4.3 Article

Matching adjusted indirect comparisons of efficacy outcomes for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) versus selinexor plus dexamethasone and belantamab mafodotin in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

Journal

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
Volume 62, Issue 10, Pages 2482-2491

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2021.1913143

Keywords

Multiple myeloma; CAR T cell therapy; MAIC; overall response rate; overall survival; progression-free survival

Funding

  1. Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA
  2. Bristol Myers Squibb

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Indirect comparisons showed that ide-cel extended progression-free survival and overall survival compared to approved therapies Sd and BM, indicating clinically meaningful improvements for heavily pretreated patients with RRMM.
Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, has been investigated in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an immunomodulatory drug, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody in the single-arm phase 2 KarMMa clinical trial. Two therapies with distinct mechanisms of action - selinexor plus dexamethasone (Sd) and belantamab mafodotin (BM) - are currently approved in the United States for heavily pretreated patients, including those who are triple-class refractory. To compare ide-cel versus Sd and ide-cel versus BM, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons were performed. Ide-cel extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus both Sd and BM (hazard ratio (HR); 95% confidence interval (CI)). PFS: ide-cel versus Sd, 0.46; 0.28-0.75; ide-cel versus BM, 0.45; 0.27-0.77. OS: ide-cel versus Sd, 0.23; 0.13-0.42; ide-cel versus BM, 0.35; 0.14-0.87. These results suggest ide-cel offers clinically meaningful improvements over currently approved regimens for patients with heavily pretreated RRMM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available