MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2294247703 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.1859.1859

Safety and Efficacy of Ruxolitinib in Patients with Low Platelets Enrolled in a Phase 3b Expanded-Access Study in Myelofibrosis (MF)

2014· article· en· W2294247703 sur OpenAlexaff
Martin Grießhammer, Alessandro M. Vannucchi, Philipp le Coutre, Renato Tavares Daher, Haifa Kathrin Al‐Ali, Pia Raanani, Vikas Gupta, Lynda Foltz, Pilar Giraldo, Catherine Bouard, Julian Perez Ronco, Jagannath Ghosh, Bruno Martino

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRuxolitinibMedicineMyelofibrosisTolerabilityInternal medicineAdverse effectClinical trialPhases of clinical researchClinical endpointDiscontinuationPlaceboSurgeryBone marrowPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has demonstrated durable reductions in splenomegaly and MF-related symptoms and improved survival compared with placebo and best available therapy in the 2 large phase 3 COMFORT studies. Those studies required baseline platelet (PLT) counts ≥ 100 × 109/L, limiting safety and efficacy data in patients (pts) with lower PLTs; however, thrombocytopenia is frequent in MF. Ongoing phase 2 clinical trials in pts with low PLTs have shown ruxolitinib to be generally well tolerated and to provide efficacy benefits for these pts. To gather additional safety and efficacy data in pts with low PLTs, recruitment for JUMP (JAK Inhibitor Ruxolitinib in Myelofibrosis Patients), a phase 3b expanded-access trial for countries with no access to ruxolitinib outside a clinical trial, was extended to pts with baseline PLT counts ≥ 50 × 109/L. Here, we present safety and efficacy data from a planned interim analysis of ruxolitinib in pts with baseline PLT count ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L. METHODS: Eligible pts had high-, intermediate-2, or intermediate-1-risk MF, with a palpable spleen (≥ 5 cm from the costal margin) and baseline PLT counts ≥ 50 × 109/L. The starting doses of ruxolitinib was 5 mg bid for pts with baseline PLTs ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L. The primary endpoint was assessment of safety and tolerability of ruxolitinib based on the frequency, duration, and severity of adverse events (AEs). An interim analysis of the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in pts with PLTs ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L at baseline (low-PLT group) was planned for when the first 50 low-PLT pts had completed 6 mo of therapy; this analysis includes results from the first 6 mo of treatment. The final analysis will be performed after all pts have completed 24 mo of treatment or ended treatment due to commercial availability. RESULTS: At data cutoff (01 January 2014), 50 pts with low PLTs had been treated for 6 mo and are included in this analysis. Pt characteristics were median age, 68.5 years; median palpable spleen length, 15.5 cm below the costal margin; and female, 50.0%. Median (range) baseline hemoglobin (Hb) was 98 g/L (57-149 g/L) and PLT count was 87 × 109/L (68 to 98 × 109/L). Most pts (76.0%) remained on or completed treatment as per protocol at the time of data cutoff. The primary reasons for discontinuation included adverse events (AEs; n = 9) and disease progression (n = 2). The median daily dose was 11.8 mg/day (range, 5.9-40.0 mg/day). Of evaluable pts at week 24, 38.2% (13/34 pts) achieved a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in palpable spleen length; 38.2% had reductions of ≥ 25% to < 50%. Overall, 44.7% of pts achieved a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in spleen length at any time. Clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms, as assessed using the FACT-Lymphoma Total Score (the range for the minimally important difference is 6.5 to 11.2 points), were seen as early as week 4 (mean change from baseline, 8.2) and were durable through week 12 (9.6). The most common hematologic grade ≥ 3 AEs were anemia (28.0%) and thrombocytopenia (30%; 4% grade 4); 3 pts discontinued due to thrombocytopenia and 1 due to anemia. Four pts had grade 1/2 hemorrhages (1 conjunctival, 1 gastric, and 2 epistaxis) and 2 pts had grade 3/4 (1 intestinal and 1 esophageal varices). PLT counts decreased slightly from baseline (mean change at nadir, −5.9 × 109/L); 3 pts required PLT transfusions. The mean change from baseline to nadir in Hb was −13.4 g/L. Rates of nonhematologic grade ≥ 3 AEs were low overall (1 pt each), with the exception of pyrexia (6.0%), septic shock (4.0%), and arthralgia (4.0%); 44.0% of pts had ≥ 1 dose modification and 28.0% had ≥ 1 dose interruption. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of pts with low PLTs, ruxolitinib demonstrated an AE profile consistent with that previously reported in pts with normal PLTs. As compared to a previous analysis of pts with median baseline PLT counts of 248 × 109/L from this same study (Al-Ali et al. EHA 2014), pts in this low-PLT cohort experienced similar improvements in symptoms (mean change from baseline at week 12, 9.6 vs 11.8) but lower achievement of a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in spleen length within the first 24 weeks of treatment (44.7% vs 69%), likely due to the lower median daily dose (11.8 mg/day vs 36.8 and 24.0 mg/day for pts with starting doses of 20 and 15 mg bid, respectively). Taken together, these data suggest that low-dose ruxolitinib is generally safe and efficacious in pts with PLTs ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L. Disclosures Griesshammer: Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. le Coutre:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Al-Ali:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Foltz:Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Bouard:Novartis: Employment. Perez Ronco:Novartis: Employment. Ghosh:Novartis: Employment.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,284
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207