Initial Report of Part B Phase 1/2 Efficacy and Safety Results for Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Rilzabrutinib in Patients with Relapsed Immune Thrombocytopenia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Rilzabrutinib is a potent oral, reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can treat hematological autoimmune diseases through multiple putative mechanisms of action: (1) inhibition of B-cell activation, (2) interruption of antibody-coated cell phagocytosis by FcϒR in spleen and liver, and (3) induce sustained anti-inflammatory effects (Langrish J Immunol 2021). Preliminary evidence showed that rilzabrutinib treatment resulted in rapid and durable platelet responses with a favorable safety profile in previously treated patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) as studied in part A of a phase 1/2 clinical study (LUNA 2; Kuter N Engl J Med 2022). This abstract summarizes the results of part B that focused on the durability of response with rilzabrutinib in relapsed ITP patients. Methods: Part B of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of rilzabrutinib 400 mg bid in patients with relapsed ITP (NCT03395210). Adult patients aged 18-80 y were eligible with ≥2 baseline platelet counts <30x10 9/L no less than 7 days apart in the 15 days before the first dose. Eligible patients were required to have a past response (achievement of platelet count ≥50x10 9/L) to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg)/anti-D or corticosteroid (CS) that was not sustained and failed ≥1 other ITP therapy (that was not IVIg or CS). Stable doses of concomitant CS/thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RA) were allowed with rilzabrutinib. The primary endpoints for part B were safety and durable platelet response defined as platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L on ≥8 of the last 12 weeks of rilzabrutinib without rescue medication. Patients completing 24 weeks of rilzabrutinib with platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L or ≥30x10 9/L and doubling from baseline in ≥4 of the last 8 weeks of treatment without rescue medication could continue rilzabrutinib in the long-term extension (LTE) period. Results: At baseline, 26 enrolled patients had a median age of 57 y (range, 20-75), 62% were female, and median baseline platelet count was 13x10 9/L (range, 2-24x10 9/L). Patients had a median duration of ITP of 10.3 y (range, 0.7-48.2) and had received a median of 6 prior unique ITP therapies (range, 3-19; 46% splenectomy). Seventeen patients (65%) received concomitant non-rescue CS and/or TPO-RA. Nine patients (35%; 95% CI, 17%-56%) achieved the primary endpoint of durable platelet response. Approximately 25% of patients achieved platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L by day 15 of rilzabrutinib treatment (Figure 1A). In 16 patients who achieved platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L, median time to first platelet count ≥50x10 9/L was 15 days (range, 7-134). Median platelet counts for all patients (responders and non-responders) increased over time, exceeding the platelet count thresholds of 30x10 9/L at day 57 and 50x10 9/L at day 120 (Figure 1B). The mean number of weeks with platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L and/or ≥30x10 9/L and doubling from baseline was both 9.3 weeks (SD, 10.1). Three patients (12%) received rescue medication in the main treatment period. Fifteen patients (58%) completed 24 weeks of rilzabrutinib and 11 (42%) entered the LTE. Over the main treatment period, the median duration of treatment was 167 days (range, 7-169). Sixteen patients (62%) had ≥1 related treatment-emergent adverse event (AE), including 35% diarrhea, 23% headache, and 15% nausea. Most AEs were grade 1 or 2; there was 1 treatment-related AE of grade 3 blood creatinine phosphokinase increase. There was no treatment-related grade ≥2 bleeding/thrombotic events or infections, serious AEs, or deaths. Conclusion: Part B study results were consistent with part A. Rilzabrutinib demonstrated rapid, stable, and durable platelet responses in patients with relapsed ITP, with a favorable safety profile in part B.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».