MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417019353 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-789

Luspatercept initiated at the maximum-approved dose in transfusion-dependent lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: Interim analysis from maxilus

2025· article· en· W4417019353 sur OpenAlexaff
Amer M. Zeidan, María Diez‐Campelo, Valeria Santini, Rena Buckstein, Lionel Adès, Lea Sahagun, Gitanjali Das, Tatiana Zelinsky, Yinzhi Lai, Dimana Miteva, Ali McBride, Jose Alberto Nadal, Krzysztof Mądry, David Valcárcel, José Miguel Torregrosa Diaz, Dries Deeren, Sebastian Grosicki, Sangeetha Venugopal, Uwe Platzbecker, Matteo Della Porta

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInterim analysisCohortAnemiaClinical endpointMyelodysplastic syndromesPopulationDiscontinuationHemoglobin

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Luspatercept is an erythroid-maturation agent approved to treat anemia in patients (pts) with transfusion-dependent (TD) lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) who are erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA)–naive or –exposed. Luspatercept improved red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence (RBC-TI) in pts in the COMMANDS and MEDALIST studies, with most pts titrating to the maximum-approved dose (1.75 mg/kg). This open-label, phase 3b MAXILUS study (NCT06045689) is being conducted to evaluate luspatercept initiated at the maximum-approved dose in pts with TD LR-MDS. Preliminary results indicated that luspatercept was well-tolerated, with no new safety signals observed and notable ease of administration. We report updated efficacy and safety outcomes from the preplanned interim analysis of the MAXILUS study, with >75% of the study population evaluable based on the 24-week treatment phase. Methods: Eligible pts with non-del(5q) LR-MDS (per IPSS-R) were ≥18 years of age, TD (required ≥1 unit of packed RBCs ≤8 weeks before treatment), and had an ECOG PS score ≤2. Pts were enrolled into cohort 1 (ESA-naive) or cohort 2 (ESA-relapsed/refractory or intolerant [R/R/I]) to receive subcutaneous luspatercept 1.75 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was RBC-TI ≥8 weeks, with a concurrent mean hemoglobin increase of ≥1.0 g/dL from Weeks 1 to 24. Secondary endpoints included RBC-TI ≥12 weeks (Weeks 1-24) and safety. The data cutoff was April 14, 2025. Results: At data cutoff, 105 pts (ESA-naive, n=52; ESA-R/R/I, n=53) composed the safety population of pts who received ≥1 dose of luspatercept. Median (IQR) duration of follow-up was 5.8 months (3.3-8.2) in the ESA-naive cohort and 7.4 months(5.6-9.2) in the ESA-R/R/I cohort. The median age was 76.0 years in both the ESA-naive and ESA-R/R/I cohorts, and 73.1% (38/52) and 90.6% (48/53) of pts were from Europe, respectively. SF3B1 mutation was present in 51.9% (27/52; ESA-naive) and 56.6% (30/53; ESA-R/R/I) of pts; 40.4% (21/52) and 39.6% (21/53) of pts had ring sideroblast (RS)-negative status; and 73.1% (38/52) and 43.4% (23/53) of pts had baseline serum erythropoietin (sEPO) ≤200 IU/L, respectively. ESA-naive pts: 86.5% of pts were on treatment at data cutoff; 13.5% discontinued treatment, primarily due to withdrawal by the pt (5.8%). Median (range) treatment duration was 25.5 weeks (2.1-50.0). There were 11.5% of pts who required ≥1 dose reduction; 36.5% had ≥1 dose delay. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 78.8% of pts; 19.2% were treatment-related. Grade 3/4 TEAEs occurred in 34.6% of pts; 3.8% were treatment-related. TEAEs leading to drug interruption occurred in 5.8% of pts. No thromboembolic events (TEEs) were observed, and no pts experienced disease progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS). Among pts who completed the 24-week efficacy-evaluable period at data cutoff (n=30), the primary endpoint was achieved in 73.3% of pts. RBC-TI ≥12 weeks was achieved in 70.0% of all pts, in 61.5% of pts with RS-negative status, and in 85.0% of pts with baseline sEPO ≤200 IU/L. ESA-R/R/I pts: 60.4% of pts were on treatment at data cutoff; 39.6% of pts discontinued treatment, primarily due to a lack of efficacy (13.2%). Median (range) treatment duration was 27.1 weeks (2.1-72.9). There were 13.2% of pts who required ≥1 dose reduction; 39.6% had ≥1 dose delay. TEAEs occurred in 92.5% of pts; 37.7% were treatment-related. Grade 3/4 TEAEs occurred in 47.2% of pts; 5.7% were treatment-related. TEAEs leading to drug interruption occurred in 17.0% of pts. No TEEs were observed, and no pts experienced disease progression to AML; 1 pt experienced disease progression to HR-MDS. Among pts who completed the 24-week efficacy-evaluable period at data cutoff (n=49), the primary endpoint was achieved in 65.3% of pts. RBC-TI ≥12 weeks was achieved in 49.0% of all pts, in 33.3% of pts with RS-negative status, and in 61.9% of pts with baseline sEPO ≤200 IU/L . Conclusions: Starting luspatercept at the maximum-approved dose of 1.75 mg/kg was well-tolerated, with no new safety signals. The high rate of RBC-TI ≥12 weeks in ESA-naive pts suggests that early use of luspatercept may contribute to clinical benefit. In this preplanned interim analysis, luspatercept demonstrated efficacy among pts with LR-MDS, including in those with RS-negative status and baseline sEPO ≤200 IU/L.

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
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 enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,028

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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 GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · 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
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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