Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib Versus Lenalidomide in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Survival Outcomes using Patient-level Data
Tóm tắt
In the UK, the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma who received ≥2 prior treatments is lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN + DEX) and pomalidomide plus DEX (POM + DEX) (in Wales only). Recently, panobinostat plus bortezomib and DEX (PAN + BTZ + DEX) was licensed in this setting. The current study assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes with PAN + BTZ + DEX versus LEN + DEX (primary comparator) and POM + DEX (exploratory comparator). Since an anchor-based indirect treatment comparison was not feasible, the matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison approach was used. To compare the survival outcomes, patient-level data were generated for the comparators utilizing published Kaplan–Meier survival estimates. The use of approximated patient-level data and matched data for PAN + BTZ + DEX allowed the use of Cox proportional hazards models and the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption. In cases where there was evidence that the proportional hazards assumption was violated, time-dependent hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated. Median and mean values for PFS and OS were predicted. For both PFS and OS, the proportional hazards assumption was not satisfied, therefore time-dependent HRs were estimated. Using time-dependent HRs, the mean PFS was estimated to be 11.83 months for PAN + BTZ + DEX and 10.96 months for LEN + DEX. The corresponding mean OS estimates were 30.73 and 27.76 months, respectively. Comparisons with POM + DEX were affected by large uncertainty and did not allow making robust inferences. To our knowledge, this is the first study that combined matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison with time-dependent HRs to address changing patterns in the HR. The results suggest that treatment with PAN + BTZ + DEX and LEN + DEX are associated with similar mean PFS and OS in the third-line treatment setting of multiple myeloma.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Becker N. Epidemiology of multiple myeloma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2011;183:25–35. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85772-3_2.
Dimopoulos MA, Terpos E. Multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(Suppl 7):vii143–50. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq370.
Moreau P, San Miguel J, Ludwig H, Schouten H, Mohty M, Dimopoulos M, et al. Multiple myeloma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(suppl 6):vi133–7. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt297.
Laubach JP, Voorhees PM, Hassoun H, Jakubowiak A, Lonial S, Richardson PG. Current strategies for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Expert Rev Hematol. 2014;7(1):97–111. doi:10.1586/17474086.2014.882764.
Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Buadi FK, et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood. 2008;111(5):2516–20. doi:10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129.
CancerMPact® Western Europe. Treatment architecture: Western Europe multiple myeloma. 2013. Available at: http://www.kantarhealth.com.
Borrello I. Can we change the disease biology of multiple myeloma? Leuk Res. 2012;36(Suppl 1):S3–12. doi:10.1016/S0145-2126(12)70003-6.
Kumar SK, Therneau TM, Gertz MA, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, Rajkumar SV, et al. Clinical course of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79(7):867–74. doi:10.1016/S0025-6196(11)62152-6.
Moreau P. The future of therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: emerging agents and novel treatment strategies. Semin Hematol. 2012;49(Suppl 1):S33–46. doi:10.1053/j.seminhematol.2012.05.004.
Catley L, Weisberg E, Kiziltepe T, Tai YT, Hideshima T, Neri P, et al. Aggresome induction by proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and alpha-tubulin hyperacetylation by tubulin deacetylase (TDAC) inhibitor LBH589 are synergistic in myeloma cells. Blood. 2006;108(10):3441–9. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-04-016055.
Ocio EM, Vilanova D, Atadja P, Maiso P, Crusoe E, Fernandez-Lazaro D, et al. In vitro and in vivo rationale for the triple combination of panobinostat (LBH589) and dexamethasone with either bortezomib or lenalidomide in multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2010;95(5):794–803. doi:10.3324/haematol.2009.015495.
San-Miguel JF, Hungria VTM, Yoon S-S, Beksac M, Dimopoulos MA, Elghandour A, et al. Panobinostat plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(11):1195–206. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70440-1.
Einsele H, Richardson P, Hungria VT, Yoon SS, Beksac M, Dimopoulos M et al., editors. Subgroup analysis by prior treatment among patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the PANORAMA 1 study of panobinostat or placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone. 20th Congress of the European Hematology Association; 2015 June 11–14, 2015; Vienna, Austria: Hamatologica.
Use CfMPfH. Assessment report. London: EMA; 2015. Contract No.: EMA/CHMP/496296/2015.
NICE. TA 171: Lenalidomide for the treatment of multiple myeloma in people who have received at least one prior therapy. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2009.
NICE. Pomalidomide for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma previously treated with lenalidomide and bortezomib; appraisal consultation document. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
AWMSG. Final Appraisal Recommendation, Advice No: 1315—July 2015. Penarth: All Wales Medicines Strategy Group; 2015.
Weber DM, Chen C, Niesvizky R, Wang M, Belch A, Stadtmauer EA, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma in North America. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(21):2133–42. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070596.
Dimopoulos M, Spencer A, Attal M, Prince HM, Harousseau JL, Dmoszynska A, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(21):2123–32. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070594.
San Miguel J, Weisel K, Moreau P, Lacy M, Song K, Delforge M, et al. Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone versus high-dose dexamethasone alone for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM-003): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(11):1055–66. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70380-2.
Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):417–28. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002.
Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):429–37. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011.
Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935–45. doi:10.2165/11538370-000000000-00000.
NICE. Panobinostat for treating multiple myeloma in people who have received at least one prior therapy (ID663). Company Evidence Submission. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015.
Stadtmauer EA, Weber DM, Niesvizky R, Belch A, Prince MH, San Miguel JF, et al. Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone at first relapse in comparison with its use as later salvage therapy in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2009;82(6):426–32. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0609.2009.01257.x.
Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, Xie J, Lu M, Hodgkins PS, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2012;15(6):940–7. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.004.
Signorovitch J, Swallow E, Kantor E, Wang X, Klimovsky J, Haas T, et al. Everolimus and sunitinib for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2013;2(1):32. doi:10.1186/2162-3619-2-32.
Di Lorenzo G, Casciano R, Malangone E, Buonerba C, Sherman S, Willet J, et al. An adjusted indirect comparison of everolimus and sorafenib therapy in sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using repeated matched samples. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2011;12(10):1491–7. doi:10.1517/14656566.2011.587119.
Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Betts KA, Parikh K, Kantor E, Guo A, et al. Comparative efficacy of nilotinib and dasatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(6):1263–71. doi:10.1185/03007995.2011.576238.
Dimopoulos MA, Chen C, Spencer A, Niesvizky R, Attal M, Stadtmauer EA, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2009;23(11):2147–52. doi:10.1038/leu.2009.147.
Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-9.
Latimer NR. Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials—extrapolation with patient-level data: inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(6):743–54. doi:10.1177/0272989x12472398.
Boshuizen HC, van Baal PH. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis: be a Bayesian. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2009;12(8):1210–4. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00590.x.
R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010.
Latimer NR. NICE DSU Technical support document 14: survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials—extrapolations with patient-level data. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK; 2013.
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661–79. doi:10.1002/sim.6607.
Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Sturmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(12):1149–56. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj149.
NICE. Panobinostat for treating multiple myeloma after at least 2 previous treatments—final Appraisal Document. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2016.
SMC. SMC Advice—panobinostat. Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium; 2016. Contract No.: SMC No. (1122/16).