不适合移植的大 B 细胞淋巴瘤二线使用 axicabtagene ciloleucel:ALYCANTE 最终分析
Second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel in large B-cell lymphoma ineligible for transplantation: ALYCANTE final analysis.
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:Evaluating the Role and Policy Implications of Using External Evidence in Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Therapy for Second-Line DLBCL.
Evaluating the Role and Policy Implications of Using External Evidence in Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Therapy for Second-Line DLBCL.
分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。
在纳入的 HTA 提交中,对外部证据的考虑有限。未来,建议制造商和 HTA 机构在推断生存率时更大程度地考虑外部证据,以确保适当且及时的 HTA 决策,从而最大限度地减少对医疗系统的不当负担。
血液肿瘤疗法的卫生技术评估(HTA)通常需要对试验随访期之外的长期生存进行外推。卫生技术评估机构必须在早期随访试验数据不确定性的谨慎态度与及时提供可及性之间取得平衡。本研究定性和定量评估了八家HTA机构如何考虑成熟中的数据和外部证据。
八项 HTA 评估基于 ZUMA-7,这是一项针对 axicabtagene ciloleucel(axi-cel)用于二线弥漫性大 B 细胞淋巴瘤的 III 期试验。ZUMA-7 生存数据提交时随访时间分别为 25 个月(“Interim”)或 47 个月(“Primary”)。为支持 axi-cel Interim 生存外推,可获得来自既往针对三线或更后线弥漫性大 B 细胞淋巴瘤的成熟单臂试验(ZUMA-1)的外部证据。对向 HTA 机构提交的八份不同材料进行了定性评估,以确定关键讨论点。使用价值 of information 方法量化了在 Interim 与 Primary 分析之间等待证据成熟的价值和成本,以评估等待进一步证据收集对人群健康的影响。
各机构在中期和主要分析中采用了不同的方法来处理生存外推中的不确定性。在中期提交阶段,没有机构完全考虑外部证据;一个机构部分使用外部证据来评估临床合理性;四个机构未予考虑。未考虑ZUMA-1相关性的卫生技术评估机构更倾向于等待更成熟的证据以减轻不确定性。当ZUMA-1有助于确定中期外推的合理范围时,更成熟的证据价值反而降低,等待主要分析结果的成本超过了其带来的价值。
Health technology assessment (HTA) of haemato-oncology therapies typically requires extrapolation of long-term survival beyond a trial's follow-up. Health technology assessment agencies must balance caution around uncertainty in early follow-up trial data whilst aiming to provide timely access. This study qualitatively and quantitatively assessed how eight HTA agencies considered maturing data and external evidence.
The eight HTA appraisals were based on ZUMA-7, a phase III trial for axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for second-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. ZUMA-7 survival data were submitted with either a 25-month ('Interim') or 47-month ('Primary') follow-up. To inform axi-cel Interim survival extrapolations, external evidence was available from a prior mature single-arm trial for third-line or later diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (ZUMA-1). A qualitative assessment of eight different submissions to HTA agencies was undertaken to determine key discussion points. The value and cost of waiting for evidence to mature between Interim and Primary analyses were quantified using value of information methods to evaluate the impact of waiting for further evidence collection on population health.
Agencies used varied approaches to account for uncertainty in survival extrapolations in both Interim and Primary analyses. No agency considered external evidence fully during Interim submissions; one used it partially to inform clinical plausibility; four did not consider it. Health technology assessment agencies that did not consider the relevance of ZUMA-1 were more inclined to wait for more mature evidence to mitigate uncertainty. When ZUMA-1 aided in determining a plausible range for Interim extrapolations, the less valuable more mature evidence became, with the cost of waiting for Primary analysis results exceeding the value conferred.
There was limited consideration of external evidence during the included HTA submissions. In the future, it is recommended that external evidence should be considered to a greater degree by both manufacturers and HTA agencies when extrapolating survival to ensure appropriate and timely HTA decisions that minimise the undue burden on healthcare systems.
在 PubMed 查看 → 出版商原文(DOI) 全文 PDF(PMC)· 可下载 治疗专题与资料阅读指南 资料来源与翻译说明 报告译文或资料问题 →
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。