MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2904119070 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-112125

Integrated Efficacy Results from the Phase II and Phase III Studies with Caplacizumab in Patients with Acquired Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura

2018· article· en· W2904119070 sur OpenAlexaff
Flora Peyvandi, Spero R. Cataland, Marie Scully, Paul Coppo, Paul Knöbl, Johanna A. Kremer Hovinga, Ara Metjian, Javier de la Rubia, Katerina Pavenski, Jessica Minkue, Filip Callewaert, Hilde De Winter

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueComplement system in diseases
Établissements canadiensSt. Michael's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyPopulationPlateletImmunosuppressionClinical endpointThrombotic thrombocytopenic purpuraThrombotic microangiopathyVon Willebrand factorExacerbationSurgeryImmunologyClinical trialDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction : Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (aTTP) is a rare, life-threatening thrombotic microangiopathy, in which accumulation of ultra large von Willebrand factor (ULvWF) multimers leads to an increased risk of thrombus formation in small blood vessels due to platelet adhesion. A combination of plasma exchange (PE) and immunosuppression is the current mainstay of treatment for aTTP. The efficacy of caplacizumab in aTTP patients, in conjunction with PE and immunosuppression, was demonstrated in both placebo-controlled Phase II TITAN study and Phase III HERCULES study. Herein, we present the results of the integrated efficacy analyses of both studies. Methods : All randomized patients in the TITAN and HERCULES studies were integrated and included in the analysis population. Patients had a single-blind (SB, TITAN) or a double-blind (DB, HERCULES) treatment period followed by a follow-up period of 30 days. Patients in the HERCULES study could enter an open-label treatment period (i.e., in case of exacerbation during the DB treatment period). The primary endpoint was time to platelet count response, analyzed according to the corresponding platelet count response definition for each individual study (Figure 1). Secondary endpoints included: (i) the proportion of patients with TTP-related death, a recurrence of TTP, or at least one treatment-emergent major thromboembolic event; (ii) the proportion of patients with a recurrence of TTP during the DB/SB treatment period and the overall study period; (iii) the proportion of patients with refractory TTP (defined as the absence of platelet count doubling after 4 days of standard treatment, and LDH above normal); (iv) mortality rate during the DB/SB treatment period and the overall study period; (v) the number of PE days during the DB/SB treatment period. Results : 220 patients were randomized in both studies, 108 to the caplacizumab group and 112 to the placebo group. The groups were balanced with respect to demographics and baseline disease characteristics except for an imbalance relating to a history of previous TTP episode (Table 1). There was a statistically significant difference in favor of caplacizumab in time to platelet count response (p <0.001; platelet count normalization rate ratio [95% CI] of 1.65 [1.24, 2.20]) (Figure 1, Table 2). Treatment with caplacizumab resulted in a 72.6% reduction in the percentage of patients with TTP-related death, a recurrence of TTP, or at least one treatment-emergent major thromboembolic event during the DB/SB treatment period compared to placebo (p <0.0001) (Table 2). Treatment with caplacizumab resulted in an 84.0% reduction in the percentage of patients who had a recurrence of TTP during the DB/SB treatment period (p <0.0001), and a 49.4% reduction in recurrences during the overall study period (p <0.005), compared to placebo (Table2). No patients in the caplacizumab group had refractory TTP during the DB/SB treatment period compared to 7 patients (6.3%) in the placebo group (p <0.01) (Table 2). There was a statistically significant lower rate of death in the caplacizumab group (no deaths) compared to the placebo group (4 deaths) during the DB/SB treatment period (p <0.05) (Table 2). During the overall study period, one patient randomized to caplacizumab died (during the treatment-free follow-up period, judged unrelated to caplacizumab by the Investigator), compared to 5 patients randomized to placebo (Table 2). During the overall treatment period, there was a reduction in the mean number of PE days of 3.9 days in the caplacizumab group compared to the placebo group (Table 2). Conclusions : This integrated efficacy analyses confirmed results from the individual Phase II and III studies showing that treatment with caplacizumab significantly reduces the time to platelet count response compared to treatment with placebo. In addition, treatment with caplacizumab was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant reductions in: (i) the proportion of patients with TTP-related death, a recurrence of TTP, or at least one treatment-emergent major thromboembolic event; (ii) the proportion of patients who died from TTP during the study drug treatment period; (iii) the proportion of patients with a recurrence of TTP during treatment and overall; (iv) the number of patients refractory to therapy; (v) the mean number of days of plasma exchange. Disclosures Peyvandi: Kedrion: Consultancy; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Octapharma US: Honoraria; Kedrion: Consultancy; Ablynx: Other: Member of Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Octapharma US: Honoraria; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Ablynx: Other: Member of Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Kedrion: Consultancy; Ablynx: Other: Member of Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Kedrion: Consultancy; Ablynx: Other: Member of Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Speakers Bureau; Octapharma US: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Speakers Bureau; Ablynx: Other: Member of Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Octapharma US: Honoraria; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Octapharma US: Honoraria; Kedrion: Consultancy. Cataland:Alexion: Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy; Ablynx: Consultancy, Other: Member of Advisory Board. Scully:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Member of Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Coppo:Ablynx: Consultancy. Knöbl:Ablynx: Consultancy, Other: Member of Advisory Board. Kremer Hovinga:Shire: Other: Member of Advisory Board, Research Funding; Ablynx: Other: Member of Advisory Board. Metjian:Ablynx: Other: Member of Advisory Board. De La Rubia:Ablynx: Consultancy, Other: Member of Advisory Board. Minkue:Ablynx: Employment. Callewaert:Ablynx: Employment. De Winter:Ablynx: 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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,425
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,701

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,289
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations5
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetComplement system in diseasesTravaux en français237 207