Trial reportAdvances in therapy2025
Comparative Efficacy of Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel Versus Standard-of-Care Treatments for Patients with Previously Treated Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMatching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were performed to compare the efficacy of cilta-cel versus elotuzumab + pomalidomide + dexamethasone (EloPd), isatuximab + carfilzomib + dexamethasone (IsaKd), isatuximab + pomalidomide + dexamethasone (IsaPd), and selinexor + bortezomib + dexamethasone (SVd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior therapy and are lenalidomide-refractory.
methodsUnanchored MAICs were performed using individual patient-level data (IPD) for all apheresed patients randomized to the cilta-cel arm of CARTITUDE-4 (n = 208) and published arm-level data for EloPd from ELOQUENT-3 (n = 60), IsaKd from IKEMA (lenalidomide-refractory subgroup, n = 57), IsaPd from ICARIA-MM (n = 154), and SVd from BOSTON (lenalidomide-refractory subgroup, n = 53). Eligibility criteria from each comparator trial were applied to the cilta-cel arm IPD, and further imbalances in patient characteristics were adjusted by weighting the cilta-cel patient data to match the reported baseline characteristics of the comparator trials. Comparative efficacy was estimated for overall response rate, very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, complete response or better (≥ CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).
resultsAfter adjustment, cilta-cel patients were significantly more likely to achieve an overall response versus EloPd, IsaPd, and SVd, and were significantly more likely to achieve ≥ VGPR and ≥ CR versus all comparators. Cilta-cel patients also had significant reductions in the risk of disease progression or death (PFS) versus all comparators: 64% versus EloPd, 49% versus IsaKd, 69% versus IsaPd, and 62% versus SVd. Similarly, cilta-cel patients had significant improvements in OS for all feasible comparisons: 52% versus EloPd, 58% versus IsaPd, and 60% versus SVd.
conclusionCilta-cel patients demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits over EloPd, IsaKd, IsaPd, and SVd for response and survival outcomes, highlighting its superiority over alternative treatment options for patients with RRMM who have received at least one prior therapy and are refractory to lenalidomide.
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.