MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405047635 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-203274

Improvements in Hematological Parameters and Quality of Life (QOL) with Elritercept (KER-050): Results from an Ongoing Phase 2 Trial in Participants with Lower-Risk (LR) Myelodysplastic Neoplasms (MDS)

2024· article· en· W4405047635 sur OpenAlexaff
Aristoteles Giagounidis, Monteserrat Arnan, Lynette Chee, Thomas Cluzeau, María Díez‐Campelo, Devendra Hiwase, David M. Ross, Mikkael A. Sekeres, Shuhying Tan, David Valcárcel, Rena Buckstein, Bhavna Patel-Shah, Ming Yang, Ying Jiang, Jiani C. Yin, Suresh Bobba, Montagu Hankin, Chris Materna, Christine Graham, Sanjay Thamake, Christopher Rovaldi, Dena Grayson, Jen L. Salstrom

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemAnemiaMyelodysplastic syndromesQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicinePopulationPhysical therapyOncologyBone marrow

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: In LR-MDS, anemia and RBC transfusions contribute to impaired QoL, with fatigue being predominant. Improving anemia, transfusion burden, and symptoms are important treatment goals. Elritercept is an investigational, modified activin receptor type IIA ligand trap designed to inhibit activin A and other select TGF-β superfamily ligands (activin B, GDF 8 & 11) to address ineffective hematopoiesis. Results from an ongoing Phase 2 trial in LR-MDS have shown potential for elritercept to provide durable hematological improvement and benefits beyond treating anemia. Here, we show improvement in QoL in transfusion-dependent participants who achieved durable transfusion independence (TI) with elritercept treatment. Methods: This Phase 2 trial (NCT04419649) enrolled participants with International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised (IPSS-R) Very Low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS. Analyses included participants receiving the recommended Part 2 dose (3.75 up to 5 mg/kg, N=87) as of data cut off (DCO) of 03Apr2024. Rates of TI≥8 wks and ≥24 wks were analyzed over the first 24 and 48 wks of treatment in a modified intent-to-treat-24 (mITT24) population, including participants who received ≥2 RBC units in the 8 wks before treatment and received ≥24 wks of treatment or discontinued (N=63). Durability of TI was assessed using Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimation. QoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An; 47 item) at baseline and after approximately 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 wks of treatment. Domains of FACT-An including physical (7-item), functional (7-item), social (7-item), emotional (6-item) well-being, the anemia subscale (AnS, 20-item), and FACIT-Fatigue (13-item) were analyzed separately. Results: Among mITT24 TI-evaluable participants, 41.3% achieved TI≥8 wks in the first 24 wks of elritercept treatment, including participants with non-RS (ring sideroblasts) and/or high transfusion burden. Responses were durable, with 61.5% of TI≥8 wks participants maintaining TI as of the DCO, and the median duration of response was not reached. Additionally, 25.4% of evaluable mITT24 participants achieved TI≥24 wks over the first 48 wks of treatment, and among TI≥8 wks responders, the proportion who maintained TI≥24 wks was 61.5%. Improvements in QoL based on FACT-An total score were observed in TI responders vs non-responders and increased with greater duration of TI. At wk 24, mean increases in FACT-An total score were greater for TI≥24 wks (13.1, minimally clinically important difference [MCID] = 7) compared to TI≥8 wks responders (4.8) as was the separation vs non-responders (mean difference vs non-responders for TI≥8 and TI≥24 responders were 5 and 16.1 [>2-fold the MCID], respectively). Of the FACT-An domains, differences in AnS score, especially the FACIT-Fatigue component, were major drivers for improvements observed in TI≥24 wks vs TI≥8 wks responders. Baseline FACIT-Fatigue scores for TI≥8 / TI≥24 responders were 28.4 / 28.2 vs. non-responders 30.4 / 30.0 indicating similar level of fatigue in both populations. At wk 24, mean increases from baseline in fatigue score were greater for TI≥24 (6.6, MCID = 3) compared to TI≥8 wks responders (2.0), as was the separation vs non-responders (mean difference vs non responders for TI≥8 / TI≥24 responders = 3.2/ 9.4 [>3-fold the MCID]). FACIT-Fatigue scores improved over time in TI≥24 wk responders; mean increases of 2.9 were observed at wk 4 and reached 6.6 by wk 24. Similarly, the proportion of TI≥24 wk responders vs non-responders whose change in FACIT-Fatigue met the MCID was 54% vs 20% at wk 4, improving to 75% vs 16% at wk 24. Items driving observed improvements in FACIT-Fatigue score were related to both fatigue experience and fatigue impact. Summary: These findings support the potential for elritercept to produce durable TI that is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in QoL, thus addressing important goals in treating LR-MDS. Fatigue burden (both experience and impact) was a primary driver of the observed improvements in QoL in TI responders vs non-responders. Importantly, clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue scores were observed early and continued to improve over time in participants with more durable TI responses.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
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)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,357
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · 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'étudeEssai non 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

Citations1
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→