Comparison of CAR T-cell and bispecific antibody as third-line or later-line treatments for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis

Background CAR-T-cell therapy and bispecific antibody have revolutionized the treatment landscape for multiple myeloma. However, there is currently a lack of studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches. This meta-analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of B-cell maturation an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dan Liu, Liang Wang, Xiaojie Liang, Yufan Wang, Baiwei Luo, Bingyu Lin, WeiXiang Lu, Shengyu Tian
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2024-11-01
Series:Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
Online Access:https://jitc.bmj.com/content/12/11/e010064.full
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849326602960240640
author Dan Liu
Liang Wang
Xiaojie Liang
Yufan Wang
Baiwei Luo
Bingyu Lin
WeiXiang Lu
Shengyu Tian
author_facet Dan Liu
Liang Wang
Xiaojie Liang
Yufan Wang
Baiwei Luo
Bingyu Lin
WeiXiang Lu
Shengyu Tian
author_sort Dan Liu
collection DOAJ
description Background CAR-T-cell therapy and bispecific antibody have revolutionized the treatment landscape for multiple myeloma. However, there is currently a lack of studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches. This meta-analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed CAR-T-cell therapies and BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibodies as third-line or later interventions for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to May 31, 2024, identifying 11 eligible studies encompassing 1269 participants. Random-effects models evaluated the primary (complete response (CR) rate) and secondary (overall response rate (ORR)) outcomes, while meta-regression analyses adjusted for relevant covariates.Results CAR-T-cell therapy achieved significantly higher pooled CR rate (0.54 (95% CI 0.42–0.69) vs bispecific antibodies 0.35 (0.30–0.41), p<0.01) and pooled ORR (0.83 (0.76–0.90) vs 0.65 (0.59–0.71), p<0.01). However, CAR-T therapy had a higher incidence of adverse events, particularly cytokine release syndrome (CRS 0.83 (0.70–0.97) vs bispecific antibodies 0.59 (0.43–0.74), p<0.05). Severe CRS (grade ≥3) occurred at a rate of 0.07 (0.03–0.14) in the CAR-T cell group, contrasting with a negligible rate of 0.01 (0.00–0.02) in the bispecific antibody group (p<0.01). Hematologic adverse events, including neutropenia (grade ≥3; 0.88 (0.81–0.95) vs 0.48 (0.30–0.67), p<0.01) and anemia (grade≥3; 0.55 (0.47–0.62) vs 0.34 (0.28 to 0.40), p<0.01), were also more frequent in the CAR-T-cell group. Furthermore, differences in efficacy were observed among various CAR-T products, with ciltacabtagene autoleucel showing greater efficacy in CR rate (0.77 (0.71–0.84) vs 0.37 (0.32–0.41), p<0.01) and ORR (0.91 (0.83–0.99) vs 0.73 (0.68–0.77), p<0.01) compared with idecabtagene vicleucel.Conclusion CAR-T-cell therapy demonstrated superior CR rates compared with bispecific antibodies, although with an increase in severe adverse events.
format Article
id doaj-art-8da529ad02764449bb834280b7bd3154
institution Kabale University
issn 2051-1426
language English
publishDate 2024-11-01
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format Article
series Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
spelling doaj-art-8da529ad02764449bb834280b7bd31542025-08-20T03:48:06ZengBMJ Publishing GroupJournal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer2051-14262024-11-01121110.1136/jitc-2024-010064Comparison of CAR T-cell and bispecific antibody as third-line or later-line treatments for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysisDan Liu0Liang Wang1Xiaojie Liang2Yufan Wang3Baiwei Luo4Bingyu Lin5WeiXiang Lu6Shengyu Tian7Department of Radiology, Shunde Hospital of Southern Medical University, Foshan, Guangzhou, China1 Department of Hematology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China1 Department of Hematology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, ChinaPeking University Sixth Hospital, Beijing, China2 Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China2 Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China1 Department of Hematology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China1 Department of Hematology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, ChinaBackground CAR-T-cell therapy and bispecific antibody have revolutionized the treatment landscape for multiple myeloma. However, there is currently a lack of studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches. This meta-analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed CAR-T-cell therapies and BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibodies as third-line or later interventions for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to May 31, 2024, identifying 11 eligible studies encompassing 1269 participants. Random-effects models evaluated the primary (complete response (CR) rate) and secondary (overall response rate (ORR)) outcomes, while meta-regression analyses adjusted for relevant covariates.Results CAR-T-cell therapy achieved significantly higher pooled CR rate (0.54 (95% CI 0.42–0.69) vs bispecific antibodies 0.35 (0.30–0.41), p<0.01) and pooled ORR (0.83 (0.76–0.90) vs 0.65 (0.59–0.71), p<0.01). However, CAR-T therapy had a higher incidence of adverse events, particularly cytokine release syndrome (CRS 0.83 (0.70–0.97) vs bispecific antibodies 0.59 (0.43–0.74), p<0.05). Severe CRS (grade ≥3) occurred at a rate of 0.07 (0.03–0.14) in the CAR-T cell group, contrasting with a negligible rate of 0.01 (0.00–0.02) in the bispecific antibody group (p<0.01). Hematologic adverse events, including neutropenia (grade ≥3; 0.88 (0.81–0.95) vs 0.48 (0.30–0.67), p<0.01) and anemia (grade≥3; 0.55 (0.47–0.62) vs 0.34 (0.28 to 0.40), p<0.01), were also more frequent in the CAR-T-cell group. Furthermore, differences in efficacy were observed among various CAR-T products, with ciltacabtagene autoleucel showing greater efficacy in CR rate (0.77 (0.71–0.84) vs 0.37 (0.32–0.41), p<0.01) and ORR (0.91 (0.83–0.99) vs 0.73 (0.68–0.77), p<0.01) compared with idecabtagene vicleucel.Conclusion CAR-T-cell therapy demonstrated superior CR rates compared with bispecific antibodies, although with an increase in severe adverse events.https://jitc.bmj.com/content/12/11/e010064.full
spellingShingle Dan Liu
Liang Wang
Xiaojie Liang
Yufan Wang
Baiwei Luo
Bingyu Lin
WeiXiang Lu
Shengyu Tian
Comparison of CAR T-cell and bispecific antibody as third-line or later-line treatments for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
title Comparison of CAR T-cell and bispecific antibody as third-line or later-line treatments for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of CAR T-cell and bispecific antibody as third-line or later-line treatments for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of CAR T-cell and bispecific antibody as third-line or later-line treatments for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of CAR T-cell and bispecific antibody as third-line or later-line treatments for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of CAR T-cell and bispecific antibody as third-line or later-line treatments for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of car t cell and bispecific antibody as third line or later line treatments for multiple myeloma a meta analysis
url https://jitc.bmj.com/content/12/11/e010064.full
work_keys_str_mv AT danliu comparisonofcartcellandbispecificantibodyasthirdlineorlaterlinetreatmentsformultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT liangwang comparisonofcartcellandbispecificantibodyasthirdlineorlaterlinetreatmentsformultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT xiaojieliang comparisonofcartcellandbispecificantibodyasthirdlineorlaterlinetreatmentsformultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT yufanwang comparisonofcartcellandbispecificantibodyasthirdlineorlaterlinetreatmentsformultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT baiweiluo comparisonofcartcellandbispecificantibodyasthirdlineorlaterlinetreatmentsformultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT bingyulin comparisonofcartcellandbispecificantibodyasthirdlineorlaterlinetreatmentsformultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT weixianglu comparisonofcartcellandbispecificantibodyasthirdlineorlaterlinetreatmentsformultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT shengyutian comparisonofcartcellandbispecificantibodyasthirdlineorlaterlinetreatmentsformultiplemyelomaametaanalysis