SynthesisClinical drug investigation2021
Comparative Effectiveness Research for CAR-T Therapies in Multiple Myeloma: Appropriate Comparisons Require Careful Considerations of Data Sources and Patient Populations.
Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Guardian Research Network: A Real-World Data Source for Pharmacoepidemiologic Research and Regulatory Applications.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- BCMA in Multiple Myeloma-A Promising Key to Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRegistrational trials for ciltacabtagene autoleucel [cilta-cel]) and idecabtagene vicleucel [ide-cel] chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies were single-arm studies conducted with relapse refractory multiple myeloma (MM) patients who were triple-class-exposed (TCE) or triple-class-refractory (TCR). It is critical for researchers conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER) to carefully consider the most appropriate data sources and comparable patient populations. The aim of this study was to identify potential data sources and populations for comparing to single-arm CAR-T trials CARTITUDE-1 (cilta-cel) and KarMMa (ide-cel).
methodsA 2-part global systematic literature search produced a review of (1) clinical trials of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline preferred regimens in previously treated MM, and (2) real-world data cohorts of TCE or TCR populations, published between 1/1/2015 and 12/10/2020, with sample sizes of > 50 patients and reporting survival-related outcomes. Implications on CER and accepted best practices are discussed.
resultsNine clinical trials of NCCN preferred regimens were identified along with five real-world data-based publications. No clinical trials evaluated patients with TCE or TCR MM. Among the real-world data-based publications, two evaluated patients exclusively with TCR MM, two analyzed a mixed population of patients with TCE or TCR MM, and one publication assessed patients exclusively with TCE MM. Real-world data treatment patterns were heterogeneous.
conclusionCurrent NCCN preferred regimens were not specifically studied in TCE or TCR MM patients, although some studies do include a proportion of these types of patients. Therefore, appropriate matching of populations using either real-world data or patient level clinical trial data is critical to putting trials of novel CAR-Ts (i.e., CARTITUDE-1 or KarMMa) into appropriate comparative context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.