MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4403597428 · doi:10.58931/cht.2022.1s0628

Safety and tolerability of Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of Waldenström macroglobulinemia

2022· article· en· W4403597428 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthea Peters

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Hematology Today · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTolerabilityMacroglobulinemiaWaldenstrom macroglobulinemiaBruton's tyrosine kinaseMedicineIbrutinibTyrosine kinaseInternal medicineCancer researchOncologyDermatologyPharmacologyAdverse effectLeukemiaLymphomaMultiple myelomaChronic lymphocytic leukemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is an indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) characterized by malignant B cells that produce IgM monoclonal protein. Like other indolent B-cell NHLs, treatment is indicated when patients are symptomatic with lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly or have detrimental cytopenias, but uniquely hyperviscosity and other complications related to gammopathy may present a need for treatment. Currently in Canada chemoimmunotherapy using bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is the favored therapeutic combination for treatment-naïve patients with WM due to a superior efficacy and toxicity profile compared to rituximab plus CHOP and a fixed duration schedule. The availability of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) have transformed the treatment landscape for patients with WM, particularly in the relapsed setting. Ibrutinib, a once-daily BTKi, was approved by Health Canada (HC) for WM in 2016 based on two non-randomized studies showing high response rates in heavily pretreated rituximab-refractory patients with sustained efficacy (86% progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months) and acceptable tolerability. Ibrutinib forms an irreversible covalent bond to the cysteine residue (C481) at the active binding site of BTK. Patients with mutated MYD88 (MYD88MUT), who represent over 90% of patients with WM, have a higher rate of response with ibrutinib than those without (MYD88WT). Aside from its impressive efficacy, its oral administration offers a major advantage in terms of convenience for patients and lower administrative costs for publicly funded health care systems such as in Canada. The toxicity of ibrutinib has become of greater concern with the ongoing emergence of trial data and real-world clinical experience with the drug. The indefinite duration of treatment results in extended exposure of a primarily elderly patient population to toxicities such as increased bleeding risk, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and infection. Discontinuation of ibrutinib due to adverse events occurs at a higher rate in the real-world compared to clinical trials and has been associated with an inferior overall survival in WM. Fortunately, several BTKis have recently emerged. Both acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib also bind irreversibly to BTK at C481, but both have more selectivity for targeting BTK than ibrutinib. Data has demonstrated that tighter and more selective binding of BTK does translate into fewer adverse effects for patients. The most informative study to date in this regard is the randomized phase 3 clinical trial comparing ibrutinib to zanubrutinib, the ASPEN study. ASPEN is the largest multicentre phase 3 trial to date randomizing 201 patients with MYD88MUT WM to receive ibrutinib at 420 mg daily (n=99) vs. zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily (n=102), with 37 patients being treatment-naïve and 164 being relapsed or refractory (R/R) with a median of 1 prior line of therapy (range 1-8). The median age at enrolment was 70 however more patients randomized to zanubrutinib than to ibrutinib were >75 years old (33% vs 22%, respectively). Although not statistically significant, a higher rate of complete response (CR)/very good partial response (VGPR) was observed for zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib (28% vs 19%, respectively). With a median follow up of 19.4 months the major response rates (77% vs. 78%) and PFS (85% vs. 84% at 18 months) were also not statistically different in patients receiving zanubrutinib vs. ibrutinib, respectively. However, zanubrutinib was associated with a trend towards less toxicity. In particular, the incidences of all grade atrial fibrillation, diarrhea, bruising, muscle spasms, peripheral edema, and pneumonia were over 10% higher among ibrutinib-treated patients. The incidence of neutropenia was higher for zanubrutinib-treated patients (> 10% difference), although grade ≥3 infection rates were similar in both arms (1.2 and 1.1 events per 100 person-months). Further, more ibrutinib-treated patients required dose reductions (23% vs. 14%) and discontinued treatment (9% vs. 4%) due to adverse events. An analysis of quality of life (QoL) instruments demonstrated a trend towards greater improvement in the zanubrutinib arm, particularly in the subgroup of patients who achieved VGPR. These QoL improvements were most notable in validated instrument subscales encompassing appetite, dyspnea, fatigue, physical functioning and role functioning. The ASPEN trial formed the basis for recent approval of zanubrutinib for WM by HC. Although provincial funding is not yet in place, clinicians in Quebec can access zanubrutinib through the Patient d’exception mechanism. As Canadian hematologists will be able to choose a BTKi for their patient with R/R WM, it is important to review the toxicities reported in trials. Toxicities of BTKis and their management will be discussed in this article.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,271
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · 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'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

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Hematology TodayMême sujetChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchTravaux en français237 207