MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3212299214 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-152561

Efficacy and Safety Results from Ascembl, a Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase 3 Study of Asciminib, a First-in-Class STAMP Inhibitor, Vs Bosutinib in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase after ≥2 Prior Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Update after 48 Weeks

2021· article· en· W3212299214 sur OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Mauro, Yosuke Minami, Delphine Réa, Andreas Hochhaus, Elza Lomaia, Sergey Voloshin, Anna Turkina, Dong‐Wook Kim, Jane F. Apperley, Jörge E. Cortes, André Abdo, Laura Fogliatto, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, Philipp D. le Coutre, Susanne Saußele, Mario Annunziata, Timothy P. Hughes, Naeem Chaudhri, Lynette Chee, Valentín García‐Gutiérrez, Koji Sasaki, S. S. Kapoor, Alex Allepuz, Sarah Quenet, Véronique Bédoucha, Carla Boquimpani

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBosutinibMedicineDiscontinuationTolerabilityInternal medicineAdverse effectNilotinibImatinib mesylateImatinibMyeloid leukemiaGastroenterologyOncology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Asciminib is the first BCR-ABL1 inhibitor that potently inhibits kinase activity of the BCR-ABL1 oncoprotein by Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP). The primary analysis from ASCEMBL, a randomized, phase 3 trial, demonstrated that asciminib has superior efficacy and a better safety and tolerability profile than bosutinib (BOS) in patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) after ≥2 prior ATP-binding tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The major molecular response (MMR) rate at wk 24 was 25.5% with asciminib vs 13.2% with BOS; the difference in MMR rates, after adjusting for major cytogenetic response status at baseline, was 12.2% (95% CI, 2.19-22.30; 2-sided P=.029). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 50.6% and 60.5% of pts receiving asciminib and BOS, respectively, and AEs leading to discontinuation in 5.8% and 21.1%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19.2 months (or 7.5 months' additional follow-up since the primary analysis), we report updated efficacy and safety results from ASCEMBL. METHODS: Adults with CML-CP treated with ≥2 prior TKIs were randomized 2:1 to asciminib 40 mg twice daily (BID) or BOS 500 mg once daily (QD). Eligible pts must have experienced treatment failure (lack of efficacy) per 2013 European LeukemiaNet recommendations for second-line TKI therapy or intolerance of the most recent TKI at screening. Pts intolerant of their most recent TKI were eligible only if they had BCR-ABL1 on the International Scale >0.1% at screening. Pts with known BOS-resistant T315I or V299L mutations were ineligible. The cutoff date for the current analysis was January 6, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 233 pts were randomized to receive either asciminib (n=157) or BOS (n=76). At cutoff, all randomized pts had completed their wk 48 visit or had discontinued earlier. Treatment was ongoing in 89 (56.7%) and 17 (22.4%) pts on asciminib and BOS, respectively; the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was lack of efficacy in 37 (23.6%) and 27 (35.5%) pts, respectively (Table 1). By wk 48, the cumulative incidence of MMR was 33.2% with asciminib and 18.6% with BOS, showing that the difference between the 2 treatment arms observed by wk 24 in the primary analysis was maintained with longer follow-up (Figure 1). The cumulative incidence of BCR-ABL1IS ≤1% by wk 48 in patients without this level of response at baseline was 50.8% with asciminib and 33.7% with BOS. The difference in deep molecular responses (MRs) favoring asciminib vs BOS persisted by wk 48: MR 4 (BCR-ABL1IS ≤0.01%) and MR 4.5 (BCR-ABL1IS ≤0.0032%) rates were 14.0% and 9.6% with asciminib and 6.6% and 2.6% with BOS, respectively. With a longer duration of exposure in the asciminib arm, the safety and tolerability profile in the current analysis remains similar to that at the primary analysis. Median duration of exposure was 67.1 wk (range, 0.1-162.1 wk) for asciminib and 29.7 wk (range, 1.0-149.3 wk) for BOS. By the cutoff date, 91.0% of pts on asciminib and 97.4% of pts on BOS reported ≥1 all-grade AE; 54.5% and 67.1% of pts, respectively, reported ≥1 grade ≥3 AE. No additional fatal events were reported since the primary analysis. Fewer pts in the asciminib (7.1%) than BOS (25.0%) arm experienced AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (Table 2). The most common AEs leading to treatment discontinuation included thrombocytopenia (3.2%) and neutropenia (2.6%) in the asciminib arm and increased alanine aminotransferase (5.3%) and neutropenia (3.9%) in the BOS arm. CONCLUSIONS: Resistant/intolerant CML-CP after 2 lines of TKI treatment remains BCR-ABL1 dependent. The novel STAMP inhibitor asciminib demonstrates continued superior efficacy and a limited adverse event profile; myelosuppression, while more prominent, appears to be early and disease related. Secondary resistance based on loss of MMR is rare. Overall, after a median follow-up of 19.2 months, the positive benefit-risk profile of asciminib vs BOS continues to support the use of asciminib as a new therapy in this heavily pretreated pt population. This study is sponsored by Novartis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mauro: Sun Pharma / SPARC: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Minami: Takeda: Honoraria; CMIC: Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria; Ono: Research Funding; Pfizer Japan Inc.: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma KK: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Honoraria. Rea: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hochhaus: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Lomaia: Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Pharmstandard: Honoraria. Voloshin: Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Biacad: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Turkina: Pharmstandart: Speakers Bureau; Novartis Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Kim: Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; ILYANG: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Apperley: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte, Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cortes: Sun Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, BioPath Holdings, Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bio-Path Holdings, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fogliatto: AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau. Kim: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Paladin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meier Squibb: Research Funding. le Coutre: Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Saussele: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hughes: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria. Chaudhri: Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Chee: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Garcia Gutierrez: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sasaki: Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kapoor: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Allepuz: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Quenet: Novartis: Current Employment. Bédoucha: Novartis: Current Employment. Boquimpani: Pinth Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
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 enseignants0,336
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,278
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · 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.

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

Citations19
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207