A Ruxolitinib Individual Supply Program for Patients with Primary Myelofibrosis, Post-Polycythemia Vera Myelofibrosis, or Post-Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 5170 Background: There are currently no approved, effective drug therapies for myelofibrosis (MF). Ruxolitinib (INC424), a potent and selective oral JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, has recently demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved disease-related symptoms, role functioning, and quality of life in 2 phase 3 studies in patients with MF. Both studies met their primary endpoint of the proportion of patients with ≥35% reduction in spleen volume at 24 weeks (COMFORT-I) and at 48 weeks (COMFORT-II): 41.9% vs 0.7% (ruxolitinib vs placebo, P <.0001) and 28.5% vs 0% (ruxolitinib vs best available therapy, P <.0001), respectively. The most common grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs) were thrombocytopenia and anemia, which were manageable and rarely led to discontinuation (COMFORT-I: n=1 each; COMFORT-II: thrombocytopenia, n=1; anemia, n=0). Because of the limited available treatment options and medical need, ruxolitinib has been made available through an individual supply program (ISP) outside the United States. Methods: Patients with PMF, PPV-MF or PET-MF who are determined by their physicians to be in need of treatment are considered for eligibility, irrespective of JAK2 mutation status. As in the COMFORT studies, the starting dose of ruxolitinib is determined on the basis of baseline platelet count and can be adjusted for efficacy and safety. Dose changes during treatment are registered, and AEs and serious AEs (SAEs) are monitored throughout the study. Results: To date, 231 patients have been screened at more than 150 study sites in 28 countries, including Canada, Australia, and locations in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. The baseline characteristics for patients whose requests for access were approved/enrolled (n=200) and denied/pending (n=31) are shown below (Table). The patient characteristics are generally similar to those expected in the overall MF patient population. To date, the proportion of patients with the JAK2V617F mutation enrolled in this ISP (68.5%) is higher than that for the general MF population (50–60%) and may reflect the tendency of physicians to include more JAK2V617F-positive patients in the ISP, even though ruxolitinib has demonstrated comparable efficacy in both patient types (Verstovsek S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1117–1127). Thrombocytopenia and herpes zoster were each reported as an AE in 1 patient, and no SAEs have been reported. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib is currently the only drug to have completed phase 3 studies for the treatment of MF and has garnered a substantial number of requests for access through the individual supply program. Disclosures: Barosi: Novartis: Consultancy. Cervantes:Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Panagiotidis:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria. Perez:Novartis: Employment. Orlando-Harper:Novartis: Employment. Martin:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Willenbacher:Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AESCA: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ojeda:Novartis: Consultancy. Gisslinger:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Austria: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Aop-Orphan: Speakers Bureau. Knoops:Novartis: Consultancy.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
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 ».