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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: