Efficacy Findings in a Phase 3, Randomized Trial of Eltrombopag Vs. Standard First-Line Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Immune Thrombocytopenia in Children
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: First-line treatments for patients (pts) with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and anti-D globulin. Eltrombopag (epag), a thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was FDA approved for children with chronic ITP in 2015. The efficacy of epag in the newly diagnosed phase of pediatric ITP is unknown. Methods: The Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed pts Epag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, NCT03939637, is an investigator-initiated, prospective, open label, randomized, multi-center trial sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America (ICON) and funded by Novartis. Pts ages 1-<18 with primary ITP, ≤3 months from diagnosis, with platelet count <30 x109/L who required pharmacologic treatment per the treating clinician were randomized 2:1, stratified by age and prior treatment status, to receive the experimental treatment, epag, or investigator's choice of one of 3 standard first-line therapies (SOC): prednisone, IVIg, or anti-D globulin at specified doses. The primary endpoint of ‘response’ was ≥3 of 4 platelet counts >50 x109/L during weeks 6-12 without rescue treatment. This intent-to-treat analysis includes data from all randomized pts for the first 12 weeks of the study. Secondary endpoint analyses include data from all evaluable pts who received at least 1 dose of assigned treatment. TheWHO Bleeding Scale and Modified Buchanan Scale (MBS) were used to assess bleeding severity. The parent-proxy reported KIDS ITP Tool (KIT) scores were used to measure health-related quality-of-life (QoL). A one-sided z-test, at alpha=0.025, tested the superiority of epag vs SOC for the primary endpoint. Two planned interim analyses utilized O'Brien-Fleming efficacy and futility monitoring boundaries. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test compared the proportion of pts with high bleeding scores (WHO ≥2 or MBS ≥3) between the two arms. A t-test compared the number of rescue therapies and the absolute change in KIT score between the two arms. Results: The epag arm had a statistically significant higher proportion of responders as compared to the SOC arm (p=0.0023; z-score=3.04) in the second planned interim analysis, crossing the monitoring boundary for efficacy for the primary endpoint. The primary endpoint of platelet response was achieved by 51/78 (65%) pts in the epag arm, compared with 13/40 (33%) pts in the SOC arm (p=0.0007). Trial accrual was closed early for efficacy per DSMB recommendation. Between May 2019 - January 2024, 122 pts were randomized across 23 institutions; 4 pts were subsequently deemed ineligible, and 118 were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (n=78 epag, n=40 SOC). Of the 118, 46 were aged 1-<6 years, 42 aged 6-<12 years, and 30 aged 12-<18 years. Forty-six pts received upfront treatment on the study, and 72 pts had treatment failure prior to enrollment. Median platelet count at enrollment was 4 x109/L (range 1 - 23) in the epag arm and 8 x109/L (1 - 28) in the SOC arm. Median WHO bleeding score at enrollment was 2 (range 0 - 3) and MBS was 3 (range 0 - 3) in the epag arm and 1 (0 - 3) and 2 (0 - 3), respectively, in the SOC arm. In the SOC arm, treatments prescribed were prednisone (n=29) and IVIg (n=11). The proportion of pts with a high bleeding score in the epag vs SOC arm was similar at weeks 1-4 and week 12. The proportion of pts who received rescue therapy was lower in the epag arm [15/78 (19%)] than the SOC arm [18/39 (46%)] (p=0.002). The mean absolute change from baseline in parent proxy-reported KIT overall scores in the epag arm vs SOC arm was 8.7 vs 10.1 at 1 week (p=0.45), 13.4 vs 10.7 at 4 weeks (p=0.24), and 15.6 vs 11.2 at 12 weeks (p=0.14), consistent with a clinically meaningful improvement in QoL at all time points in both arms. There were 20 AEs grade 3 or higher (including 6 SAEs) in the epag arm, and 6 (3 SAEs) in the SOC arm during the first 12 weeks. The most common AEs were headache (3 epag, 3 SOC) and epistaxis (1 epag, 2 SOC). Drug-related SAEs occurred in 6 pts (epag - 2 elevated LFTs, 2 headache (HA); SOC - 1 allergic reaction, 1 HA). There were no thromboembolic events. There was 1 intracranial hemorrhage in the epag arm. Enrolled pts are completing 12 months of follow up on the study per protocol. Conclusion: In pediatric pts with newly diagnosed ITP requiring pharmacologic treatment, epag leads to a significantly higher rate of a durable platelet response in the absence of rescue treatments as compared with standard first-line therapies.
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 | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 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 ».