Applying Multi-Level Network Meta-Regression (ML-NMR) to a Case Study in Triple-Class Exposed (TCE) Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

Author(s)

Maciel D1, Cope S2, Towle K2, Dhanda D3, Jansen J2, Malcolm B4, Klijn S5
1PRECISIONheor, Port Alberni, BC, Canada, 2PRECISIONheor, VANCOUVER, BC, Canada, 3Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA, 4Bristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, UK, 5Bristol Myers Squibb, Utrecht, ZH, Netherlands

BACKGROUND: ML-NMR provides a framework for defining an individual-level regression model, which is integrated over aggregate populations to form an aggregate-level model. ML-NMR avoids aggregation bias and produces estimates in any target population. ML-NMR has been published and applied to binary outcomes, but not time-to-event outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation of ML-NMR using a case study evaluating the comparative efficacy of ide-cel, selinexor + dexamethasone (Sd), belantamab mafodotin (BM), and conventional care (CC) for the treatment of TCE RRMM in terms of overall survival as time-to-event outcome.

METHODS: Three single-arm clinical trials (KarMMa [ide-cel], STORM-2 [Sd], and DREAMM-2 [BM]) and two CC studies (KarMMa-RW and MAMMOTH) were identified by a systematic literature review. ML-NMR requires a connected network of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); therefore, we generated artificial-RCTs (aRCTs) based on a naïve comparison of KarMMa vs KarMMa-RW (two-arm aRCT based on individual patient data (IPD)) and a naïve comparison of the DREAMM-2 intention-to-treat (ITT) vs STORM-2 ITT vs MAMMOTH treated populations (three-arm aRCT based on aggregate data (AD)). The ML-NMR assumed a proportional hazards Weibull, Gompertz, or exponential model, adjusted for number of prior lines, age, and triple-class refractory (TCR) status.

RESULTS: Using Weibull distribution, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for the aRCT-IPD target population, which suggested ide-cel was more efficacious than Sd (HR 0.28 [95%CrI: 0.17, 0.47]), BM (HR 0.50 [95%CrI: 0.30, 0.82]), and CC (HR 0.45 [95%CrI: 0.29, 0.69]). The CrIs included the null effect for Sd vs CC and BM vs CC. The CrIs for the covariate-related parameters (main effect and effect modifier) all included zero, except for the TCR main effect.

CONCLUSIONS: ML-NMR provides a useful method to adjust for between-study differences using IPD and AD RCTs. ML-NMR analysis suggests ide-cel to be more efficacious than Sd, BM, and CC.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2023-05, ISPOR 2023, Boston, MA, USA

Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 6, S2 (June 2023)

Code

MSR31

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Meta-Analysis & Indirect Comparisons

Disease

Drugs

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×