MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3213664447 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-148064

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Deferiprone: Subgroup Analysis of Pediatric Patients in Iron-Overloaded Patients with Sickle Cell Disease and Other Anemias

2021· article· en· W3213664447 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Mona Hamdy, Amal El‐Beshlawy, Fatma Soliman Elsayed Ebeid, Janet L. Kwiatkowski, Julie Kanter, Baba Inusa, Suzan Williams, David Lee, Noemi Toiber Temin, Caroline Fradette, Fernando Tricta, Mohsen Saleh Elalfy

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDeferiproneMedicineDeferoxamineClinical endpointAnemiaDeferasiroxThalassemiaRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectSubgroup analysisInternal medicineSickle cell anemiaClinical trialPediatricsDiseaseConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Children with sickle cell disease (SCD) who have their disease managed with frequent blood transfusions often require iron chelation therapy to prevent iron overload. Deferoxamine (DFO) is an iron chelator approved for pediatric use that is often administered via infusion; however, postmarketing research revealed that adherence to treatment in pediatric populations is a key challenge experienced by patients and caregivers due to the burdensome nature of the administration route. Deferiprone (DFP), an oral iron chelator, has recently been approved as a first-line treatment for transfusional iron overload in pediatric and adult patients with SCD and other anemias. We previously reported that DFP is noninferior to DFO in patients with SCD and iron overload (as assessed by liver iron concentration [LIC]) and has an acceptable safety profile. Here, we report a subgroup analysis of the FIRST (NCT02041299) study to assess whether the efficacy and safety of DFP are comparable to DFO in children with SCD. In this phase 4, multicenter, 2-arm, randomized, open-label study, eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive DFP or DFO for 12 months. The subgroup analysis included children (2-16 years of age) with SCD or another rare anemia who were treated for transfusional iron overload. Children received either DFP orally tid or DFO by subcutaneous infusion 5-7 days a week. Iron load was monitored during the trial and dosage adjustments were allowed when necessary. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in LIC from baseline to month 12, and data were analyzed for all patients who had a baseline and a follow-up LIC assessment (efficacy population). Absolute neutrophil counts were assessed weekly for the first 6 months, and then every 2 weeks until the end of the study. Additional safety assessments were done monthly with analysis including all patients who received at least 1 dose of the study drug (safety population). Statistical significance between DFP- and DFO-treated groups was calculated via t-test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for discrete variables. Of the 228 patients in the safety population, 128 (n=86 in DFP; n=42 in DFO) were children. Five children withdrew from the study due to adverse events (AEs) and 19 withdrew for other reasons. Most children in each treatment group (DFP, 75.6 %; DFO, 80.9%) had a primary diagnosis of SCD (HbS); the remainder had another form of anemia that required chronic transfusions. At the time of first exposure, mean ages (SD) in the DFP- and DFO-treated groups were 9.9 (3.7) years and 10.9 (3.0) (P=0.09), respectively. There were no significant differences between the DFP- and DFO-treatment groups in sex (males 59.3% vs 57.1%; P=0.85), ethnicity (P=0.68), or race (P=0.34). Children treated with DFP or DFO showed no significant differences in overall incidence of AEs (P=0.77) (including neutropenias (P=0.30)), severe AEs (P=0.10), serious AEs (P=0.16), or withdrawals due to an AE (P=0.17). However, a difference in the overall incidence of nonserious AEs considered at least possibly related to DFP treatment (59.3% vs 33.3%; P=0.01) was found. Table 1 shows the most common (≥5%) AEs in children by treatment group. The only individual AE for which the rate was significantly higher in the DFP group vs the DFO group was elevated liver enzymes (P=0.03), a known transient reaction to DFP that typically resolves with continued DFP therapy. In DFP-treated children, there were no AEs observed that had not been previously reported in other patient populations; 1 child developed agranulocytosis; and children <6 years of age treated with DFP demonstrated a comparable safety profile to that of older children (6-16 years of age) treated with DFP. In the efficacy population, after 12 months of treatment, there was no significant difference in the mean (SD) LIC change from baseline in children treated with DFP (n=78) compared to DFO (n=40) (-3.39 ± 4.24 mg/g vs -2.99 ± 3.16 mg/g, respectively; P=0.57). This subgroup analysis of children receiving chronic transfusion therapy for SCD or other anemias corroborates previous findings that treatment with DFP is comparable to DFO in reducing LIC. No new safety concerns were observed in children that have not been previously noted in other populations. Thus, the present findings may benefit children and their healthcare providers when considering effective iron chelation therapy that may also address treatment-adherence concerns. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hamdy: Amgen: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ApoPharma: Honoraria; NovoNordisk: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Kwiatkowski: Terumo BCT: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ApoPharma: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Silence Therapeutics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Imara: Other: Consultancy Fees; Bluebird Bio: Other: Consultancy Fees. Kanter: Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beam: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Graphite Bio: Consultancy; GuidePoint Global: Honoraria; Fulcrum Tx: Consultancy. Lee: Chiesi Canada Corp: Current Employment. Temin: Chiesi Canada Corp: Current Employment. Fradette: Chiesi Canada Corp: Current Employment. Tricta: Chiesi Canada Corp: Current 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 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)0,004
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 randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,014

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,004
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,197
Écart entre enseignants0,193 · 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 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
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersTravaux en français237 207