Table 2.

Illustration of the 3-step assessment on the main indirect comparisons of celta-cel against comparators. Bold cells indicate the main issues of the performed comparisons. The following 5 main confounders were considered and ranked as major confounders by experts: Refractory status, cytogenetic profile, R-ISS stage, plasmacytomas, and time to progression on last prior line

Indirect comparisonStep 1- EstimandStep 2- External source of dataStep 3- Methods of comparison
Main objectiveComparatorTypeSourcePropensity scoreMethodBalance diagnostics, common supportEstimation of effect
Merz 2021 ATT Standard treatment
heterogeneity 
IPD Retrospective German RWD database
risk of bias 
9 confounders 
cytogenetic and plasmacytomas missing 
IPW Undetailed “remaining imbalances” (SMD >0.20) Weighted analyses with robust variance 
Weisel 2022 ATT Physician choice
heterogeneity 
IPD Follow-up of trial data (POLLUX, CASTOR, EQUULEUS) 8 confounders  IPW Mean SMD reduced from 0.33 to 0.16 Weighted analyses with robust variance 
Costa 2022 ATT Conventional treatment
heterogeneity 
IPD Retrospective study
Risk of bias 
16 confounders 
Plasmacytomas missing 
Matching 1:1, no replacement, caliper 0.05 SMD between 0.10 and 0.20 (ASCT, refractory to carfilzomib, penta-drug refractory) Stratified/weighted analyses 
Weisel 2022 ATC
not explicitly reported 
Belantamab mafodotin Aggregate One-arm (2.5 mg/kg dose) of the 2-arm trial data (DREAMM-2)
ECOG 0-2 
4 confounders
§ 
Time to progression on the last regimen missing 
Unanchored
MAIC 
ESS = 39 (60% reduction)
no report of weight distribution 
Weighted analyses 
ATC
not explicitly reported 
Selinexor-DXM Aggregate RCT data (mITT of STORM-2)
Penta-exposed
ECOG 0-2 
4 confounders
§ 
Time to progression on the last regimen missing 
Unanchored
MAIC 
ESS = 73 (25% reduction)
No report of weight distribution 
ATC
not explicitly reported 
Melphalan-flufenamide-DXM Aggregate A subset of Single-arm trial data (HORIZON)
received ≥2 prior LOTs
ECOG 0-2 
3 confounders
refractory status missing 
Unanchored
MAIC 
ESS = 85 (12% reduction)
no report of weight distribution 
Martin 2022 ATC
not explicitly reported 
Ide-cel Aggregate Single-arm trial data (KarMMa) 4 confounders
§ 
Time to progression on the last regimen missing 
Unanchored
MAIC 
Skewed distribution of weights
ESS: 46%-57% reduction 
Weighted analyses
failure times measured from cells infusion 
Indirect comparisonStep 1- EstimandStep 2- External source of dataStep 3- Methods of comparison
Main objectiveComparatorTypeSourcePropensity scoreMethodBalance diagnostics, common supportEstimation of effect
Merz 2021 ATT Standard treatment
heterogeneity 
IPD Retrospective German RWD database
risk of bias 
9 confounders 
cytogenetic and plasmacytomas missing 
IPW Undetailed “remaining imbalances” (SMD >0.20) Weighted analyses with robust variance 
Weisel 2022 ATT Physician choice
heterogeneity 
IPD Follow-up of trial data (POLLUX, CASTOR, EQUULEUS) 8 confounders  IPW Mean SMD reduced from 0.33 to 0.16 Weighted analyses with robust variance 
Costa 2022 ATT Conventional treatment
heterogeneity 
IPD Retrospective study
Risk of bias 
16 confounders 
Plasmacytomas missing 
Matching 1:1, no replacement, caliper 0.05 SMD between 0.10 and 0.20 (ASCT, refractory to carfilzomib, penta-drug refractory) Stratified/weighted analyses 
Weisel 2022 ATC
not explicitly reported 
Belantamab mafodotin Aggregate One-arm (2.5 mg/kg dose) of the 2-arm trial data (DREAMM-2)
ECOG 0-2 
4 confounders
§ 
Time to progression on the last regimen missing 
Unanchored
MAIC 
ESS = 39 (60% reduction)
no report of weight distribution 
Weighted analyses 
ATC
not explicitly reported 
Selinexor-DXM Aggregate RCT data (mITT of STORM-2)
Penta-exposed
ECOG 0-2 
4 confounders
§ 
Time to progression on the last regimen missing 
Unanchored
MAIC 
ESS = 73 (25% reduction)
No report of weight distribution 
ATC
not explicitly reported 
Melphalan-flufenamide-DXM Aggregate A subset of Single-arm trial data (HORIZON)
received ≥2 prior LOTs
ECOG 0-2 
3 confounders
refractory status missing 
Unanchored
MAIC 
ESS = 85 (12% reduction)
no report of weight distribution 
Martin 2022 ATC
not explicitly reported 
Ide-cel Aggregate Single-arm trial data (KarMMa) 4 confounders
§ 
Time to progression on the last regimen missing 
Unanchored
MAIC 
Skewed distribution of weights
ESS: 46%-57% reduction 
Weighted analyses
failure times measured from cells infusion 

ASCT, allogeneic stem cell transplantation; DXM, dexamethasone; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; ISS, international staging system; LOT, line of treatment; MM, multiple myeloma.

Age, sex, refractory status, R-ISS stage, time to progression on last prior line, number of prior LOTs, average duration of prior lines, years since diagnosis, ECOG status.

Age, refractory status, ISS stage, cytogenetic profile, time to progression on last regimen, plasmacytoma, number of prior LOTs, years since MM diagnosis.

Age, sex, race/ethnicity (white vs other), ISS stage 3 (vs 1, 2, or unknown), time from diagnosis to index date, number of prior LOT, prior autologous stem cell transplant, presence of high- risk cytogenetic abnormalities in any prior sample [t(4;14), t(14;16), del(17p)], refractoriness to bortezomib or ixazomib, refractoriness to carfilzomib, refractoriness to lenalidomide, refractoriness to pomalidomide, refractoriness to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, triple-class refractoriness, penta-drug exposure (to bortezomib or ixazomib plus carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus pomalidomide plus anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody), and penta-drug refractoriness.

§

Refractory status, cytogenetic profile, R-ISS stage, plasmocytomas.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal