Table 5.

Comparison of OS and ORR for the JULIET ITT vs CORAL follow-up ITT populations

Method	N		Median (95% CI) OS, mo		HR (JULIET vs CORAL Follow up)
	JULIET	CORAL follow-up	JULIET	CORAL follow-up	Estimate (95% CI)	P
OS
Unadjusted analyses	166	205	8.25 (5.82, 11.70)	5.13 (3.88, 6.21)	0.65 (0.51, 0.83)	<.001*
Adjusted analyses†
FSW	163	205	8.25 (5.82, 12.42)	4.86 (3.52, 6.08)	0.60 (0.44, 0.77)	<.001*
SMRW	163	205	8.25 (5.82, 12.42)	4.04 (3.25, 5.75)	0.57 (0.44, 0.73)	<.001*

Method	N		ORR, (%)		Response rate difference (JULIET Main Cohort vs CORAL Follow-up)
	JULIET main cohort	CORAL follow-up	JULIET main cohort	CORAL follow-up	Estimate (95% CI)	P
ORR
Unadjusted analyses	146	205	37%	30%	0.07 (–0.03, 0.17)	.191
Adjusted analyses†
FSW	143	205	38%	29%	0.09 (–0.01, 0.20)	.097
SMRW	143	205	38%	27%	0.11 (0.00, 0.22)	.043*

^*P < .05.

^†Age at initial diagnosis, status of disease, time to 2L start after diagnosis, prior HCT, and number of relapses were included in the adjusted analysis.