Search

No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy of tisagenlecleucel vs historical treatments for adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL). This study indirectly compared the overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) associated with tisagenlecleucel, using data from the JULIET study (Study of Efficacy and Safety of CTL019 in Adult DLBCL Patients; #NCT02445248), vs historical treatments assessed in the CORAL (Collaborative Trial in Relapsed Aggressive Lymphoma) study follow-up population. To assess treatment effects in the treated (full analysis set [FAS]) and enrolled (intention-to-treat [ITT]) study populations, the JULIET FAS vs the CORAL follow-up FAS and JULIET ITT vs CORAL follow-up ITT populations were separately compared. Propensity score weighting using standardized mortality ratio weight (SMRW) and fine stratification weight (FSW) was used to compare OS and ORR, adjusting for baseline confounders. The results indicated that tisagenlecleucel was associated with a lower hazard of death among the FAS (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], both FSW and SMRW, 0.44 [0.32, 0.59]) and ITT populations (FSW, 0.60 [0.44, 0.77]; SMRW, 0.57 [0.44, 0.73]; all, P < .001). Median OS was 12.48 months (JULIET) vs 4.34 to 4.40 months (CORAL) for the FAS, and 8.25 (JULIET) months vs 4.04 to 4.86 (CORAL) months for the ITT populations. Tisagenlecleucel was associated with a significantly higher ORR compared with historical treatments among the FAS (adjusted response rate difference [95% confidence interval], both FSW and SMRW, 36% [22%, 0.48%]; P < .001) and among the ITT populations after SMRW adjustment (11% [0%, 22%]; P = .043). This analysis supports that improved response and OS are achieved in patients with r/r DLBCL treated with tisagenlecleucel compared with those treated with alternative historical treatments.

This study compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), complete response rate (CRR), and overall response rate (ORR) of tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas (r/r LBCL). Using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), individual patient-level data from JULIET (tisa-cel) were weighted to match the patient population in TRANSCEND (liso-cel). The main analysis compared infused JULIET patients (N = 106) with the TRANSCEND efficacy-evaluable set (EES) (N = 256 [infused]). After adjustment, OS, PFS, and the CRR were comparable between tisa-cel and liso-cel EES patients. The estimated adjusted 2-year OS, 2-year PFS, ORR, and CRR were 45.6, 38.2, 62.9, and 47.7%, respectively, for tisa-cel vs. 43.8, 42.1, 72.7, and 53.1% for liso-cel. A scenario analysis compared JULIET patients to the TRANSCEND primary analysis set (PAS) (N = 133). ORR was significantly higher in the TRANSCEND PAS compared with matched JULIET patients, but no significant differences in CRR were observed.

Background: Tisagenlecleucel is an autologous CD19-directed T-cell immunotherapy indicated in the USA for treatment of patients up to 25 years (y) of age with B-cell ALL that is refractory or in second or later relapse. Overall response rate was 82% with 24 months' (mo) follow-up in the registrational ELIANA trial [Grupp et al. Blood 2018]; pooled data from ELIANA and ENSIGN revealed similar outcomes upon stratification by age ( Methods: This noninterventional prospective study used data from the CIBMTR registry and included patients aged ≤25y with R/R ALL. Eligible patients received commercial tisagenlecleucel after August 30, 2017, in the USA or Canada. Age-specific analyses were conducted in patients aged Results: As of October 30, 2020, data from 451 patients were collected, all of whom received tisagenlecleucel. The median time from receipt of leukapheresis product at the manufacturing site to shipment was 27 days (interquartile range: 25-34). Patients aged ≥18y appeared to have greater disease burden at baseline than those aged In the efficacy set (median follow-up 21.5mo; range 11.9-37.2; N=322), BOR of CR was 87.3% (95% CI 83.1-90.7); MRD status was available for 150 patients, of whom 98.7% were MRD negative. Median DOR was 23.9mo (95% CI 12.3-not estimable [NE]), median EFS was 14.0mo (9.8-24.8) and median RFS was 23.9mo (13.0-NE); 12mo EFS and RFS were 54.3% and 62.3%, respectively. For OS, the median was not reached. Efficacy outcomes were generally similar across age groups (Table 1). In the safety set (median follow-up 20.0mo; range 2.6-37.2; N=400), most AEs of interest occurred within 100 days of infusion. Any-grade CRS was observed in 58.0% of patients; Grade ≥3 in 17.8%. Treatment for CRS included tocilizumab (n=113; 28.3% of all patients) and corticosteroids (n=31; 7.8%). Neurotoxicity was observed in 27.3% of patients; Grade ≥3 in 10.0%. Treatment for neurotoxicity included tocilizumab (n=17; 4.3% of all patients) and corticosteroids (n=28; 7.0%). During the reporting period, 82 (20.5%) patients died; the most common cause of death was recurrence/persistence/progression of primary disease. CRS and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell-related encephalopathy syndrome were the primary cause of death in 2 patients and 1 patient, respectively. Overall, safety data were similar across age groups, although more patients aged ≥18y experienced any-grade CRS or neurotoxicity and were subsequently treated (Table 1). Conclusions: Updated registry data for pediatric and young adult patients with R/R ALL treated with tisagenlecleucel revealed that patients aged ≥18y had a greater disease burden and were more heavily pre-treated at baseline than patients aged Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pulsipher: Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Phillips: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Margossian: Cue Biopharma, Inc.: Current Employment; Novartis: Other: Ad hoc Advisory Boards. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; Novartis: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; Iovance: Other: Ad hoc advisory boards; GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): Other: Ad hoc advisory boards. Martin: Novartis: Other: Local PI for clinical trial; Bluebird Bio: Other: Local PI for clinical trial. Rouce: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tessa Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Tiwari: Novartis Healthcare private limited: Current Employment. Redondo: Novartis: Current Employment. Willert: Novartis: Current Employment. Agarwal: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grupp: Novartis, Roche, GSK, Humanigen, CBMG, Eureka, and Janssen/JnJ: Consultancy; Novartis, Kite, Vertex, and Servier: Research Funding; Novartis, Adaptimmune, TCR2, Cellectis, Juno, Vertex, Allogene and Cabaletta: Other: Study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Steering committee, Research Funding.

We tested the feasibility of setting individualized glycemic goals and factors influencing targets set in a clinical trial in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 45 outpatient centers in seven European countries. 278 drug-naïve or inadequately controlled (mean HbA1c 7.9%) patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥70 years with HbA1c levels ≥7.0% and ≤10.0% were enrolled. Investigator-defined individualized HbA1c targets and the impact of baseline characteristics on individualized treatment targets was evaluated. The average individualized HbA1c target was set at 7.0%. HbA1c at baseline predicted a target setting such that higher the HbA1c, more aggressive was the target (P

7535 Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies tisa-cel and liso-cel are effective treatments for r/r DLBCL (Schuster 2019, Abramson 2020). This study compared efficacy outcomes of tisa-cel and liso-cel in r/r DLBCL using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Methods: Individual patient-level data (IPD) from JULIET (tisa-cel; NCT02445248; 02/2020 datacut) were weighted to match the patient population in TRANSCEND (liso-cel; NCT02631044; 08/2019 datacut). Baseline prognostic factors available in both trials were adjusted for age, sex, histology, ECOG performance status [ECOG PS], left ventricular ejection fraction, radiologic sum of product diameters, lactate dehydrogenase, prior stem cell transplantation [SCT], use of bridging therapy, and number of and refractoriness to prior therapies, in the MAIC. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), complete response (CR) rate, and overall response (OR) rate were compared. Primary analyses compared infused patients in JULIET (N=106, excluding 8 without lymphodepleting chemotherapy [LDC] and 1 large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma) with efficacy-evaluable set in TRANSCEND (N=256, infused patients). A scenario analysis compared JULIET infused to TRANSCEND primary analysis set (PAS) (N=133, dose level 2, excluding those with ECOG PS 2, prior allogeneic SCT, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma [FL] 3B, or transformation from indolent lymphoma besides FL). Sensitivity analyses included JULIET patients with only fludarabine-based LDC or only adjusted significantly different baseline prognostic factors. Safety outcomes were not compared because adverse event management has evolved and differed between the two trials; MAIC is unable to adjust for such differences. Results: After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, OS, PFS, and CR were comparable between tisa-cel infused patients and the liso-cel efficacy-evaluable set (Table). The results were consistent across all scenario and sensitivity analyses. OR rate trended higher in the TRANSCEND efficacy-evaluable set (72.7% vs. 62.9%, p=0.07) and was higher in TRANSCEND PAS than in the respectively matched JULIET infused set (74.4% vs. 60.9%, p < 0.05). Conclusions: The MAIC results indicate there is no evidence suggesting differences in OS, PFS and CR between tisa-cel and liso-cel in r/r DLBCL. Analyses using IPD from both trials and/or real-world evidence are warranted to confirm these findings.[Table: see text]