Improved long-term tolerability with asciminib (ASC) vs investigator-selected (IS) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP): Week 96 exploratory analysis of the phase 3 ASC4FIRST trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Long-term CML treatment (Tx) requires assessing adverse event (AE) burden over time to optimize safety, tolerability, and efficacy. ASC4FIRST (NCT04971226) results demonstrated superior efficacy and favorable safety/tolerability of ASC vs IS-TKIs in newly diagnosed CML-CP. A prior report showed a lower risk of discontinuation due to AEs with ASC vs second-generation (2G) TKIs in a time to Tx discontinuation due to AEs (TTDAE) analysis (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.215-0.997), suggesting better tolerability with ASC. We report exploratory post hoc analyses, including an innovative analysis of AE-free days, further evaluating the tolerability of ASC vs IS-TKI (imatinib [IMA]/2G TKIs) by the wk 96 analysis cutoff (Oct 22, 2024). Methods Adults with newly diagnosed CML-CP were randomized 1:1 to receive ASC or IS-TKI (at label dose), stratified by ELTS risk category and prerandomization IS-TKI (IMA/2G TKIs). Dose modifications occurred per protocol for ASC and at investigator's discretion for IS-TKIs. All reported AEs occurred on Tx or ≤30 days after last dose. Exploratory tolerability analyses included frequency/grade/type of AEs; relative dose intensity; rate of dose adjustment, interruption, or discontinuation; percentage of AE-free days (number of days pt was on Tx without any-grade AEs divided by Tx duration in days, censored at the wk 96 visit; a value of 100% indicates no AEs were experienced on Tx); and pt-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PRO-CTCAE and FACIT GP5). Results Safety analyses included all pts who received Tx in IMA (ASCIMA [n=100]; IS-TKIIMA [n=99]) and 2G TKI (ASC2G [n=100]; IS-TKI2G [n=102]) strata. Median follow-up was similar across groups (ASCIMA [25.1 mo]; IS-TKIIMA [24.3 mo]; ASC2G [28.2 mo]; IS-TKI2G [27.7 mo]). More pts were continuing Tx at cutoff with ASCIMA (83.0%) vs IS-TKIIMA (52.5%) and ASC2G (81.0%) vs IS-TKI2G (69.6%). More pts had relative dose intensity of >90% with ASCIMA (86.0%) vs IS-TKIIMA (79.8%) and ASC2G (88.0%) vs IS-TKI2G (68.6%). The proportion of pts with dose reductions was lower with ASCIMA (n=19, 19.0%) vs IS-TKIIMA (n=23, 23.2%) and ASC2G (n=18, 18.0%) vs IS-TKI2G (n=56, 54.9%). A similar number of pts with ASCIMA (47.0%) vs IS-TKIIMA (47.5%) and fewer pts with ASC2G (46.0%) vs IS-TKI2G (63.7%) had dose interruptions for any reason (included AEs, dosing/dispensing error, physician/pt decision, and technical problems); interruptions due to AEs were fewer with ASC vs IS-TKIs (ASCIMA [33.0%] vs IS-TKIIMA [37.4%]; ASC2G [33.0%] vs IS-TKI2G [51.0%]). Less pts with ASC vs IS-TKIs had dose adjustment and/or interruption (ASCIMA [13.0%] vs IS-TKIIMA [18.2%]; ASC2G [14.0%] vs IS-TKI2G [31.4%]) and discontinuation (ASCIMA [3.0%] vs IS-TKIIMA [6.1%]; ASC2G [1.0%] vs IS-TKI2G [7.8%]) due to grade 1/2 nonhematologic AEs, most common (≥3%) being diarrhea, fatigue, COVID-19, nausea, and pleural effusion. A lower proportion of pts with ASC vs IS-TKIs discontinued due to grade ≥3 nonhematologic AEs (ASCIMA [2.0%] vs IS-TKIIMA [4.0%]; ASC2G [2.0%] vs IS-TKI2G [3.9%]). Dose adjustment and/or interruption due to grade ≥3 nonhematologic AEs occurred in 17.0% vs 8.1% of pts with ASCIMA vs IS-TKIIMA and 11.0% vs 17.6% with ASC2G vs IS-TKI2G. Pts with ASC vs IS-TKIs had a higher median percentage of AE-free days by wk 96 (ASCIMA [15.7%] vs IS-TKIIMA [3.5%]; ASC2G [22.6%] vs IS-TKI2G [4.3%]) and vs individual 2G TKIs (nilotinib [13.5%]; dasatinib [4.2%]; bosutinib [0.1%]) in this arm. Pts with ASC had a higher proportion of symptomatic (nonhematologic, nonlaboratory AEs) AE–free days (ASCIMA [31.2%] vs IS-TKIIMA [9.9%]; ASC2G [34.2%] vs IS-TKI2G [15.7%]; and vs individual 2G TKIs: nilotinib [30.3%]; dasatinib [8.5%]; bosutinib [0.1%]). When analyzing maximum scores in PRO-CTCAE reported from baseline to wk 96, symptoms reported with ASC vs IS-TKIs were generally less frequent and less severe, with a smaller impact on daily life. At wk 96, more pts reported being not at all bothered by Tx side effects with ASC vs IS-TKIs per FACIT GP5 (67.0% vs 46.1%). Conclusions Pts with ASC had more days free from AEs, especially symptomatic AEs, and reported a lower symptom burden. Effective relative dose intensity (>90%) was higher with ASC vs IS-TKIs, with generally fewer pts requiring dose reduction, interruption, or discontinuation. These results from ASC4FIRST further support ASC’sfavorable tolerability vs all current frontline TKIs.
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 | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».