Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Recombinant Factor IX Albumin Fusion Protein Versus Recombinant Factor IX Fc Fusion Protein for Weekly Prophylactic Treatment of Hemophilia B.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic treatment of hemophilia B with recombinant factor IX (rFIX) molecules with enhanced pharmacokinetics including rIX-FP (albutrepenonacog alfa; Idelvion©) and rFIXFc (eftrenonacog alfa; Alprolix©) have commonly been used in the clinic. In the absence of head-to-head comparative trials, the aim of this study was to estimate the efficacy of rIX-FP versus rFIXFc using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: MAIC analyses leveraged individual patient data from the PROLONG-9FP trial and published summary-level data from the B-LONG trial for subjects who received weekly prophylaxis regimens. Individual patient data were used to assign weights and balance subjects from PROLONG-9FP with subjects from B-LONG on baseline disease severity, age, prior FIX regimen, and body mass index (BMI). Six efficacy outcomes were analyzed including annualized bleeding rate (ABR), annualized spontaneous bleeding rate (AsBR), annualized joint bleeding rate (AjBR), and the proportion of subjects without bleeding events (for total, spontaneous, and joint bleeding events). RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline disease severity, age, prior FIX regimen, and BMI, rIX-FP was associated with a statistically significant decrease in AsBR (rate ratio [RR] 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22, 0.82; P = 0.0107), and the proportion of patients without bleeding events (odds ratio [OR] 3.24; 95% CI 1.41, 7.45; P = 0.0057), spontaneous bleeding events (OR 3.47; 95% CI 1.56, 7.73; P = 0.0023), and joint bleeding events (OR 2.41; 95% CI 1.10, 5.26; P = 0.0274) compared with rFIXFc. Prophylactic treatment with rIX-FP was also associated with a numerically lower ABR (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.32, 1.75; P = 0.5095) and AjBR (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.37, 1.82; P = 0.6178). CONCLUSION: The MAICs demonstrated that weekly prophylaxis treatment of severe hemophilia B with rIX-FP resulted in favorable efficacy outcomes as compared to rFIXFc. These findings suggest rIX-FP may offer improved clinical benefits over rFIXFc.

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.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of palbociclib versus ribociclib and abemaciclib in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Aim: Palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB) and abemaciclib (ABM), in combination with fulvestrant (FUL), are approved for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. This study aims to determine relative efficacy of PAL+FUL versus RIB+FUL and ABM+FUL using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons. Patients & methods: Anchored matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons were conducted using individual patient data from PALOMA-3 and published summary-level data from MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results: OS was similar for PAL+FUL versus ABM+FUL (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.54-1.40) and RIB+FUL (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.48-1.63). Conclusion: Adjusting for cross-trial differences suggests similar OS between treatments, underscoring the importance of accounting for these differences when indirectly comparing treatments.

Lay abstract Palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB) and abemaciclib (ABM) are used with fulvestrant to treat hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. This study aims to use data from clinical trials to compare how long patients live after starting treatment with PAL versus RIB and ABM. Since patients who enroll in different trials may have different characteristics, it is important to adjust for these differences for a more accurate comparison. Adjusting for these differences showed that patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treated with PAL lived for a similar length of time compared with those treated with RIB or ABM.