Safety and Efficacy of Ruxolitinib Retreatment after Treatment Interruption in Patients Enrolled in an Open-Label, Multicenter, Expanded-Access Study in Myelofibrosis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has demonstrated durable reductions in splenomegaly and myelofibrosis (MF)-related symptoms. Additionally, ruxolitinib proved superior to placebo and best available therapy in the phase 3 COMFORT studies and showed improved survival. In some patients (pts) receiving ruxolitinib, adverse events (AEs) may lead to treatment interruption; in such pts, AE management, dose optimization, and efficacy expectations may be balanced. This analysis provides further information about the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in pts who have restarted treatment after treatment interruption (cutoff date, 01 January 2014) in the JUMP (JAK Inhibitor Ruxolitinib in Myelofibrosis Patients) trial, a large, phase 3b, expanded-access program. METHODS: Pts with MF classified as high risk, intermediate-2 risk, or intermediate-1 risk, with a palpable spleen (≥ 5 cm from the costal margin), received starting doses of ruxolitinib based on their platelet counts at baseline (5 mg twice daily [bid; ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L], 15 mg bid [100 to 200 × 109/L], or 20 mg bid [> 200 × 109/L]). Endpoints included safety and tolerability, as well as changes in spleen length, symptoms, and laboratory values. This analysis included all pts who started study treatment ≥ 1 year before data cutoff and had ≥ 1 dose interruption of ≥ 7 days. RESULTS: This analysis included 207 pts (primary MF, 68.1%; female, 53.1%; median age, 69 years) presenting with baseline medians: spleen length, 13 cm (range, 1.0-35.0 cm); hemoglobin, 99 g/L (50.7% of pts with < 100 g/L); and platelets, 199.5 × 109/L. At data cutoff, most pts (60.9%) remained on treatment (38.2%) or completed treatment per protocol (22.7%); the main reasons for discontinuation included AEs (18.4%), death (6.8%), disease progression (5.3%), and other (8.7%). Overall, the median duration of exposure was 12.5 months: 1.9 months from baseline to interruption and 6.5 months after restart. The mean daily dose was 30.5 mg prior to treatment interruption and 19.4 mg after treatment restart. Dose interruptions lasted 7 to 14 days in 41.1% of pts (15 to 21 days, 26.6%; > 21 days, 32.4%) and were mostly due to AEs (92.3%). Most pts (67.1%) had only 1 dose interruption. At weeks 12, 24, and 48, overall 45%, 53%, and 54% of pts, respectively, achieved a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in palpable spleen length. In addition, at the same time points, 29%, 23%, and 23% achieved reductions from 25% to 50%. 68.2% (133/195) of pts experienced a ≥ 50% reduction at any time; 77 pts (58%) achieved it before interruption and 56 pts (42%) after restart. From spleen length at restart, 24% of pts achieved a further 50% reduction, 9% experienced a spleen length increase ≥ 50%, and 67% remained stable in between. Clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms (the range for the minimally important difference is 6.5 to 11.2 points), as assessed by the FACT-Lymphoma Total Score, were observed as early as week 4 (mean change from baseline, 9.6), with a trend toward improvement at week 48 (6.1). The most common hematologic grade 3/4 AEs were anemia (43.5%) and thrombocytopenia (41.1%), leading to permanent discontinuations in 9 (4.4%) and 14 pts (6.8%), respectively. Rates of nonhematologic AEs grade ≥ 3 were low (≤ 2%), except for pneumonia (5.8%), abdominal pain (3.4%), urinary tract infection (3.4%), increased γ-glutamyltransferase (2.4%), asthenia (2.4%), and dyspnea (2.9%), but these rarely led to discontinuations (≤ 1%). Despite > 3-times longer exposure after restart, the rates of AEs before ruxolitinib interruption and after treatment restart were similar overall. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of pts, ruxolitinib provided reductions in spleen size and symptoms prior to and after treatment interruption. After restart of treatment, pts were able to stay on ruxolitinib at a median dose of ≈ 10 mg bid, and most pts did not require another interruption. Rates of AEs did not increase after treatment restart, with rates of some AEs decreasing; discontinuation rates after restart of treatment are comparable to those observed in the overall study population (Al-Ali et al. EHA 2014). Overall, ruxolitinib is generally safe and well tolerated and provides meaningful reductions in splenomegaly and symptoms in pts who have restarted ruxolitinib after treatment interruption. Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Griesshammer:Shire: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Foltz:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Al-Ali:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tannir:Novartis: Employment. Ronco:Novartis: Employment. Ghosh:Novartis: Employment. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».