BUSCADOR RECOLECTA

Digital.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC

oai:digital.csic.es:10261/329696

Figure A.1: Selection of Comparator Arms for ITC Analyses Figure A.2: Results of sensitivity analyses with OIs removed for OS at all (A) and first (B) index dates Figure A.3: Results of sensitivity analyses with LocoMMotion removed for OS at all (A) and first (B) index dates, and PF at first index dates (C) Table A.1: Characteristics of Data Sources for PCT arms in ITCs Table A.2: Published ITC Results and Augmented Results Included in Meta-analyses (All Index Dates) Table A.3: Published ITC Results and Augmented Results Included in Meta-analyses (First Index Dates) Table A.4: Baseline Covariates After Adjustment (mITT Populations; All Index Dates) Table A.5: Baseline Covariates After Adjustment (mITT Populations; First Index Dates) Table A.6: Outcome Definitions in ITC Analyses, [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., Peer reviewed