Safety and Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel versus Standard of Care in Patients 65 Years of Age or Older with Relapsed/Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Older patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) may be considered ineligible for curative-intent therapy including high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT). Here, we report outcomes of a preplanned subgroup analysis of patients ≥65 years in ZUMA-7. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with LBCL refractory to or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line chemoimmunotherapy were randomized 1:1 to axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel; autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy] or standard of care (SOC; 2-3 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by HDT-ASCT). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Secondary endpoints included safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Fifty-one and 58 patients aged ≥65 years were randomized to axi-cel and SOC, respectively. Median EFS was greater with axi-cel versus SOC (21.5 vs. 2.5 months; median follow-up: 24.3 months; HR, 0.276; descriptive P < 0.0001). Objective response rate was higher with axi-cel versus SOC (88% vs. 52%; OR, 8.81; descriptive P < 0.0001; complete response rate: 75% vs. 33%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 94% of axi-cel and 82% of SOC patients. No grade 5 cytokine release syndrome or neurologic events occurred. In the quality-of-life analysis, the mean change in PRO scores from baseline at days 100 and 150 favored axi-cel for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health, Physical Functioning, and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (descriptive P < 0.05). CAR T-cell expansion and baseline serum inflammatory profile were comparable in patients ≥65 and <65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Axi-cel is an effective second-line curative-intent therapy with a manageable safety profile and improved PROs for patients ≥65 years with R/R LBCL.

Efficient two-stage sequential arrays of proof of concept studies for pharmaceutical portfolios.

Previous work has shown that individual randomized "proof-of-concept" (PoC) studies may be designed to maximize cost-effectiveness, subject to an overall PoC budget constraint. Maximizing cost-effectiveness has also been considered for arrays of simultaneously executed PoC studies. Defining Type III error as the opportunity cost of not performing a PoC study, we evaluate the common pharmaceutical practice of allocating PoC study funds in two stages. Stage 1, or the first wave of PoC studies, screens drugs to identify those to be permitted additional PoC studies in Stage 2. We investigate if this strategy significantly improves efficiency, despite slowing development. We quantify the benefit, cost, benefit-cost ratio, and Type III error given the number of Stage 1 PoC studies. Relative to a single stage PoC strategy, significant cost-effective gains are seen when at least one of the drugs has a low probability of success (10%) and especially when there are either few drugs (2) with a large number of indications allowed per drug (10) or a large portfolio of drugs (4). In these cases, the recommended number of Stage 1 PoC studies ranges from 2 to 4, tracking approximately with an inflection point in the minimization curve of Type III error.