A Systematic Literature Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes and Associated Utility Values in Relapsed and/or Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: In this ever-expanding treatment landscape, there is a lack of consolidated health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes and utility reports in relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) to inform health care policy and decision-maker assessments for both old and new products. These assessments can have a direct effect on what treatment options are available to patients and physicians. OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to understand the HRQOL evidence for treatments in R/R LBCL and identify associated health utility values. METHODS: The SLR searched and screened literature published from 1 January 2003 to 2 May 2022. Studies were screened based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study design criteria established a priori and were assessed by two independent reviewers; quality assessments of the evidence were performed in accordance with health technology assessment recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Several types of therapies were included, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell products (lisocabtagene maraleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel), novel therapies (selinexor, nivolumab, polatuzumab vedotin, and bendamustine), salvage therapies, and rituximab. RESULTS: The review identified 33 unique studies reporting HRQOL, including 15 economic studies that reported health state utility values, 9 clinical trials, 7 health technology assessment reports, and 1 each of a vignette-based study and a point-in-time survey. Improvements in general and/or lymphoma-specific HRQOL measures were observed with CAR T cell therapy in both the second-line and third-line or later settings. On-treatment utility values for CAR T cell therapies ranged from 0.50 to 0.74. Values for remission/progression-free survival (0.70-0.90) and for disease progression (0.39-0.59) were similar across studies. For novel therapies, utility values were 0.83 for progression-free survival and ranged from 0.39 to 0.71 for disease progression. On-treatment utility values for salvage chemotherapy ranged from 0.63 to 0.67. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence synthesized in this SLR provides a comprehensive understanding of the HRQOL evidence in R/R LBCL. This article identified several sources for utility values in the published literature showing variation in the HRQOL outcomes for patients across a variety of therapeutics. Treatment of R/R LBCL with CAR T cell therapies was associated with improvement in health utility values. Mixed results were found for novel therapies and salvage therapies. More data are needed as new therapies are used in this patient population to inform treatment decision-making.

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.

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.

CDK4/6 inhibitors in HR+/HER2- advanced/metastatic breast cancer: a systematic literature review of real-world evidence studies.

Background: This review aims to qualitatively summarize the published real-world evidence (RWE) for CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) approved for treating HR+, HER2-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- a/mBC). Materials & methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify RWE studies of CDK4/6i in HR+/HER2- a/mBC published from 2015 to 2019. Results: This review identified 114 studies, of which 85 were only presented at scientific conferences. Most RWE studies investigated palbociclib and demonstrated improved outcomes. There are limited long-term and comparative data between CDK4/6i and endocrine monotherapy, and within the CDK4/6i class. Conclusion: Available RWE suggests that CDK4/6i are associated with improved outcomes in HR+/HER2- a/mBC, although additional studies with longer follow-up periods are needed.