MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310119573 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-157060

Assessing the Burden of Adverse Events in a Head-to-Head Trial of Acalabrutinib Versus Ibrutinib in Previously Treated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

2022· article· en· W4310119573 sur OpenAlexaff
John F. Seymour, John C. Byrd, Talha Munir, Paolo Ghia, Arnon P. Kater, Asher Chanan‐Khan, Richard R. Furman, Susan O’Brien, Jennifer R. Brown, Anthony R. Mato, Stephan Stilgenbauer, Thomas Fehn, Paulo Andre P. de Miranda, Kara Higgins, Ellie John, Marianne de Borja, Wojciech Jurczak, Jennifer A. Woyach

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensAstraZeneca (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineIbrutinibAdverse effectInternal medicineChronic lymphocytic leukemiaIncidence (geometry)Post-hoc analysisOncologyLeukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: In a previously reported phase 3 head-to-head trial of the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors acalabrutinib (Acala) and ibrutinib (Ibr) (NCT02477696), Acala demonstrated noninferiority to Ibr and an improved safety profile with statistically fewer atrial fibrillation/flutter (afib/flutter) events (9% vs 16%) and numerically fewer discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs; 15% vs 21%) vs Ibr in patients (pts) with previously treated CLL (Byrd et al. J Clin Oncol 2021;39:3441-52). To further characterize differences in the safety profile between Acala and Ibr, we conducted a post hoc analysis of AEs using a recently developed, novel statistical method (Ruppert et al. Leukemia 2021;35:2854-61), which considers measures not captured by incidence alone, such as event duration, recurrence, and grade weighting. Methods: Pts with previously treated CLL and del(17p) or del(11q) received oral Acala 100 mg twice daily or Ibr 420 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Any-grade AE incidence was reported overall and for AEs commonly associated with BTK inhibitors. An AE burden score was adapted from Ruppert et al and calculated as the sum of the products of the AE duration and AE severity grade (weight) recorded for each all-cause AE, divided by duration of the evaluable treatment-emergent period for each pt. Grade 1-4 AEs were weighted according to their CTCAE severity grades; grade 5 AEs were weighted as 10 to reflect the fatal outcome. Pts with no AE had a score of 0. Separate scores were calculated for grade 1-4 AEs and grade 1-5 AEs. Results: In total, 529 pts (Acala, n=266; Ibr, n=263) received study treatment; median number of prior therapies was 2 in both arms. Median total treatment exposures were 38.3 and 35.5 mo, respectively, at the September 15, 2020 data cutoff. While the frequency of experiencing any AE was similar between Acala (98%) and Ibr (97%), the overall AE burden score considering all AEs was higher for Ibr vs Acala, with (P=0.0006) or without (P=0.0016) grade 5 events included (Figure). The overall AE burden score was higher with Ibr vs Acala in certain pt subgroups, including age <65 y, age ≥65 y, and 1-3 prior therapies; there was no statistical difference among pts with ≥4 prior therapies (Figure). AE incidences and AE burden scores for events of clinical interest (ECIs) and selected AEs are shown in the Table. Among ECIs, the afib/flutter AE burden score P=0.0201and event incidence (P) were higher with Ibr than Acala. The AE burden score for cardiac events overall was numerically higher for Ibr vs Acala, even when including grade 5 events; the incidence rate was also numerically higher for Ibr. For hypertension and hemorrhage, AE burden scores (P<0.0001 and P=0.0007, respectively) and event incidences (P<0.0001 and P=0.0020, respectively) were higher with Ibr; no difference was observed for major hemorrhage. Neither the incidence nor AE burden score for infections was different between treatment arms. Among notable symptomatic AEs, the incidence and AE burden score of fatigue was similar between Acala and Ibr. Diarrhea was more frequent among Ibr-treated pts (P=0.0075); however, the AE burden score was higher with Acala (P=0.0114). Headache was more frequent with Acala (P=0.0002), with a higher AE burden score vs Ibr (P=0.0002). The AE burden score for musculoskeletal events was higher with Ibr (P=0.0229). Conclusions: The results of this novel analysis using methodology that incorporates event duration and severity weighting further support the superior tolerability of Acala compared with Ibr and confirm the safety differences that have been reported previously between the two drugs. The AE burden score was lower with Acala vs Ibr overall as well as for afib/flutter, hypertension, hemorrhage, and musculoskeletal events, while it was greater with Acala for diarrhea and headache. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
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: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,345
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
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 Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,370
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · 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

Citations2
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207