Pharmacokinetics and safety of subcutaneous rituximab plus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of the phase Ib, two part SAWYER study (BO25341; NCT01292603) was to investigate the pharmacokinetics and safety of subcutaneous (s.c.) rituximab compared with intravenous (i.v.) rituximab, both in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC), as first line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). METHODS: During part 1 (dose-finding), CLL patients received rituximab i.v. followed by a single dose of rituximab s.c. at one of three fixed doses (1400, 1600 or 1870 mg) in cycle 6. The primary objective was to identify a fixed s.c. dose that would achieve comparable rituximab serum trough concentrations (Ctrough ) to those achieved with the standard 4 weekly 500 mg m(-2) rituximab i.v. dose. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients received a fixed dose of rituximab s.c., 16 received 1400 mg, 17 received 1600 mg and 22 received 1870 mg. The 1600 mg dose was predicted to achieve non-inferior Ctrough to standard rituximab i.v. TREATMENT: The rituximab s.c. safety profile was comparable with rituximab i.v., except that local administration-related reactions, mainly mild/moderate injection site reactions, occurred more frequently with rituximab s.c., which was not unexpected. Subcutaneous administration was preferred to i.v. administration by >90% of patients and nurses (n = 112). CONCLUSIONS: SAWYER part 1 data predict that rituximab s.c. 1600 mg will achieve non-inferior Ctrough concentrations to rituximab i.v. 500 mg m(-2) , administered 4 weekly. This fixed s.c. dose is currently undergoing formal non-inferiority assessment in SAWYER part 2. In future, CLL treatment regimens comprising rituximab s.c. and oral FC could substantially reduce i.v. chair time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".