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.

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.