Back to Search Start Over

Comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus idecabtagene vicleucel in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with 2–4 prior lines of therapy: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Authors :
Bar, Noffar
Diels, Joris
van Sanden, Suzy
Mendes, João
Hernando, Teresa
Burnett, Heather
Cost, Patricia
Schecter, Jordan M.
Lendvai, Nikoletta
Patel, Nitin
Ishida, Tadao
Er, Jeremy
Harrison, Simon J.
Lopez-Muñoz, Nieves
Source :
Current Medical Research & Opinion; Sep2024, Vol. 40 Issue 9, p1597-1603, 7p
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with 2–4 prior lines of therapy. Methods: Matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAICs) were performed using individual patient-level data (IPD) for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and CARTITUDE-4 and published aggregated data for ide-cel from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel patients who met inclusion criteria from KarMMa-3 were selected, and outcomes were compared against data for ide-cel using simulated IPD derived from aggregate-level data from KarMMa-3. Patient characteristics were adjusted by reweighting cilta-cel IPD to match the distribution of prognostic factors in KarMMa-3. Comparative efficacy was estimated for response outcomes using a weighted logistic regression analysis and for progression-free survival using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Patients treated with cilta-cel were 1.2 times more likely to achieve overall response (relative response ratio [RR]: 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.03–1.34]; p = 0.04), 1.3 times more likely to achieve very good partial response or better (RR: 1.34 [1.15–1.57]; p = 0.003), and 1.9 times more likely to achieve complete response or better (RR: 1.91 [1.54–2.37]; p < 0.0001) versus ide-cel patients from KarMMa-3. Cilta-cel was associated with a significant 49% reduction in risk of disease progression or death versus ide-cel (hazard ratio: 0.51 [95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.84]; p = 0.0078). Conclusion: For patients with triple-class exposed RRMM treated with 2–4 prior lines of treatment, cilta-cel was found to provide superior clinical benefit over ide-cel in terms of response and progression-free survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
03007995
Volume :
40
Issue :
9
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
Current Medical Research & Opinion
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
179360201
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2391112