Value of Reducing Wait Times for Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Treatment: Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trial Data on Tisagenlecleucel for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantify the value of reducing chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) treatment wait times on patients with refractory and relapsed aggressive blood cancer who can newly gain access to treatment or access treatment earlier in their disease course. METHODS: Using data from the JULIET clinical trial, we first identified the number of additional patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma that would have been treated with tisagenlecleucel CAR-T therapy if wait times were shortened. For these patients, we estimated mortality benefits using literature estimates of CAR-T effectiveness. Next, among patients who already received CAR-T, we estimated tumor burden progression over time using a linear probability regression model. The primary outcome variable was an indicator for having above-normal lactate dehydrogenase, and we controlled for time, use of bridging therapy, and time-invariant patient characteristics. The regression results, along with literature estimates relating lactate dehydrogenase to CAR-T effectiveness, were used to compute the survival benefits of earlier CAR-T treatment. RESULTS: Reducing wait times by 2 months increased the number of eligible patients receiving CAR-T by at least 10.7%. For patients already receiving tisagenlecleucel CAR-T, a 2-month reduction in wait times generated a 3.3% increase in survival gains per treated patient. Thus, among patients seeking treatment, the combined treatment efficacy increased by 14%, with approximately one-quarter of survival benefits accruing to existing patients receiving faster treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Delays affected not only access to CAR-T treatments but also treatment effectiveness. Our results highlight the survival benefits of expediting treatment access and may help explain some observed differences in CAR-T effectiveness across countries.

Indirect comparison of tisagenlecleucel and historical treatments for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

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.

Comparative efficacy of tisagenlecleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel among adults with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphomas: an indirect treatment comparison.

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.

Indirect comparison of tisagenlecleucel and blinatumomab in pediatric relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect-treatment comparison can estimate the treatment effect of tisagenlecleucel in comparison with blinatumomab on rates of complete remission (CR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with relapsed or primary refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Patient-level data from two pivotal trials, ELIANA (tisagenlecleucel; n = 79) and MT103-205 (blinatumomab; n = 70), were used in comparisons of CR and OS, controlling for cross-trial difference in available patient characteristics. Five different adjustment approaches were implemented: stabilized inverse probability of treatment weight (sIPTW); trimmed sIPTW; stratification by propensity score quintiles; adjustment for prognostic factors; and adjustment for both prognostic factors and propensity score. Comparative analyses indicate that treatment with tisagenlecleucel was associated with a statistically significant higher likelihood of achieving CR and lower hazard of death than treatment with blinatumomab. The tisagenlecleucel group exhibited a higher likelihood of CR than the blinatumomab group in every analysis regardless of adjustment approach (odds ratios: 6.71-9.76). Tisagenlecleucel was also associated with a lower hazard of death than blinatumomab in every analysis, ranging from 68% to 74% lower hazard of death than with blinatumomab, determined using multiple adjustment approaches (hazard ratios: 0.26-0.32). These findings support the growing body of clinical trials and real-world evidence demonstrating that tisagenlecleucel is an important treatment option for children and young adults with R/R ALL.

Individualizing treatment targets for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: factors influencing clinical decision making in the 24-week, randomized INTERVAL study.

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<0.001). Men were more likely to be set aggressive targets than women (P=0.026). Frailty status of patients showed a trend towards significance (P=0.068), whereas diabetes duration, age, or polypharmacy did not. There was heterogeneity between countries regarding how baseline factors were viewed.Despite training and guidance to individualize HbA1c goals, targets were still set in line with conventional values. A strong influence of country-specific guidelines on target setting was observed; confirming the importance of further education to implement new international guidelines in older adults.