MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety and Efficacy of Ruxolitinib Retreatment after Treatment Interruption in Patients Enrolled in an Open-Label, Multicenter, Expanded-Access Study in Myelofibrosis

2014· article· en· W137786602 on OpenAlexaff
Vikas Gupta, Renato Tavares Daher, Martin Grießhammer, Lynda Foltz, Pia Raanani, Pilar Giraldo, Haifa Kathrin Al‐Ali, Bruno Martino, Bayane Tannir, Julian Perez Ronco, Jagannath Ghosh, Alessandro M. Vannucchi

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuxolitinibMedicineMyelofibrosisTolerabilityAdverse effectInternal medicineDiscontinuationPlaceboPhases of clinical researchAnemiaSurgeryClinical trialGastroenterologyBone marrowPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has demonstrated durable reductions in splenomegaly and myelofibrosis (MF)-related symptoms. Additionally, ruxolitinib proved superior to placebo and best available therapy in the phase 3 COMFORT studies and showed improved survival. In some patients (pts) receiving ruxolitinib, adverse events (AEs) may lead to treatment interruption; in such pts, AE management, dose optimization, and efficacy expectations may be balanced. This analysis provides further information about the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in pts who have restarted treatment after treatment interruption (cutoff date, 01 January 2014) in the JUMP (JAK Inhibitor Ruxolitinib in Myelofibrosis Patients) trial, a large, phase 3b, expanded-access program. METHODS: Pts with MF classified as high risk, intermediate-2 risk, or intermediate-1 risk, with a palpable spleen (≥ 5 cm from the costal margin), received starting doses of ruxolitinib based on their platelet counts at baseline (5 mg twice daily [bid; ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L], 15 mg bid [100 to 200 × 109/L], or 20 mg bid [> 200 × 109/L]). Endpoints included safety and tolerability, as well as changes in spleen length, symptoms, and laboratory values. This analysis included all pts who started study treatment ≥ 1 year before data cutoff and had ≥ 1 dose interruption of ≥ 7 days. RESULTS: This analysis included 207 pts (primary MF, 68.1%; female, 53.1%; median age, 69 years) presenting with baseline medians: spleen length, 13 cm (range, 1.0-35.0 cm); hemoglobin, 99 g/L (50.7% of pts with < 100 g/L); and platelets, 199.5 × 109/L. At data cutoff, most pts (60.9%) remained on treatment (38.2%) or completed treatment per protocol (22.7%); the main reasons for discontinuation included AEs (18.4%), death (6.8%), disease progression (5.3%), and other (8.7%). Overall, the median duration of exposure was 12.5 months: 1.9 months from baseline to interruption and 6.5 months after restart. The mean daily dose was 30.5 mg prior to treatment interruption and 19.4 mg after treatment restart. Dose interruptions lasted 7 to 14 days in 41.1% of pts (15 to 21 days, 26.6%; > 21 days, 32.4%) and were mostly due to AEs (92.3%). Most pts (67.1%) had only 1 dose interruption. At weeks 12, 24, and 48, overall 45%, 53%, and 54% of pts, respectively, achieved a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in palpable spleen length. In addition, at the same time points, 29%, 23%, and 23% achieved reductions from 25% to 50%. 68.2% (133/195) of pts experienced a ≥ 50% reduction at any time; 77 pts (58%) achieved it before interruption and 56 pts (42%) after restart. From spleen length at restart, 24% of pts achieved a further 50% reduction, 9% experienced a spleen length increase ≥ 50%, and 67% remained stable in between. Clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms (the range for the minimally important difference is 6.5 to 11.2 points), as assessed by the FACT-Lymphoma Total Score, were observed as early as week 4 (mean change from baseline, 9.6), with a trend toward improvement at week 48 (6.1). The most common hematologic grade 3/4 AEs were anemia (43.5%) and thrombocytopenia (41.1%), leading to permanent discontinuations in 9 (4.4%) and 14 pts (6.8%), respectively. Rates of nonhematologic AEs grade ≥ 3 were low (≤ 2%), except for pneumonia (5.8%), abdominal pain (3.4%), urinary tract infection (3.4%), increased γ-glutamyltransferase (2.4%), asthenia (2.4%), and dyspnea (2.9%), but these rarely led to discontinuations (≤ 1%). Despite > 3-times longer exposure after restart, the rates of AEs before ruxolitinib interruption and after treatment restart were similar overall. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of pts, ruxolitinib provided reductions in spleen size and symptoms prior to and after treatment interruption. After restart of treatment, pts were able to stay on ruxolitinib at a median dose of ≈ 10 mg bid, and most pts did not require another interruption. Rates of AEs did not increase after treatment restart, with rates of some AEs decreasing; discontinuation rates after restart of treatment are comparable to those observed in the overall study population (Al-Ali et al. EHA 2014). Overall, ruxolitinib is generally safe and well tolerated and provides meaningful reductions in splenomegaly and symptoms in pts who have restarted ruxolitinib after treatment interruption. Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Griesshammer:Shire: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Foltz:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Al-Ali:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tannir:Novartis: Employment. Ronco:Novartis: Employment. Ghosh:Novartis: Employment. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207