First-line therapy for non-transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma: direct and adjusted indirect comparison of treatment regimens on the existing market in Germany.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare approved first-line therapies for patients with multiple myeloma. Methods: A systematic literature search for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing first-line chemotherapies approved in Germany and recommended by guidelines at th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Vol. 72; no. 3; pp. 257 - 266
Autores principales: Kuhr, Kathrin, Wirth, Daniel, Srivastava, Kunal, Lehmacher, Walter, Hellmich, Martin
Formato: meta analysis research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Mar2016
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=112926729&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 112926729
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00316970
        NP9
      jtl: European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
      issn: 00316970
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2016
      vid: 72
      iid: 3
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        112926729
        112926729
        112926729
        10.1007/s00228-015-1998-5
        112926729
      ppf: 257
      ppct: 9
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: First-line therapy for non-transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma: direct and adjusted indirect comparison of treatment regimens on the existing market in Germany.
      aug:
        au:
          Kuhr, Kathrin
          Wirth, Daniel
          Srivastava, Kunal
          Lehmacher, Walter
          Hellmich, Martin
        affil: Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, 50924 Koeln Germany
      sug:
        subj:
          Multiple Myeloma Drug Therapy
          Chemotherapy, Cancer Evaluation
          Systematic Review
          Human
          Germany
          Confidence Intervals
          Melphalan Therapeutic Use
          Prednisone Therapeutic Use
          Bortezomib Therapeutic Use
          Thalidomide Therapeutic Use
          Survival
          Treatment Outcomes
          Meta Analysis
          Descriptive Statistics
          Data Analysis Software
      ab: Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare approved first-line therapies for patients with multiple myeloma. Methods: A systematic literature search for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing first-line chemotherapies approved in Germany and recommended by guidelines at the time of study design was conducted. Random-effects meta-analysis (MA) was used for direct and the Bucher method for adjusted indirect treatment comparison. Results: One RCT comparing melphalan and prednisone plus bortezomib (VMP) vs. melphalan and prednisone (MP) and six RCTs comparing MP plus thalidomide (MPT) vs. MP were analysed. For MPT vs. MP, an individual patient data (IPD) MA was used for sensitivity analyses. VMP and MPT were superior to MP regarding efficacy endpoints (VMP vs. MP, overall survival (OS): hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.86; progression-free survival (PFS): HR 0.56, 0.39-0.79; complete response (CR), risk-ratio (RR) for non-response: 0.70, 0.65-0.75; MPT vs. MP, OS: HR 0.83, 0.66-1.03; PFS: HR 0.67, 0.56-0.81; CR, RR for non-response 0.92, 0.88-0.95); but had a higher risk of developing any grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) (VMP vs. MP: RR 1.13, 1.06-1.20; MPT vs. MP: RR 2.06, 1.43-2.98). The indirect comparison of VMP vs. MPT via MP showed a statistically not significant advantage for VMP regarding survival outcomes (OS: HR 0.85, 0.63-1.14; PFS: HR 0.83, 0.56-1.23) and a significant advantage regarding CR (RR for non-response 0.76, 0.70-0.83) and AEs (RR 0.55, 0.38-0.80). Treatment comparisons using results of IPD MA yielded similar effect sizes. Conclusions: VMP and MPT seem more effective than MP, VMP was superior to MPT regarding response criteria and AEs. Our results may best be confirmed by a head-to-head trial of VMP vs. MPT.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        meta analysis
        research
        systematic review
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N