MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety and Efficacy of Ruxolitinib in Patients with Low Platelets Enrolled in a Phase 3b Expanded-Access Study in Myelofibrosis (MF)

2014· article· en· W2294247703 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Grießhammer, Alessandro M. Vannucchi, Philipp le Coutre, Renato Tavares Daher, Haifa Kathrin Al‐Ali, Pia Raanani, Vikas Gupta, Lynda Foltz, Pilar Giraldo, Catherine Bouard, Julian Perez Ronco, Jagannath Ghosh, Bruno Martino

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
KeywordsRuxolitinibMedicineMyelofibrosisTolerabilityInternal medicineAdverse effectClinical trialPhases of clinical researchClinical endpointDiscontinuationPlaceboSurgeryBone marrowPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has demonstrated durable reductions in splenomegaly and MF-related symptoms and improved survival compared with placebo and best available therapy in the 2 large phase 3 COMFORT studies. Those studies required baseline platelet (PLT) counts ≥ 100 × 109/L, limiting safety and efficacy data in patients (pts) with lower PLTs; however, thrombocytopenia is frequent in MF. Ongoing phase 2 clinical trials in pts with low PLTs have shown ruxolitinib to be generally well tolerated and to provide efficacy benefits for these pts. To gather additional safety and efficacy data in pts with low PLTs, recruitment for JUMP (JAK Inhibitor Ruxolitinib in Myelofibrosis Patients), a phase 3b expanded-access trial for countries with no access to ruxolitinib outside a clinical trial, was extended to pts with baseline PLT counts ≥ 50 × 109/L. Here, we present safety and efficacy data from a planned interim analysis of ruxolitinib in pts with baseline PLT count ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L. METHODS: Eligible pts had high-, intermediate-2, or intermediate-1-risk MF, with a palpable spleen (≥ 5 cm from the costal margin) and baseline PLT counts ≥ 50 × 109/L. The starting doses of ruxolitinib was 5 mg bid for pts with baseline PLTs ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L. The primary endpoint was assessment of safety and tolerability of ruxolitinib based on the frequency, duration, and severity of adverse events (AEs). An interim analysis of the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in pts with PLTs ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L at baseline (low-PLT group) was planned for when the first 50 low-PLT pts had completed 6 mo of therapy; this analysis includes results from the first 6 mo of treatment. The final analysis will be performed after all pts have completed 24 mo of treatment or ended treatment due to commercial availability. RESULTS: At data cutoff (01 January 2014), 50 pts with low PLTs had been treated for 6 mo and are included in this analysis. Pt characteristics were median age, 68.5 years; median palpable spleen length, 15.5 cm below the costal margin; and female, 50.0%. Median (range) baseline hemoglobin (Hb) was 98 g/L (57-149 g/L) and PLT count was 87 × 109/L (68 to 98 × 109/L). Most pts (76.0%) remained on or completed treatment as per protocol at the time of data cutoff. The primary reasons for discontinuation included adverse events (AEs; n = 9) and disease progression (n = 2). The median daily dose was 11.8 mg/day (range, 5.9-40.0 mg/day). Of evaluable pts at week 24, 38.2% (13/34 pts) achieved a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in palpable spleen length; 38.2% had reductions of ≥ 25% to < 50%. Overall, 44.7% of pts achieved a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in spleen length at any time. Clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms, as assessed using the FACT-Lymphoma Total Score (the range for the minimally important difference is 6.5 to 11.2 points), were seen as early as week 4 (mean change from baseline, 8.2) and were durable through week 12 (9.6). The most common hematologic grade ≥ 3 AEs were anemia (28.0%) and thrombocytopenia (30%; 4% grade 4); 3 pts discontinued due to thrombocytopenia and 1 due to anemia. Four pts had grade 1/2 hemorrhages (1 conjunctival, 1 gastric, and 2 epistaxis) and 2 pts had grade 3/4 (1 intestinal and 1 esophageal varices). PLT counts decreased slightly from baseline (mean change at nadir, −5.9 × 109/L); 3 pts required PLT transfusions. The mean change from baseline to nadir in Hb was −13.4 g/L. Rates of nonhematologic grade ≥ 3 AEs were low overall (1 pt each), with the exception of pyrexia (6.0%), septic shock (4.0%), and arthralgia (4.0%); 44.0% of pts had ≥ 1 dose modification and 28.0% had ≥ 1 dose interruption. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of pts with low PLTs, ruxolitinib demonstrated an AE profile consistent with that previously reported in pts with normal PLTs. As compared to a previous analysis of pts with median baseline PLT counts of 248 × 109/L from this same study (Al-Ali et al. EHA 2014), pts in this low-PLT cohort experienced similar improvements in symptoms (mean change from baseline at week 12, 9.6 vs 11.8) but lower achievement of a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in spleen length within the first 24 weeks of treatment (44.7% vs 69%), likely due to the lower median daily dose (11.8 mg/day vs 36.8 and 24.0 mg/day for pts with starting doses of 20 and 15 mg bid, respectively). Taken together, these data suggest that low-dose ruxolitinib is generally safe and efficacious in pts with PLTs ≥ 50 to < 100 × 109/L. Disclosures Griesshammer: Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. le Coutre:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria. Al-Ali:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Foltz:Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Bouard:Novartis: Employment. Perez Ronco:Novartis: Employment. Ghosh:Novartis: Employment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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