MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4379981910 · doi:10.1002/hon.3164_340

Ibrutinib (Ibr) dose modification for management of early cardiac adverse events in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Pooled analysis of 7 clinical trials

2023· article· en· W4379981910 sur OpenAlexaff
Alessandra Tedeschi, Inhye E. Ahn, Graeme Fraser, Richard Greil, Talha Munir, Neil E. Kay, Ian W. Flinn, Shane Lee, Chadi Saifan, Jeffrey D. Kearbey, Sandipkumar Patel, Jacqueline C. Barrientos

Notice bibliographique

RevueHematological Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesPharmacyclics
Mots-clésMedicineIbrutinibAdverse effectInternal medicineVenChronic lymphocytic leukemiaOncologyVenetoclaxGastroenterologyLeukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Sustained progression-free survival (PFS) has been demonstrated with continuous Ibr-based therapy and with time-limited treatment (tx) with the Ibr + venetoclax (Ven) combination in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Adverse events (AEs), including cardiac AEs, have been observed with all BTK inhibitors; for Ibr, they are more frequent in the first year of tx. Active management of AEs with dose reductions may facilitate continuation of Ibr tx and optimize outcomes. Methods: Pooled data from 1210 evaluable patients from the primary analyses of 7 clinical studies evaluating continuous single-agent Ibr (PCYC-1102 [n = 48]; PCYC-1112 [n = 195]; RESONATE-2 [n = 136]), continuous Ibr-based combination therapy (iLLUMINATE [n = 113]; HELIOS [n = 289]), or time-limited tx with Ibr + Ven (CAPTIVATE [n = 323]; GLOW [n = 106]) were analyzed to evaluate incidence of early cardiac AEs and outcomes of subsequent Ibr dose reductions (for any AE), both occurring within 12 months of Ibr-based tx initiation in patients with CLL/SLL. Cardiac AEs were identified using terms under the system organ class for cardiac disorders. AE recurrence (same or worse grade) was evaluated by preferred term and measured up to 30 days after last dose of Ibr or start of next-line therapy, whichever occurred first. Results: 212 patients had a cardiac AE; the majority were grade 1–2, with only 72 patients having a grade 3–4 cardiac AE. Of those, 52 (25%), 75 (35%), and 85 (40%) patients received single-agent Ibr, Ibr + anti-CD20, and Ibr + Ven, respectively. In total, 17/212 (8%) patients had dose reductions of Ibr (to 280 mg, n = 8; to 140 mg, n = 9); only 4 patients had a dose reduction specifically following a cardiac AE. Among these 17 patients, 3 (18%) received single-agent Ibr, 5 (29%) received Ibr + anti-CD20, and 9 (53%) received Ibr + Ven. Eight of 9 patients (89%) who received Ibr + Ven and had a dose reduction went on to complete tx. Patients with cardiac AEs with versus without dose reductions tended to be older (≥75 y: 29% vs. 19%), were less heavily pretreated (≥1 prior line of tx: 12% vs. 41%), had less bulky disease (29% vs. 42%), and had fewer cytogenetic abnormalities (del[17p]: 6% vs. 12%; del[11q]: 12% vs. 26%; mutated TP53: 0% vs. 9%; Table). Median follow-up was 21.8 and 16.0 months for patients with and without dose reductions, respectively. No patient with a dose reduction had recurrence of the same cardiac AE at the same or worse severity, both overall and as a serious AE (vs 22% and 11% in patients without dose reduction, respectively). No patient died due to recurrence of the same cardiac AE, regardless of dose reduction. PFS was not negatively impacted by dose reduction (n = 17; median PFS not reached, 24-month PFS: 94%). Conclusions: Dose reduction following early cardiac AEs may enable patients to continue benefiting from Ibr tx while mitigating risks for recurrence or worsening of cardiac AEs. The research was funded by: This research was funded by Pharmacyclics LLC, and AbbVie Company. Keyword: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract. A. Tedeschi Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen Other remuneration: Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen G. A. M. Fraser Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Janssen Honoraria: AbbVie, Janssen Research funding: Celgene, Janssen Other remuneration: Speakers bureau: Janssen, Lundbeck R. Greil Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda Stock ownership: Eli Lilly Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Sandor Research funding: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Sandor, and Takeda Other remuneration: travel/accommodations/expenses from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche T. Munir Consultant or advisory role: MorphoSys and Sunesis Honoraria: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, and Novartis Other remuneration: travel/accommodations/expenses from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen N. E. Kay Research funding: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, MEI, and Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie company I. W. Flinn Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Century Therapeutics, Genentech, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, Great Point Partners, Hutchison MediPharma, Iksuda Therapeutics, InnoCare Pharma, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, MorphoSys, Novartis, Nurix Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Unum Therapeutics, Verastem, Vincerx Pharma, Yingli Pharmaceuticals Research funding: AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Agios, ArQule, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Calithera Biosciences, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Curis, Forma Therapeutics, Forty Seven, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, IGM Biosciences, Incyte, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Loxo, Merck, MorphoSys, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Rhizen Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Teva, TG Therapeutics, Trillium Therapeutics, Triphase Research & Development Corp., Unum Therapeutics, Verastem S. Lee Employment or leadership position: AbbVie, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company, and Regeneron Stock ownership: AbbVie C. Saifan Employment or leadership position: AbbVie Stock ownership: AbbVie J. Kearbey Employment or leadership position: AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare Stock ownership: AbbVie, Merck, Eli Lilly Other remuneration: Patents/royalties: The Ohio State University S. Patel Employment or leadership position: AbbVie Stock ownership: AbbVie J. C. Barrientos Consultant or advisory role: BeiGene, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, MEI Honoraria: Janssen Research funding: Merck, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company, and Velosbio

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
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 Opus0,145
Tête enseignante GPT0,462
Écart entre enseignants0,317 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations3
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHematological OncologyMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207