MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2613487167 · doi:10.1182/blood.v130.suppl_1.14.14

Final Safety and Efficacy Data of Long-Term Open-Label Dosing of Subcutaneous (SC) Romiplostim in Children with Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP)

2016· article· en· W2613487167 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Michael D. Tarantino, James B. Bussel, Victor S. Blanchette, Donald Beam, John Roy, Jenny M. Despotovic, Ashok Raj, Nancy Carpenter, Bhakti Mehta, Melissa Eisen

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRomiplostimMedicineDosingAdverse effectClinical endpointPlaceboIncidence (geometry)SplenectomyIntention-to-treat analysisDiscontinuationSurgeryInternal medicinePediatricsThrombopoietinClinical trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Children with ITP for ≥6 months who completed a romiplostim phase 1/2 or phase 3 parent study could enroll in an open-label long-term extension study, data from which is presented here. Methods: Patients enrolled at 28 sites in the US, Canada, Spain, and Australia. All patients received SC romiplostim once weekly. The initial dose was the final dose from the parent study or 1 µg/kg for patients previously receiving placebo, adjusted from 1−10 µg/kg to target platelet counts of 50−200×109/L. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was the primary endpoint. Results: As of 24 Feb 2016, 66 patients entered the extension study; 65 received romiplostim for up to 6.2 years. At baseline, median (min-max) age was 11 (3-18) years; 56% were female; 61% were white, 14% African American, 14% Hispanic/Latino, 9% Asian, and 3% other; 9.1% had prior splenectomy. Median (min-max) baseline platelet count was 27.5 (2-458)×109/L. Median (min-max) treatment duration was 100 (5-321) weeks. Median (min-max) average weekly romiplostim dose was 4.8 (0.1-10.0) µg/kg, which included escalation to a stable dose; 19 patients started on 1 μg/kg. After ~week 200 (n ≤8 patients), the median dose was observed to fluctuate. All 65 patients received their doses per protocol >90% of the time; 18 patients missed ≥1 dose due to noncompliance for a total of 41 times. Reasons for discontinuing treatment (n = 22, 33%) included consent withdrawn (n = 8), required other therapy (n = 4), noncompliance (n = 3), administrative decision (n = 3), treatment no longer needed (n = 1), per protocol (n = 1), and AE (n = 2) (asthenia, headache, dehydration, and vomiting in one patient and anxiety in the other, per investigator, none of the AEs were treatment-related); 43 (65%) patients continued in the study. Fifty-two serious AEs occurred in 17 patients, 3 deemed treatment-related (anemia, epistaxis, and thrombocytopenia). Bleeding AEs occurred in 56 patients; 5 deemed treatment-related (gingival bleeding, petechiae, injection site bruising, injection site hematoma, and epistaxis). Bleeding AEs occurring in ≥10 patients included contusion (n = 30), epistaxis (n = 29), petechiae (n = 19), and gingival bleeding (n = 12). No thrombotic events were reported. There were no peripheral blood abnormalities to warrant a bone marrow examination. After sporadic platelet responses and negative antibody (Ab) results in the parent study, a patient left the extension due to a need for other therapies and was then identified to have anti-romiplostim neutralizing Ab which were not present on retesting 3 and 6 months later. No patients had anti-TPO neutralizing Ab. From week 2 on, median platelet counts remained >50×109/L; platelet counts were >100×109/L at most timepoints, despite an observed decrease in the median dose from 4-5 μg/kg to 2-3 μg/kg around week 160 (Figure). For 15 patients (23%), the first study week was the first week receiving romiplostim (previously these patients received placebo). Nearly all (94%, 61/65) patients had a platelet response (median platelet counts for a month ≥50×109/L); the mean (SD) % of months with a platelet response was 77% (33%). Most (72%, 47/65) patients had a platelet response ≥75% of the time and over half (58%, 38/65) of patients had a platelet response ≥90% of the time. Nine (14%) patients entered remission (Table), defined here as platelet counts ≥50×109/L for 24 weeks with no ITP treatments; these patients, 5 boys and 4 girls, none with prior splenectomy, had ITP for a median (min-max) of 5 (2-10) years and had received romiplostim for a median (min-max) of 1.6 (0.7-6.2) years. Fifty-eight (89%) patients (or caregivers) self-administered romiplostim. Twenty-three (35%) patients received rescue medications. Conclusion: Over 6 years of data from this ongoing open-label extension study of romiplostim in children with ITP show that >90% of children achieved a platelet response with romiplostim, most responding ≥75% of the time. The safety profile was overall tolerable, similar to that in past studies. Some children (9/66) with longstanding ITP entered remission after receiving romiplostim. Disclosures Bussel:Symphogen: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Physicians Education Resource: Speakers Bureau; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Cangene: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Eisai: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Protalex: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prophylix Pharma: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Momenta Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Sysmex: Research Funding; Shionogi: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ligand: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BiologicTx: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Tarantino:Biogen: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blanchette:Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Healthcare: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Baxter: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data safety monitoring boards , Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Other: Data safety monitoring boards . Wang:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mehta:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Eisen:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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 enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,300
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · 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

Citations2
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207