. We compared the efficacy and safety of nmCRPC treatments.MethodsWe searched bibliographic databases, regulatory documents, and trial registries for nmCRPC trials. We included published results and, when available, original data. We performed matching-adjusted indirect comparison and network meta-analysis and compared treatments regarding metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and serious adverse events.ResultsWe analyzed 5 trials with 4360 participants. Compared with placebo, abiraterone acetate engendered the lowest hazard of metastasis and death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.12-0.41), followed by apalutamide (HR = 0.28, 95% CrI = 0.23-0.34), enzalutamide (HR = 0.30, 95% CrI = 0.25-0.36), and darolutamide (HR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.34-0.49); darolutamide led to the lowest hazard of death (HR = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.53-0.90), followed by enzalutamide (HR = 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.61-0.87) and apalutamide (HR = 0.75, 95% CrI = 0.59-0.95); darolutamide resulted in the lowest odds of serious adverse events (odds ratio [OR] = 1.32, 95% CrI = 1.02-1.70), followed by enzalutamide (OR =1.43, 95% CrI = 1.08-1.89), apalutamide (OR = 1.58, 95% CrI = 1.23-2.03), and abiraterone acetate (OR = 1.94, 95% CrI = 1.17-3.22).ConclusionsFor nmCRPC, darolutamide offered optimal efficacy and safety among approved drugs, and abiraterone acetate may offer comparable metastasis-free survival benefit with cost savings from generic availability. Future research is needed to more fully examine the benefit of abiraterone acetate.

Project description:BackgroundIn 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).MethodsPrimary 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsAfter 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 registrationNCT02631044 and NCT02348216.

Dataset Information

Tafasitamab Plus Lenalidomide Versus 3 Rituximab-Based Treatments for Non-Transplant Eligible Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Tafasitamab Plus Lenalidomide Versus 3 Rituximab-Based Treatments for Non-Transplant Eligible Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets