MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417004462 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-738

End-of-study results from the ICON3 pines trial, a phase 3, randomized trial of eltrombopag vs. standard first-line treatment for newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia in children

2025· article· en· W4417004462 sur OpenAlexaff
Kristin A. Shimano, Amanda B. Grimes, Melissa J. Rose, Shipra Kaicker, Sanjay Shah, Michael Briones, Elizabeth Gunn, Taizo A. Nakano, Jeffrey D. Lebensburger, Michele P. Lambert, Stephanie FritchLilla, Rohith Jesudas, Cathy Lee‐Miller, Alexis A. Thompson, Rukhmi Bhat, Stacey Rifkin-Zenenberg, Suvankar Majumdar, Manpreet Kochhar, Shelley E. Crary, Kerry Hege, Jennifer Rothman, James B. Ford, Joshua J. Bies, Tung Wynn, Loan Hsieh, Maritza E. Ruiz, Bogdan Dinu, Julia MW Wong, Pei‐Chi Kao, Staci D. Arnold, Carolyn M. Bennett, Jenny M. Despotovic, Robert J. Klaassen, Ellis J. Neufeld, Cindy Neunert, Wendy B. London, Rachael F. Grace

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEltrombopagRituximabClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialRomiplostimImmune thrombocytopeniaIntention-to-treat analysisRandomization

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed patients Eltrombopag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, NCT03939637, was an investigator-initiated, prospective, open label, randomized, multi-center trial sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America (ICON) and funded by Novartis. Patients (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 to receive the experimental treatment, eltrombopag (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 platelet response endpoint within 12 weeks was achieved by 67% pts in the epag arm, compared with 35% pts in the SOC arm; the trial closed early for efficacy per DSMB recommendation (Shimano et al, ASH 2024). We now report secondary objectives from study completion. Methods: Pts were followed on study for 1 year. From weeks 13-52, pts randomized to epag could continue the study drug, with dosage weans per protocol. Pts in the SOC arm who had persistent ITP and those in the epag arm who had not responded could receive second-line therapies after week 12. Platelet counts were measured at 6 months and 1 year, as well as at monthly intervals for those remaining on epag. Complete response (CR) at 1 year was defined as platelet count ≥150 x109/L. Disease resolution at 1 year was defined as CR ≥3 months after discontinuing most recent platelet active medication, without having received rituximab or splenectomy. Pts were evaluable for secondary objectives if they received at least one dose of protocol therapy. Analyses were performed a) within the subgroup with known data at 1 year, and b) with last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) to address missing data. Results: 78 pts were randomized to epag and 40 to SOC therapy. 12 pts came off study early due to withdrawal of consent (4), lost to follow-up (6), or other (2). Median duration of therapy in the epag arm was 111 days (range 7-390). 27 (35%) pts in the epag arm vs 22 (56%) in the SOC arm did not require any treatment after week 12, p=0.02, and 43 (55%) vs 25 (64%) did not require any treatment after 6 months, p=0.35. The most commonly used subsequent agents were romiplostim, rituximab, and mycophenolate mofetil in pts randomized to epag, and epag and romiplostim for pts randomized to SOC. 106 pts completed the full 1-year study (73 [94%] for epag; 33 [83%] for SOC).18 pts (25%) in the epag arm remained on study drug at 1 year. 24/73 (33%) pts in the epag arm vs 11/33 (33%) pts in the SOC arm remained on platelet active medication at 1 year. Disease resolution by 1 year occurred in 50 (47%) pts overall, and in 33 (45%) epag pts vs 17 (52%) SOC pts, p=0.55, with similar results for CR and for LOCF analyses. Disease resolution at 1 year was no different among age groups [15/28 (54%) epag arm vs 7/11 (64%) SOC ages 1-<6; 11/26 (42%) vs 5/12 (42%) ages 6-<12; and 7/19 (37%) vs 5/10 (50%) ages 12-<18]. Disease resolution at 1 year occurred in 16/26 (62%) epag vs 10/13 (77%) SOC treatment-naïve pts who enrolled on the trial as upfront therapy. 33 (45%) pts in epag arm vs 15 (45%) in SOC arm had “primary remission,” defined as CR at 1 year with no second-line agents and ≥3 months after discontinuing most recent platelet active medication. 8 (11%) in epag arm vs 3 (9%) in SOC arm had “disease stability,” defined as platelets between 50-150 x109/L and were ≥3 months after discontinuing most recent platelet active medication. Sustained response off treatment (SROT, inclusive of those with disease resolution or disease stability) occurred in 41 (56%) in epag arm vs 20 (61%) in SOC. There were 14 adverse events (AEs) (including 4 serious AEs) during weeks 13-52 in 9 pts (6 epag, 3 SOC). Conclusions: In this population of pediatric pts with newly diagnosed ITP, 47% overall had disease resolution by 1 year, with no difference between treatment arms in 1-year response rates. SROT at 12 months was 56% in epag and 61% in SOC. Many pts on the epag arm were able to discontinue medication quickly, within a median of 4 months. Given these findings and the improved sustained platelet response to epag compared to SOC during weeks 6-12, epag should be considered for upfront and early use in pediatric pts with newly diagnosed ITP who require pharmacologic treatment in order to obtain a more stable platelet count.

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
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 randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,029

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,303 · 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 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

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→