The Medalist Trial: Results of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Luspatercept to Treat Anemia in Patients with Very Low-, Low-, or Intermediate-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) with Ring Sideroblasts (RS) Who Require Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: MDS is associated with an erythroid maturation defect, characterized by ineffective erythropoiesis leading to anemia and RBC transfusion dependence. Treatment of anemia in lower-risk MDS remains an unmet medical need. Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent which binds to select TGFβ superfamily ligands to reduce aberrant Smad2/3 signaling and enhance late-stage erythropoiesis (Suragani RN, et al. Nat Med. 2014;20:408-14). Preliminary clinical studies have shown promising activity in MDS (Platzbecker U, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2017;10:1338-47). We report the results of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of luspatercept in patients with anemia due to Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R)-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS who require RBC transfusions. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631070. Methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years; had IPSS-R-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS according to the WHO 2016 criteria; were refractory, intolerant, or ineligible to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs); and required RBC transfusions. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either luspatercept, at a starting dose level of 1.0 mg/kg with titration up to 1.75 mg/kg, if needed, or placebo, subcutaneously every 3 weeks for ≥ 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) for ≥ 8 weeks between week 1 and week 24. A key secondary endpoint was RBC-TI for ≥ 12 weeks between week 1 and 24. Achievement of modified hematologic improvement-erythroid (mHI-E) response using IWG 2006 criteria was also assessed. Results: † A total of 229 patients were randomized and treated. Median age was 71 years (range 26-95), median time from diagnosis was 41.8 months (range 3-421), and 62.9% were male. Overall, patient baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. Patients received a median of 5 RBC units (range 1-20) transfused over 8 weeks during the 16 weeks prior to treatment (43.2% of patients had ≥ 6 RBC units/8 weeks, 27.9% had ≥ 4 to < 6 RBC units/8 weeks, and 28.8% had < 4 RBC units/8 weeks). At baseline, 138 (60.3%), 58 (25.3%), and 32 (14.0%) patients had serum erythropoietin levels < 200 IU/L, 200-500 IU/L, and > 500 IU/L, respectively. A total of 218 (95.2%) patients had previously received ESAs. Overall, 206 (90.0%) patients had an SF3B1 mutation. Of 153 patients receiving luspatercept, 58 (37.9%) achieved the primary endpoint of RBC-TI for ≥ 8 weeks compared with 10 of 76 patients (13.2%) receiving placebo (odds ratio [OR] 5.1, P < 0.0001). Of those receiving luspatercept, 43 of 153 (28.1%) achieved the key secondary endpoint of RBC-TI for ≥ 12 weeks (weeks 1-24) compared with 6 of 76 (7.9%) receiving placebo (OR 5.1, P = 0.0002). Patients receiving luspatercept were more likely to achieve an mHI-E response, defined as a reduction in transfusion of ≥ 4 RBC units/8 weeks or a mean hemoglobin increase of ≥ 1.5 g/dL/8 weeks in the absence of transfusions, compared with patients receiving placebo (52.9% vs 11.8% during weeks 1-24; P < 0.0001). The safety profile of luspatercept was consistent with that reported in the phase 2 PACE-MDS study (Platzbecker U, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2017;10:1338-47). Conclusions: Treatment with luspatercept resulted in a significantly reduced transfusion burden compared with placebo in patients with anemia due to IPSS-R-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS, who require RBC transfusions, and was generally well tolerated. P.F. and U.P. contributed equally to this abstract as lead co-authors. R.S.K. and A.F.L. contributed equally to this abstract as senior co-authors. † As of May 8, 2018, cutoff date. Disclosures Fenaux: Otsuka: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Platzbecker:Celgene: Research Funding. Mufti:Celgene: Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Santini:Otsuka: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Díez-Campelo:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Finelli:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ilhan:Alexion: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Falantes:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Giai:Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Selleslag:Kiadis Pharma: Other: Financial support for study-related issues. Jurcic:Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Germing:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Götze:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel aid ASH 2017; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Quesnel:Celyad: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria. Beyne-Rauzy:Novartis: Research Funding. Cluzeau:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Menarini: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Voso:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zeidan:Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laadem:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Benzohra:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rampersad:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Linde:AbbVie: Equity Ownership; Abbott Laboratories: Equity Ownership; Fibrogen: Equity Ownership; Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sherman:Acceleron Pharma: Employment, Equity Ownership. Komrokji:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. List:Celgene: 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 | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 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 ».