Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of the research was to assess the quantitative relationship between median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) specifically among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Two bibliographic databases (PubMed and Embase, 1970-2017) were systematically searched for RCTs in RRMM that reported OS and PFS, followed by an updated search of studies published between 2010 and 2022 in 3 databases (Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews, 2010-2022). The association between median PFS and median OS was assessed using the nonparametric Spearman rank and parametric Pearson correlation coefficients. Subsequently, the quantitative relationship between PFS and OS was assessed using weighted least-squares regression adjusted for covariates including age, sex, and publication year. Study arms were weighted by the number of patients in each arm. RESULTS: A total of 31 RCTs (56 treatment arms, 10,450 patients with RRMM) were included in the analysis. The average median PFS and median OS were 7.1 months (SD 5.5) and 28.1 months (SD 11.8), respectively. The Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients between median PFS and median OS were 0.80 (P < 0.0001) and 0.79 (P < 0.0001), respectively. In individual treatment arms of RRMM trials, each 1-month increase in median PFS was associated with a 1.72-month (95% CI 1.26-2.17) increase in median OS. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the relationship between PFS and OS incorporating more recent studies in RRMM further substantiates the use of PFS to predict OS in RRMM.

Real-world treatment patterns, healthcare resource use and disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma in Europe.

Aim: To investigate treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization and disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients presenting in a real-world clinical setting, collected across Europe between May and November 2021. Results: In total, 173 physicians provided data for 2179 patients with MM. Treatments received became more diverse as line of therapy increased, dictated by previous treatment choices. Overall, 25% of all patients were tri-exposed, and experienced a higher degree of healthcare resource utilization, disease burden and impairment than non-tri-exposed patients. Conclusion: The treatment landscape in MM is complex and evolving. There is an unmet need for more effective therapies to reduce disease burden, particularly in tri-exposed patients.

There are many new treatments available for patients with multiple myeloma. While outcomes such as survival, symptoms and health problems experienced have improved, patients still continue to relapse and fall ill again. This means their current treatment stops working and they have to change to a new treatment to prevent their disease from developing further. Patients who have received three different types of treatment are classed as being 'tri-exposed', and they experience greater problems with their health. To better understand this course of events, we used information from a survey of doctors and their patients with multiple myeloma across Europe in 2021. We looked at patient's symptoms, the treatments they received, how and when they accessed healthcare (including hospital visits and tests) and the overall difficulties experienced due to their illness. We found that patients were broadly treated according to the most recent European guidelines, although differences were seen between countries. When patients had to switch therapy, the type of treatment received next depended on what they had previously been prescribed, meaning that treatment choices became increasingly complicated. Overall, 25% of patients in our study were classed as tri-exposed, and had more hospitalisations, required more hospital tests, had greater health problems and experienced more difficulties at work than those who were not tri-exposed. Despite recent developments in the treatment of multiple myeloma, there is still a need for more effective therapies. This is especially true for patients who are tri-exposed, who have limited treatment options and experienced greater health problems.

Extrapolation of Survival Data Using a Bayesian Approach: A Case Study Leveraging External Data from Cilta-Cel Therapy in Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Extrapolating long-term overall survival (OS) from shorter-term clinical trial data is key to health technology assessment in oncology. However, extrapolation using conventional methods is often subject to uncertainty. Using ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma, we used a flexible Bayesian approach to demonstrate use of external longer-term data to reduce the uncertainty in long-term extrapolation. METHODS: The pivotal CARTITUDE-1 trial (NCT03548207) provided the primary efficacy data for cilta-cel, including a 12-month median follow-up snapshot of OS. Longer-term (48-month median follow-up) survival data from the phase I LEGEND-2 study (NCT03090659) were also available. Twelve-month CARTITUDE-1 OS data were extrapolated in two ways: (1) conventional survival models with standard parametric distributions (uninformed), and (2) Bayesian survival models whose shape prior was informed from 48-month LEGEND-2 data. For validation, extrapolations from 12-month CARTITUDE-1 data were compared with observed 28-month CARTITUDE-1 data. RESULTS: Extrapolations of the 12-month CARTITUDE-1 data using conventional uninformed parametric models were highly variable. Using informative priors from the 48-month LEGEND-2 dataset, the ranges of projected OS at different timepoints were consistently narrower. Area differences between the extrapolation curves and the 28-month CARTITUDE-1 data were generally lower in informed Bayesian models, except for the uninformed log-normal model, which had the lowest difference. CONCLUSIONS: Informed Bayesian survival models reduced variation of long-term projections and provided similar projections as the uninformed log-normal model. Bayesian models generated a narrower and more plausible range of OS projections from 12-month data that aligned with observed 28-month data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CARTITUDE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03548207. LEGEND-2 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03090659, registered retrospectively on 27 March 2017, and ChiCTR-ONH-17012285.

Component Costs of CAR-T Therapy in Addition to Treatment Acquisition Costs in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), is a B-cell maturation antigen-directed, genetically modified autologous chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) immunotherapy. It is indicated for treatment for adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after four or more prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. The objective of this study was to estimate the per-patient US commercial healthcare costs related to cilta-cel (CARVYKTI®) CAR-T therapy (i.e., costs separate from cilta-cel therapy acquisition) for patients with RRMM. METHODS: US prescribing information for cilta-cel, publicly available data, and published literature were used with clinician input to identify the cost components and unit costs associated with administration of cilta-cel. Cost components included apheresis, bridging therapy, conditioning therapy, administration, and postinfusion monitoring for 1 year of follow-up. Adverse event (AE) management costs for all grades of cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicities, and additional AEs grade ≥ 3 occurring in > 5% of patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: The estimated per-patient average costs of cilta-cel CAR-T therapy administered exclusively in an inpatient setting, excluding cilta-cel therapy acquisition costs, totaled US$160,933 over a 12 month period. Costs assuming different proportions of inpatient/outpatient administration (85%/15% and 70%/30%) were US$158,095 and US$155,257, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cost estimates from this analysis, which disaggregates CAR-T therapy costs, provide a comprehensive view of the cost components of CAR-T therapy that can help healthcare decision-makers make informed choices regarding the use of cilta-cel. Real-world costs may differ with improved AE prevention and mitigation strategies.

Updated results from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: This study used the latest available data cuts from the CARTITUDE-1 and KarMMa clinical trials to update previously published matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) assessing the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus the FDA-approved idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) dose range of 300 to 450 × 106 CAR-positive T-cells in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. triple-class exposed). METHODS: MAICs were performed with the latest available individual patient data for cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1) and published summary-level data for ide-cel (KarMMa). The analyses included treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility criteria for KarMMa. The MAIC adjusted for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance identified in the literature and by clinical expertise. Comparative efficacy was assessed for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Cilta-cel was associated with statistically significantly improved ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 94.93 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.86, 412.25; p < .0001]; relative risk [RR]: 1.34), ≥CR rate (OR: 5.65 [95% CI: 2.51, 12.69; p < .0001]; RR: 2.23), DoR (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.30, 0.88; p = .0152]), PFS, (HR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.24, 0.62; p < .0001]), and OS (HR: 0.43 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.88; p = .0200]) compared with ide-cel. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate improved efficacy with cilta-cel versus ide-cel for all outcomes over longer follow-up and highlight its therapeutic potential in triple-class exposed RRMM patients.

Patient Perceptions Regarding Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel Treatment: Qualitative Evidence From Interviews With Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the CARTITUDE-1 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a novel chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy, has demonstrated early, deep, and durable clinical responses in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in CARTITUDE-1 (NCT03548207). Patient perspectives on treatment provide context to efficacy outcomes and are an important aspect of therapeutic evaluation. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted in a subset of CARTITUDE-1 patients (n = 36) at screening, Day 100, and Day 184 post cilta-cel on living with MM, therapy expectations, and treatment experiences during the study. RESULTS: Patients most wanted to see change in symptoms with the greatest impact on HRQoL: pain (85.2%) and fatigue (74.1%). The primary treatment expectation was achieving remission (40.7%), followed by extended life expectancy (14.8%). Patients most often defined meaningful change as improvement in symptoms (70.4%) and return to normalcy (40.7%). The percentage of patients reporting symptoms (pain, fatigue, bone fracture, gastrointestinal, neuropathy, and weakness) decreased from 85.2% to 22.2% across symptom types at baseline to 29.2% to 0% on Day 184 after cilta-cel. Improved symptoms and positive sentiments corresponded with improved perception of overall health status and reduced pain level, respectively. Most patients reported that their expectations of cilta-cel treatment had been met (70.8%) or exceeded (20.8%) at Day 184, and 70.8% of patients considered cilta-cel therapy better than their previous treatments. CONCLUSION: Overall HRQoL improvements and qualitative interviews showed cilta-cel met patient expectations of treatment and suggest the long treatment-free period also contributed to positive sentiments.

Meta-analysis of ciltacabtagene autoleucel versus physician's choice therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Objective: In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) between ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; in CARTITUDE-1) and treatments used in real-world clinical practice (physician's choice of treatment [PCT]), were previously conducted. We conducted multiple meta-analyses using available ITC data to consolidate the effectiveness of cilta-cel versus PCT for patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).Methods: Five ITCs were assessed for similarity to ensure robust comparisons using meta-analysis. Effectiveness outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall response rate (ORR). A robust variance estimator was used to account for the use of CARTITUDE-1 in each pairwise ITC. Analyses were conducted in both treated and enrolled populations of CARTITUDE-1.Results: Four ITCs were combined for evaluation of OS. Results were statistically significantly in favor of cilta-cel versus PCT in treated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.26). Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of PFS and TTNT. Cilta-cel reduced the risk of progression and receiving a subsequent treatment by 80% (HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.70]) and 83% (HR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.26]), respectively. Three ITCs were combined for evaluation of ORR. Cilta-cel increased the odds of achieving an overall response by 86-times versus PCT in treated patients. Findings were consistent in the enrolled populations and across sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: Evaluating multiple indirect comparisons, cilta-cel demonstrated a significantly superior advantage over PCT, highlighting its effectiveness as a therapy in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

Comparative effectiveness of ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus physician's choice of therapy in the Flatiron Health multiple myeloma cohort registry for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a novel chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy that is being evaluated in the CARTITUDE-1 trial (NCT03548207) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who received as part of their previous therapy an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e., triple-class exposed). Given the absence of a control arm in CARTITUDE-1, this study assessed the comparative effectiveness of cilta-cel and physician's choice of treatment (PCT) using an external real-world control arm from the Flatiron Health multiple myeloma cohort registry. Methods: Given the availability of individual patient data for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and PCT in Flatiron, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance: refractory status, cytogenetic profile, International Staging System stage, time to progression on last regimen, number of prior lines of therapy, years since diagnosis, and age. Comparative effectiveness was estimated for progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). A range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts after propensity score weighting. Patients with cilta-cel had improved PFS (HR: 0.18 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.27; p < 0.0001]), TTNT (HR: 0.15 [95% CI: 0.09, 0.22; p < 0.0001]), and OS (HR: 0.25 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.46; p < 0.0001]) versus PCT. Cilta-cel treatment benefit was robust and consistent across all sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Cilta-cel demonstrated significantly superior effectiveness over PCT for all outcomes, highlighting its potential as an effective therapy in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison to Assess the Comparative Efficacy of Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 Versus Belantamab Mafodotin in DREAMM-2, Selinexor-Dexamethasone in STORM Part 2, and Melphalan Flufenamide-Dexamethasone in HORIZON for the Treatment of Patients With Triple-Class Exposed Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; CARTITUDE-1), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T-cell therapy, versus 3 non-CAR-T therapies (belantamab mafodotin [DREAMM-2], selinexor plus dexamethasone [STORM Part 2], and melphalan flufenamide plus dexamethasone [HORIZON]), each with distinct mechanisms of action, for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were triple-class exposed to an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pairwise matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using patient-level data for cilta-cel from CARTITUDE-1 and summary level data for each comparator (2.5 mg/kg cohort in DREAMM-2, modified intention-to-treat population in STORM Part 2, and triple-class refractory patients in HORIZON). Treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility of the comparator trial were included. MAICs adjusted for imbalances in important prognostic factors between CARTITUDE-1 and the comparator populations. Comparative efficacy of cilta-cel versus each therapy was estimated for overall response rate, complete response or better rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: After adjustment, patients treated with cilta-cel demonstrated at least a 3.1-fold and at least a 10.3-fold increase in the likelihood of achieving an overall response or complete response or better, respectively, at least a 74% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, and at least a 47% reduction in the risk of death. These results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Cilta-cel showed improved efficacy over each comparator for all outcomes, demonstrating its potential as an efficacious treatment for patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

The patient experience of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma and perspectives on emerging therapies.

BACKGROUND: Relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is a disease that is nonresponsive or progressive on therapy, and although patients can achieve remission, relapse is common. As more treatment options become available for multiple myeloma (MM), it is important to understand patients' experiences of current and emerging therapies. AIMS: This study aimed to better understand patient experiences with treatment and therapies for MM using qualitative interviews and patient-reported information (PRI) shared on social media. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with adults with RRMM who resided in the United States. In addition to the interviews, PRI was collected from YouTube and a patient advocacy website. Key themes from the interviews and PRI were summarized, and illustrative quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty participants were interviewed; 11 were female, and mean (standard deviation) age was 60 (7.0) years. The PRI included 14 posts and 19 unique contributors (10 were female). Similar treatment-related symptoms were reported in the interviews and PRI. Fatigue and pain were the most frequently reported symptoms while receiving treatment in both the interviews and PRI. These symptoms had a meaningful impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL); being off treatment and returning to normal living was described as an ideal treatment outcome. Nearly all interview participants (n = 18) preferred a treatment that would allow for a treatment-free interval, if it had the same efficacy and safety profile as a continuous treatment. CONCLUSION: The symptom experience reported in this study is consistent with known RRMM symptoms and HRQOL impacts. Additionally, this study highlighted that patients' treatment expectations are changing relative to their past treatment experience. Individuals living with RRMM strongly desire therapies with a treatment-free interval and minimal impact on their HRQOL.

Comparison of Cilta-cel, an Anti-BCMA CAR-T Cell Therapy, Versus Conventional Treatment in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: In the single-arm, phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 study, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), an anti-B-cell maturation antigen chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, showed encouraging efficacy in US patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who previously received an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (triple-class exposed). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A dataset of US patients refractory to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (MAMMOTH) was used to identify patients who would meet eligibility for CARTITUDE-1 and received subsequent non-CAR-T therapy. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population in CARTITUDE-1 included patients who underwent apheresis (N = 113); the modified ITT (mITT) population was the subset who received cilta-cel (n = 97). Corresponding populations were identified from the MAMMOTH dataset: ITT population (n = 190) and mITT population of patients without progression/death within 47 days (median apheresis-to-cilta-cel infusion time) from onset of therapy (n = 122). Using 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching to control for selected baseline covariates, 95 and 69 patients in CARTITUDE-1 ITT and mITT populations, respectively, were matched to MAMMOTH patients. RESULTS: In ITT cohorts of CARTITUDE-1 vs. MAMMOTH, improved overall response rate (ORR; 84% vs. 28% [P < .001]) and longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.05-0.22]) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.10-0.39]) were observed. Similar results were seen in mITT cohorts of CARTITUDE-1 vs. MAMMOTH (ORR: 96% vs. 30% [P < .001]; PFS: HR, 0.02 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; OS: HR, 0.05 [95% CI, 0.01-0.22]) and with alternative matching methods. CONCLUSION: Cilta-cel yielded significantly improved outcomes versus real-world therapies in triple-class exposed patients with relapsed/refractory MM.

Comparative Efficacy of Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 vs Physician's Choice of Therapy in the Long-Term Follow-Up of POLLUX, CASTOR, and EQUULEUS Clinical Trials for the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a novel agent being investigated in the single-arm CARTITUDE-1 trial (NCT03548207) for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who are triple-class exposed to an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of cilta-cel vs physician's choice of treatment, as no head-to-head trials have been conducted. METHODS: An external control arm for CARTITUDE-1 was created from patients in the long-term follow-up for three clinical trials of daratumumab (POLLUX, CASTOR, and EQUULEUS) who satisfied the eligibility criteria of CARTITUDE-1. These patients received physician's choice of treatment following the discontinuation of study drugs. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to align the external control and CARTITUDE-1 populations on important baseline characteristics. Overall response rate, complete response or better rate, progression-free survival, time to next treatment, and overall survival were assessed. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. Patients showed improved results with cilta-cel vs physician's choice of treatment: overall response rate (relative risk: 2.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27, 3.84; p < 0.0001]), complete response or better (relative risk: 111.70 [95% CI 29.08, 429.06; p < 0.0001]), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.24 [95% CI 0.15, 0.37; p < 0.0001]), time to next treatment (HR: 0.14 [95% CI 0.09, 0.22; p < 0.0001]), and overall survival (HR: 0.21 [95% CI 0.13, 0.35; p < 0.0001]). Results were consistent across all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cilta-cel showed superior efficacy compared with physician's choice of treatment, making it a promising new treatment option for patients with triple-class exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy outcomes for ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 versus idecabtagene vicleucel in KarMMa for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the comparative efficacy of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) versus the approved idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) dose range of 300-460 × 106 CAR-positive T-cells for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who were previously treated with a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. triple-class exposed) using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: MAICs were performed with individual patient data for cilta-cel (CARTITUDE-1; NCT03548207) and published summary-level data for ide-cel (KarMMa; NCT03361748). Treated patients from CARTITUDE-1 who satisfied the eligibility criteria for KarMMa were included in the analyses. The MAIC adjusted for unbalanced baseline covariates of prognostic significance identified in the literature and by clinical expertise. Comparative efficacy was estimated for overall response rate (ORR), complete response or better (≥CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Cilta-cel was associated with statistically significantly improved ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 94.93 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.86, 412.25; p < .0001]; relative risk [RR]: 1.34), ≥CR rate (OR: 5.49 [95% CI: 2.47, 12.21; p < .0001]; RR: 2.21), DoR (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.29, 0.87; p = .0137]), and PFS (HR: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.22, 0.62; p = .0002]) when compared with ide-cel. For OS, the results were in favor of cilta-cel and clinically meaningful but with a CI overlapping one (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.29, 1.05; p = .0702]). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate improved efficacy with cilta-cel versus ide-cel for all outcomes, highlighting its therapeutic potential in patients with triple-class exposed RRMM.

Comparative Effectiveness Research for CAR-T Therapies in Multiple Myeloma: Appropriate Comparisons Require Careful Considerations of Data Sources and Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Registrational trials for ciltacabtagene autoleucel [cilta-cel]) and idecabtagene vicleucel [ide-cel] chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies were single-arm studies conducted with relapse refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients who were triple-class-exposed (TCE) or triple-class-refractory (TCR). It is critical for researchers conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER) to carefully consider the most appropriate data sources and comparable patient populations. The aim of this study was to identify potential data sources and populations for comparing to single-arm CAR-T trials CARTITUDE-1 (cilta-cel) and KarMMa (ide-cel). METHODS: A 2-part global systematic literature search produced a review of (1) clinical trials of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline preferred regimens in previously treated MM, and (2) real-world data cohorts of TCE or TCR populations, published between 1/1/2015 and 12/10/2020, with sample sizes of > 50 patients and reporting survival-related outcomes. Implications on CER and accepted best practices are discussed. RESULTS: Nine clinical trials of NCCN preferred regimens were identified along with five real-world data-based publications. No clinical trials evaluated patients with TCE or TCR MM. Among the real-world data-based publications, two evaluated patients exclusively with TCR MM, two analyzed a mixed population of patients with TCE or TCR MM, and one publication assessed patients exclusively with TCE MM. Real-world data treatment patterns were heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Current NCCN preferred regimens were not specifically studied in TCE or TCR MM patients, although some studies do include a proportion of these types of patients. Therefore, appropriate matching of populations using either real-world data or patient level clinical trial data is critical to putting trials of novel CAR-Ts (i.e., CARTITUDE-1 or KarMMa) into appropriate comparative context.

Tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis compared with adalimumab in Taiwan.

Aims: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of the second-line treatment with tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, both plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response to the first-line MTX, from a Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration perspective. Materials and methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to project lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Base-case analysis compared second-line treatment with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus MTX vs adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks plus MTX. Patients switched or discontinued treatment due to a lack or loss of effectiveness or a serious adverse event. Efficacy was measured by change in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score. HAQ-DI scores were used to predict mortality and resource utilization, and were mapped onto utility values to estimate QALYs. Efficacy and safety data were derived from clinical trials and other secondary sources. Uncertainty in model parameters was explored using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Patients gained 0.09 more QALYs with second-line tofacitinib plus MTX compared with adalimumab plus MTX (5.13 vs 5.04, respectively) at an additional cost of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 12,881. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was NT$143,122/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case result was robust. Limitations: The lack of available clinical data, particularly for HAQ-DI scores, may introduce some bias in the analysis. No patients were in an early stage of RA, which may limit the generalizability of these results. Base-case results from our study are not necessarily generalizable to countries with healthcare systems that differ considerably from Taiwan. Conclusions: From a payer perspective, second-line treatment with tofacitinib plus MTX is a cost-effective treatment strategy, compared with adalimumab plus MTX, in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in Taiwan.

The burden of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patients earlier, new classification criteria have been introduced for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Patients who satisfy the clinical or imaging criteria for axSpA in the absence of definite sacroiliac joint changes on pelvic x-rays are classified as having non-radiographic axSpA. Although the burden associated with radiographic axSpA (i.e., ankylosing spondylitis) has been extensively studied, the impact of non-radiographic disease is not well understood. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the burden of illness in non-radiographic axSpA, including epidemiology and effects on patients׳ functioning and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). METHODS: A PubMed search was performed using relevant key words (e.g., "spondyloarthritis," "ankylosing spondylitis," "epidemiology," and "quality of life") to examine literature published from 2003 to 2013. RESULTS: Studies conducted to date suggest that radiographic progression is detected in approximately 10% of patients with non-radiographic axSpA over 2 years. Differences between patients with non-radiographic and radiographic axSpA were found in age, symptom duration, and gender distribution. Although less inflammation (i.e., lower C-reactive protein levels and less spinal inflammation on MRI) and less impairment in spinal mobility are observed in non-radiographic than in radiographic axSpA, the 2 conditions pose a similar burden in terms of disease activity, physical function, HR-QoL impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-radiographic axSpA are more frequently female. Although patients with non-radiographic axSpA have shorter disease duration and lack radiological changes, they demonstrate a substantial burden of illness, with self-reported disease activity and functional impairments comparable to those found in patients with radiographic disease.

Illustrating the impact of mild/moderate and severe haemophilia on health-related quality of life: hypothesised conceptual models.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Haemophilia and its treatment have a significant impact on patients' lives. The study objectives were to understand the impacts of haemophilia and its treatment from the patient perspective and to inform the development of comprehensive health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) conceptual models to illustrate these impacts. METHODS: The study included two phases. Phase I involved a review of literature published from 1995 to 2010, qualitative analysis of six patient (N = 31) and three healthcare provider (N = 15) focus group transcripts, and interviews with two experts to inform draft conceptual models of mild/moderate and severe haemophilia. Phase II involved interviews with 20 haemophilia patients and qualitative analysis of transcripts to confirm the concepts and structure of the conceptual models. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 66 publications assessing HRQL, four of which were qualitative studies on the impact of haemophilia from the patient perspective. Results from Phase I indicated that acute bleeding events result in pain, swelling, bruising and restricted joint movement; repeated joint bleeds result in chronic symptoms, such as pain and arthropathy. Acute bleeds cause interruptions in daily activities and interfere with work/school. Patients have fears about having bleeds, which can affect their participation in activities, such as sports or crowded events. Patients also expressed feelings of depression, frustration, isolation and embarrassment. Results of Phase II corroborated findings from Phase I. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual models illustrate the substantial impact of haemophilia and its treatments on patients' lives and can help inform clinical study design and the selection of endpoints to assess treatment benefit.

Systemic therapy for colorectal cancer: patterns of chemotherapy and biologic therapy use in nationally representative US claims database.

BACKGROUND: Treatment strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) are highly variable. The aim of this study is to examine the patterns of chemotherapy and biologic therapy use for CRC patients in a national medical claims database. METHODS: A retrospective and observational analysis was performed using the i3 Innovus claims database to identify healthcare services consumed by patients aged 18 years and older, diagnosed with CRC between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2009 in commercial health plans. RESULTS: Of 9,876 subjects diagnosed with CRC, fluorouracil (23.5 %) and capecitabine (10.0 %) were the dominant first-line monotherapies, followed by bevacizumab (3.2 %) and oxaliplatin (2.9 %). The most common combination regimen at first line and first and second line was FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin; more than 25 %). The combinations FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (14.2 %) and FOLFOX plus bevacizumab (13.9 %) were significantly more frequent in third and successive lines of CRC therapy than other regimens (χ(2) = 191.2; P < 0.01). Additionally, the average annualized cost of CRC treatment for all patients was $US66,452, and the adjusted analysis demonstrated that patients receiving FOLFOX-A (FOLFOX + avastin) or FOLFIRI-A (FOLFIRI + avastin) had higher costs for CRC treatment. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of a sizeable portion of patients on monotherapy, the treatment patterns for CRC were largely consistent with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.

Impact of metastatic colorectal cancer stage and number of treatment courses on patient health care costs and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Advances in colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment and improved survival rates have led to higher costs associated with treating CRC. OBJECTIVE: To examine health care costs and utilization by initial CRC stage at diagnosis and the number of lines of treatment received by patients with metastatic CRC. METHODS: Adult patients with a diagnosis of CRC made from January 1, 2005 to May 31, 2010 were identified from the Oncology Management registry. Patients with stage IV CRC at initial diagnosis or who had advanced to stage IV CRC at the time of the study were included. Registry data included initial CRC stage and the date of diagnosis. Linked health care claims from a large US health insurance database affiliated with Optum were used to identify health care costs and patient characteristics. Multivariate regression analysis was used to estimate total 4-year health care costs stratified by stage and adjusted for patient characteristics. Follow-up ended at patient death, disenrollment from the health care plan, or study end (November 30, 2010). RESULTS: A total of 598 patients, followed for an average of 653 days after first evidence of metastasis, were included. At initial diagnosis, 91 patients had stages 0 to III CRC, 310 patients had stage IV CRC, and 197 patients had an unknown stage of CRC. The mean unadjusted total cost per patient (medical + pharmaceutical costs) was $252 200; outpatient hospital visits (excluding radiation and surgery) contributed most to the total cost, at a mean cost of $71 334. Hospitalization costs, with or without surgery (mean, $56 862), accounted for 33% of the $176 135 unadjusted mean cost for medical services (ambulatory visits [office and outpatient], emergency department visits, laboratory/radiology services, and inpatient admission). Chemotherapy and biologics were also costly (mean, $31 112 and $38 276, respectively). A general linear model analysis of estimated 4-year total costs showed that both CRC stage at diagnosis and the number of lines of treatment after metastasis had a statistically significant association with cost (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Variables that had a statistically significant association with cost (P < 0.05) were sex, age group, and follow-up Charlson Comorbidity Index score after metastases. After adjusting for the number of lines of treatment received, total 4-year costs were highest among patients who presented with stage IV CRC and lowest among patients who presented with stage III CRC and developed metastatic disease.

Medical costs associated with use of systemic therapy in adults with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: New cytotoxic agents and regimens, as well as immunotherapeutics, have recently been introduced for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).  OBJECTIVE: To identify the patient-related and clinical and treatment-related factors associated with higher total health care expenditures in newly diagnosed patients with CRC who are receiving systemic therapy (biologic or chemotherapy) from a commercially insured population.  METHODS: A longitudinal, retrospective analysis was employed to estimate costs and determinants of CRC treatment in a U.S. claims database for health care services used by commercial patients aged 18 to 64 years, who were diagnosed with CRC between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2009. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to estimate the influence of demographic, clinical, and treatment factors on medical expenditures.  RESULTS: Among the 5,160 patients newly diagnosed with CRC, 99.6% of patients had chemotherapy; 32.6% had biologics; and 85.6% had other pharmaceuticals (excluding the chemotherapy and biologics of interest). The average annualized per patient cost of CRC treatment was $97,400 and consisted of chemotherapy ($17,500), biologics ($30,400), other pharmaceuticals ($2,300), inpatient treatment ($26,300), and outpatient treatment ($42,900). From first line only, first and second lines only, and third+ lines, the cost per patient was $70,500, $100,100, and $152,900, respectively. After adjusting for health care inflation, the average treatment cost of CRC patients increased by 73% from 2005 to 2009. Adjusted analyses showed that the higher medical cost for CRC patients was associated with use of new regimens, metastasis, comorbidities, surgery, radiation, insurance plan, age, sex, and region.   CONCLUSION: The health care cost of CRC treatment is increasing significantly over time, which is most likely caused by the use of new regimens, higher chances of surgery and radiation, and occurrence of various comorbidities and metastatic diseases due to increasing survival time.