MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3097385183 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-136677

Health State Utility Valuation in Patients with Triple-Class-Exposed Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Treated with the Bcma-Directed CAR T Cell Therapy, Idecabtagene Vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121): Results from the Karmma Trial

2020· article· en· W3097385183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michel Delforge, Nina Shah, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Parameswaran Hari, Julia Braverman, Andrew Trigg, Payal Patel, Liping Huang, Kristen Hege, Sujith Dhanasiri

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationMultiple myelomaInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Chimeric antigen receptorOncologyCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121) is a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy under investigation in the KarMMa trial as a treatment for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are triple-class exposed to immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 antibodies. In the phase 2 KarMMa trial, ide-cel demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile in this patient population (Munshi NC, et al. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:8503). Ide-cel also demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in the key health-related quality of life (HRQoL) symptoms associated with MM (Delforge M, et al. HemaSphere 2020;4:EP1000). Translating HRQoL data to health state utility values (HSUVs)/HRQoL weights is key to understanding the HRQoL impact of a treatment in relation to that of a healthy general population and is an important consideration in clinical decision making and health technology assessments. HSUVs are scored between 0 and 1, where 0 is death and 1 is perfect health. In the general population, individuals of a similar age range to patients with MM have HSUV scores of 0.83 in the USA, 0.80 in the UK, and 0.84 in Canada (Guertin JR, et al. CMAJ 2018;190:E155-161; Janssen MF, et al. Eur J Health Econ 2019;20:205-216). This analysis aimed to determine HSUVs for patients treated in the KarMMa study according to their progression status. Methods: HRQoL assessment in the KarMMa study (NCT03361748) included the European Quality of Life-5 dimensions 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) health state classifier performed at specified time points: prior to receiving lymphodepleting chemotherapy (baseline), day of infusion (Day 1), Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15, inclusive of disease progression/relapse or complete remission. Using US, UK, and Canadian weights, HSUVs were estimated for the KarMMa trial at an aggregate level. A longitudinal mixed-effects model was used with health state as a fixed effect, and a random intercept term. Three models were run using different health states. Model 1 considered 3 health states: baseline, pre-progression, and post-progression. In Model 2, the pre-progression health state was split into 2 time periods: Day 1 to the end of Month 1, and Month 2 onward. In Model 3, 2 pre-progression health states were defined based on the quality of response to treatment, thus capturing the difference in HRQoL for patients achieving at least a very good partial response (≥ VGPR) or patients who did not achieve a VGPR (< VGPR). Results: The HSUVs derived from the 3 different models using US, UK, and Canadian tariffs are summarized (Table). In all 3 models, patients in the pre-progression state experienced an increase in HRQoL from baseline. In Model 1, the increment ranged from +0.05 to +0.08. On progression, patients experienced a decrement (−0.01 to −0.03), but their HSUV remained above the baseline value by +0.04 to +0.05, indicating that ide-cel treatment was associated with an improvement in HRQoL, with some of the benefit remaining even upon disease progression. When HSUV in the pre-progression state was analyzed in Model 2 at Month 1 and then Month 2 onward, patients also experienced an increase in their HRQoL from baseline. While this increase was small in Month 1 (+0.02 to +0.04), the subsequent increase from baseline (i.e. from Month 2 onward) was more pronounced (+0.07 to +0.10) reflecting the benefits of a one-off administration of ide-cel and the associated treatment-free interval. A further analysis of the pre-progression HSUV by the quality of response in Model 3 showed that patients who achieved ≥ VGPR had a greater improvement in HRQoL (+0.08 to +0.11) than patients who achieved < VGPR. Both response levels were associated with an improvement in HRQoL compared with baseline, with HRQoL for patients achieving ≥ VGPR approaching that of the general population (Figure). Conclusions: Results of this analysis indicate that ide-cel provides clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL for patients with triple-class-exposed RRMM. The benefit is particularly marked in patients who achieve ≥ VGPR, in whom HRQoL approaches that of the general population. Disclosures Delforge: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Shah:BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding; GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy. Rodriguez-Otero:Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen, BMS, AbbVie, Sanofi, GSK, Oncopeptides, Kite, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hari:Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Braverman:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Trigg:Adelphi Values: Current Employment. Patel:BMS: Current Employment. Huang:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hege:Arcus Biosciences: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Mersana Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses, Patents & Royalties: Numerous, Research Funding. Dhanasiri:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.148 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→