Cai Ling, Roos Jack, Miranda Paulo A P, Liljas Bengt, Rule Simon, Wang Michael
AstraZeneca, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
J Med Econ. 2024 Jan-Dec;27(1):1552-1557. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2024.2422227. Epub 2024 Dec 5.
In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to compare two Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This analysis compares the efficacy and safety of acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib using a more mature dataset than a previously published MAIC.
Individual patient data from 122 patients treated with acalabrutinib in a phase 2 study were weighted to match aggregate baseline characteristics of patients pooled from three separate trials of ibrutinib. Patients were matched on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, simplified Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, lactate dehydrogenase, prior lines of therapy, tumor burden, and blastoid histology. Outcomes assessed included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
After matching, differences in PFS between acalabrutinib (median = 17.8 months) and ibrutinib (median = 12.8 months) were not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74-1.15; = 0.48). Similarly, after matching, OS differences between acalabrutinib (median = 36.5 months) and ibrutinib (median = 27.9 months) did not reach statistical significance (HR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.64-1.17; = 0.35). Acalabrutinib was associated with an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib, with statistically significantly lower rates of grade ≥3 atrial fibrillation and thrombocytopenia.
This comparison of two BTKis used in the treatment of R/R MCL showed that PFS and OS risk was not statistically different between the treatments; however, acalabrutinib had an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib.
在缺乏头对头临床试验的情况下,采用匹配调整间接比较(MAIC)来比较两种被批准用于治疗复发/难治性(R/R)套细胞淋巴瘤(MCL)的布鲁顿酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(BTKis)。本分析使用比之前发表的MAIC更成熟的数据集,比较了阿卡替尼与伊布替尼的疗效和安全性。
对在一项2期研究中接受阿卡替尼治疗的122例患者的个体患者数据进行加权,以匹配从伊布替尼的三项独立试验汇总的患者的总体基线特征。患者根据东部肿瘤协作组体能状态、简化套细胞淋巴瘤国际预后指数、乳酸脱氢酶、既往治疗线数、肿瘤负荷和母细胞样组织学进行匹配。评估的结局包括无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存期(OS)和不良事件。
匹配后,阿卡替尼(中位值 = 17.8个月)和伊布替尼(中位值 = 12.8个月)之间的PFS差异无统计学意义(风险比[HR] = 0.92;95%置信区间[CI] = 0.74 - 1.15;P = 0.48)。同样,匹配后,阿卡替尼(中位值 = 36.5个月)和伊布替尼(中位值 = 27.9个月)之间的OS差异未达到统计学意义(HR = 0.87;95% CI = 0.64 - 1.17;P = 0.35)。与伊布替尼相比,阿卡替尼的安全性更好,≥3级心房颤动和血小板减少症的发生率在统计学上显著更低。
这项对两种用于治疗R/R MCL的BTKis的比较表明,两种治疗之间的PFS和OS风险在统计学上没有差异;然而,与伊布替尼相比,阿卡替尼的安全性更好。