MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417021721 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-3795

The activin receptor-like kinase-2 inhibitor zilurgisertib (INCB000928) as monotherapy or with ruxolitinib in patients with anemia due to myelofibrosis: Phase 1/2 study final results

2025· article· en· W4417021721 sur OpenAlexaff
Prithviraj Bose, Stephen T. Oh, Anthony M. Hunter, Francesca Palandri, Haris Ali, Paola Guglielmelli, Vikas Gupta, Tomoki� Ito, Jean‐Jacques Kiladjian, Taizo Shimomura, Andrew Sochacki, Masahiro Takeuchi, Françoise Boyer, Jason Gotlib, Ellen K. Ritchie, Michael R. Savona, Yi Cui, Jill Lindsey Harrison, Betty Lamothe, Amanda McBride, Sanjay Mohan

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRuxolitinibMyelofibrosisAnemiaPharmacokineticsHepcidinPhases of clinical researchRegimenToxicity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Hepcidin dysregulation contributes to anemia of chronic inflammation observed in several malignancies, and hepcidin levels are elevated in myelofibrosis (MF). It has been proposed that activin receptor-like kinase-2 (ALK2 [ie, ACVR1]) contributes to MF-associated anemia via hepcidin upregulation and that ALK2 inhibition may improve anemia in patients (pts) with MF. Here we present final results from a phase 1/2 study evaluating ALK2 inhibition as a treatment approach for management of MF-related anemia, including safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the potent and selective oral ALK2 inhibitor zilurgisertib. Methods:This open-label, phase 1/2, dose-escalation/expansion study (INCB00928-104/NCT04455841) evaluated zilurgisertib alone (treatment group A [TGA]), as an add-on to the Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (TGB), or with ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor–naive pts (TGC). Eligible pts (≥18 years) had intermediate (Int)-1 (TGB, TGC) or Int-2/high-risk (all groups) MF and anemia, and they were transfusion-dependent (TD) or non–transfusion-dependent (NTD) with symptomatic anemia. In TGA, zilurgisertib monotherapy was evaluated at a 50-mg once-daily (qd) starting dose in escalation. In TGB, pts received a stable ruxolitinib regimen for ≥12 wk before initiating zilurgisertib at a 100-mg qd starting dose. In TGC, zilurgisertib and ruxolitinib were initiated concurrently at starting doses of 400 mg qd and 10 mg twice daily (bid), respectively. Ruxolitinib dose increases were permitted after the 28-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period. Zilurgisertib dose escalation was performed independently in each group, with ≤2-fold dose increases evaluated until identification of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended dose(s) for expansion. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, including DLTs and MTD. Secondary endpoints included PK, PD, and anemia response (defined as transfusion independence for any rolling 12-wk period for TD pts, and hemoglobin [Hb] increase ≥1.5 g/dL above baseline sustained for any rolling 12-wk period for NTD pts). Results: 84 pts were enrolled in dose escalation to TGA (n=32), TGB (n=38), or TGC (n=14). Median (range) age was 73.5 (53‒84) years for TGA, 74.5 (54‒85) for TGB, and 70.0 (60–82) for TGC. Baseline median (range) Hb (g/dL) was 7.9 (6.5–9.7), 8.1 (5.1–9.9), and 8.0 (6.1–9.4) for TGA, TGB, and TGC, respectively. The maximum zilurgisertib dose evaluated in each treatment group was 600 mg daily (administered as 600 mg qd or 300 mg bid); MTD was not reached. No pts in TGA or TGC experienced a DLT; 3 pts in TGB had DLTs (grade 1 gastrointestinal hemorrhage and epistaxis, n=1; grade 3 alveolar hemorrhage, n=1; grade 3 diarrhea, n=1). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred without apparent dose dependence, and <50% of pts in each group experienced serious TEAEs (TGA, n=11 [34.4%]; TGB, n=17 [44.7%]; TGC, n=5 [35.7%]). Fatal TEAEs occurred in 2 pts in TGA (death, n=1; sepsis, n=1) and 1 pt in TGB (sepsis, n=1). Hepcidin suppression following zilurgisertib dosing was observed in all 3 treatment groups, indicating target engagement; longitudinal PD hepcidin suppression was also observed. Among NTD pts included in the Wk 24 and 48 anemia response analysis (TGA, n=16; TGB, n=22; TGC, n=5), response occurred in 2 pts in TGA, 1 in TGB, and none in TGC at Wk 24 and 3 pts in TGA, 4 in TGB, and 1 in TGC at Wk 48. Among anemia response–evaluable TD pts (TGA, n=9; TGB, n=4; TGC, n=4), anemia response at Wk 24 was not achieved by any pt; 2 pts achieved response by Wk 48 (1 in TGB; 1 in TGC). Median values for the largest increase (g/dL) from baseline in mean Hb values over any rolling 12-wk treatment period through Wk 24 were 0.3, 0.4, and –0.03 for TGA, TGB, and TGC, respectively. Dose expansion was not initiated in any treatment group following analysis of anemia response rates in dose escalation.Conclusions:Zilurgisertib monotherapy or in combination with ruxolitinib had a favorable tolerability profile, with few DLTs and no apparent correlation between dose and TEAE frequency. However, despite evidence of on-target hepcidin suppression, zilurgisertib provided minimal improvements for anemia. These findings highlight the multifactorial nature of anemia in MF and suggest that selective inhibition of ALK2/ACVR1 may not be sufficient to effectively ameliorate MF-related anemia.

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)0,002
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 seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · 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 revueBloodMême sujetMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207