Cargando…

Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of ponatinib-based treatment for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph + ALL) has not been compared to imatinib-based treatments in head-to-head clinical trials. We evaluated its efficacy versus imatinib-based regimens using a matching...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ribera, Josep-Maria, Prawitz, Thibaud, Freitag, Andreas, Sharma, Anuj, Dobi, Balázs, Rizzo, Federica, Sabatelli, Lorenzo, Patos, Petros
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10272268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37208556
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02497-y
_version_ 1785059457969946624
author Ribera, Josep-Maria
Prawitz, Thibaud
Freitag, Andreas
Sharma, Anuj
Dobi, Balázs
Rizzo, Federica
Sabatelli, Lorenzo
Patos, Petros
author_facet Ribera, Josep-Maria
Prawitz, Thibaud
Freitag, Andreas
Sharma, Anuj
Dobi, Balázs
Rizzo, Federica
Sabatelli, Lorenzo
Patos, Petros
author_sort Ribera, Josep-Maria
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of ponatinib-based treatment for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph + ALL) has not been compared to imatinib-based treatments in head-to-head clinical trials. We evaluated its efficacy versus imatinib-based regimens using a matching adjusted indirect comparison. METHODS: Two ponatinib studies were used: the phase 2 MDACC study of ponatinib + hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) in adult patients and the phase 2 GIMEMA LAL1811 study of ponatinib + steroids in patients > 60 years/unfit for intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplant. Studies on imatinib as first-line treatment in adults with Ph + ALL were identified using a systematic literature search. Population adjustment was based on the prognostic factors and effect modifiers identified by clinical experts. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for overall survival (OS) and odds ratios (ORs) for complete molecular response (CMR). RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified two studies (GRAAPH-2005 and NCT00038610) reporting the efficacy of first-line imatinib + hyper-CVAD and one study reporting the efficacy of first-line imatinib monotherapy induction + imatinib-based consolidation (CSI57ADE10). Ponatinib + hyper-CVAD prolonged OS and gave a higher CMR rate than imatinib + hyper-CVAD. The adjusted HR [95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS was 0.35 (0.17–0.74) for MDACC vs. GRAAPH-2005 and 0.35 (0.18–0.70) for MDACC vs. NCT00038610; the adjusted OR (95% CI) for CMR was 12.11 (3.77–38.87) for MDACC vs. GRAAPH-2005 and 5.65 (2.02–15.76) for MDACC vs. NCT00038610. Ponatinib + steroids prolonged OS and gave a higher CMR rate than imatinib monotherapy induction + imatinib-containing consolidation. The adjusted HR (95% CI) for OS was 0.24 (0.09–0.64) and the adjusted OR (95% CI) for CMR was 6.20 (1.60–24.00) for GIMEMA LAL1811 vs. CSI57ADE10. CONCLUSION: In adults with newly diagnosed Ph + ALL, first-line treatment with ponatinib was associated with better outcomes than first-line treatment with imatinib. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-023-02497-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10272268
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102722682023-06-17 Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison Ribera, Josep-Maria Prawitz, Thibaud Freitag, Andreas Sharma, Anuj Dobi, Balázs Rizzo, Federica Sabatelli, Lorenzo Patos, Petros Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: Efficacy of ponatinib-based treatment for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph + ALL) has not been compared to imatinib-based treatments in head-to-head clinical trials. We evaluated its efficacy versus imatinib-based regimens using a matching adjusted indirect comparison. METHODS: Two ponatinib studies were used: the phase 2 MDACC study of ponatinib + hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) in adult patients and the phase 2 GIMEMA LAL1811 study of ponatinib + steroids in patients > 60 years/unfit for intensive chemotherapy and stem cell transplant. Studies on imatinib as first-line treatment in adults with Ph + ALL were identified using a systematic literature search. Population adjustment was based on the prognostic factors and effect modifiers identified by clinical experts. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for overall survival (OS) and odds ratios (ORs) for complete molecular response (CMR). RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified two studies (GRAAPH-2005 and NCT00038610) reporting the efficacy of first-line imatinib + hyper-CVAD and one study reporting the efficacy of first-line imatinib monotherapy induction + imatinib-based consolidation (CSI57ADE10). Ponatinib + hyper-CVAD prolonged OS and gave a higher CMR rate than imatinib + hyper-CVAD. The adjusted HR [95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS was 0.35 (0.17–0.74) for MDACC vs. GRAAPH-2005 and 0.35 (0.18–0.70) for MDACC vs. NCT00038610; the adjusted OR (95% CI) for CMR was 12.11 (3.77–38.87) for MDACC vs. GRAAPH-2005 and 5.65 (2.02–15.76) for MDACC vs. NCT00038610. Ponatinib + steroids prolonged OS and gave a higher CMR rate than imatinib monotherapy induction + imatinib-containing consolidation. The adjusted HR (95% CI) for OS was 0.24 (0.09–0.64) and the adjusted OR (95% CI) for CMR was 6.20 (1.60–24.00) for GIMEMA LAL1811 vs. CSI57ADE10. CONCLUSION: In adults with newly diagnosed Ph + ALL, first-line treatment with ponatinib was associated with better outcomes than first-line treatment with imatinib. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-023-02497-y. Springer Healthcare 2023-05-19 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10272268/ /pubmed/37208556 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02497-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Ribera, Josep-Maria
Prawitz, Thibaud
Freitag, Andreas
Sharma, Anuj
Dobi, Balázs
Rizzo, Federica
Sabatelli, Lorenzo
Patos, Petros
Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison
title Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison
title_full Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison
title_fullStr Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison
title_full_unstemmed Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison
title_short Ponatinib vs. Imatinib as Frontline Treatment for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparison
title_sort ponatinib vs. imatinib as frontline treatment for philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a matching adjusted indirect comparison
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10272268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37208556
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02497-y
work_keys_str_mv AT riberajosepmaria ponatinibvsimatinibasfrontlinetreatmentforphiladelphiachromosomepositiveacutelymphoblasticleukemiaamatchingadjustedindirectcomparison
AT prawitzthibaud ponatinibvsimatinibasfrontlinetreatmentforphiladelphiachromosomepositiveacutelymphoblasticleukemiaamatchingadjustedindirectcomparison
AT freitagandreas ponatinibvsimatinibasfrontlinetreatmentforphiladelphiachromosomepositiveacutelymphoblasticleukemiaamatchingadjustedindirectcomparison
AT sharmaanuj ponatinibvsimatinibasfrontlinetreatmentforphiladelphiachromosomepositiveacutelymphoblasticleukemiaamatchingadjustedindirectcomparison
AT dobibalazs ponatinibvsimatinibasfrontlinetreatmentforphiladelphiachromosomepositiveacutelymphoblasticleukemiaamatchingadjustedindirectcomparison
AT rizzofederica ponatinibvsimatinibasfrontlinetreatmentforphiladelphiachromosomepositiveacutelymphoblasticleukemiaamatchingadjustedindirectcomparison
AT sabatellilorenzo ponatinibvsimatinibasfrontlinetreatmentforphiladelphiachromosomepositiveacutelymphoblasticleukemiaamatchingadjustedindirectcomparison
AT patospetros ponatinibvsimatinibasfrontlinetreatmentforphiladelphiachromosomepositiveacutelymphoblasticleukemiaamatchingadjustedindirectcomparison