FIRST-LINE THERAPY FOR PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE MYELOMA- DIRECT AND INDIRECT COMPARISON OF TREATMENT REGIMENS ON THE EXISTING MARKET
Author(s)
Kuhr K1, Wirth D2, Srivastava K3, Lehmacher W1, Hellmich M1
1University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, 2Janssen-Cilag, Neuss, Germany, 3Heron India, Chandigarh, India
OBJECTIVES Motivated by the discussion whether the german AMNOG is applied to currently marketed drugs we compared first-line therapies for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted and VMP (bortezomib (Velcade), melphalan and prednisone), MPT (melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide) and MP (melphalan and prednisone) were identified as therapies of interest. We extracted information on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response criteria (CR, VGPR, PR), and grade 3-4 AEs (any, hematological, non-hematological, DVT, PNP). Random-effects meta-analysis was used for direct and the Bucher method for adjusted indirect treatment comparison. RESULTS Seven RCTs with a total of 2,367 patients were included in our analyses, one RCT (n=682) comparing VMP vs. MP and six RCTs (n=1,685) comparing MPT vs. MP. Direct head-to-head comparison of VMP vs. MPT was lacking. For MPT vs. MP, data were extracted from a recently published meta-analysis of individual patient data if available. VMP was superior to MP regarding OS. Both VMP and MPT were superior to MP regarding PFS and response criteria, but had a higher risk of developing AEs. The indirect comparison of VMP vs. MPT via MP showed a statistically not significant advantage for VMP regarding survival outcomes. Significant benefits were observed for CR and development of any grade 3-4 AEs favouring VMP. CONCLUSIONS Analysis of both aggregated and individual patient data essentially lead to the same conclusions, i.e. VMP and MPT seem more effective than MP, VMP seems ahead of MPT regarding response criteria and adverse events. We found significant between-trials heterogeneity, however no consistent relationship of effect and study-level covariates (e.g. maintenance dosing) was apparent. Thus, we relied on the random effects approach to meta-analysis to cope with the unexplained trial-to-trial variability. Our results may best be confirmed by a head-to-head trial of VMP vs. MPT.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2014-11, ISPOR Europe 2014, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Value in Health, Vol. 17, No. 7 (November 2014)
Code
PCN21
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Epidemiology & Public Health
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Relating Intermediate to Long-term Outcomes, Safety & Pharmacoepidemiology
Disease
Oncology, Rare and Orphan Diseases, Systemic Disorders/Conditions