MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Demographics, Baseline Characteristics, and Disease Symptom Burden in RESPONSE-2: A Randomized, Phase 3 Study of Ruxolitinib in Polycythemia Vera Patients (pts) Who Are Resistant to or Intolerant of Hydroxyurea (HU)

2015· article· en· W2521639558 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Passamonti, Martin Grießhammer, Michèle Cavo, Miklós Egyed, Giulia Benevolo, Timothy Devos, Jeannie Callum, Alessandro M. Vannucchi, Serdar Şıvgın, Caroline Bensasson, Md Mahmudul Hasan Khan, Nadjat Mounedji, Güray Saydam

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRuxolitinibInternal medicinePolycythemia veraPhlebotomyMyeloproliferative neoplasmThrombocytosisQuality of life (healthcare)AnemiaGastroenterologyMyelofibrosisBone marrowPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by increased red cell mass often associated with elevated leukocyte and platelet counts, splenomegaly and significant symptom burden. In the RESPONSE study, which only enrolled PV patients with splenomegaly, ruxolitinib (Rux) demonstrated superior improvements in hematocrit (HCT) control and reductions in spleen volume compared with best available therapy (BAT) in pts who were resistant to or intolerant of HU. Supportive data included clinically meaningful improvements in PV-related symptom burden and quality of life (QOL) measures. Here, we describe the baseline (BL) characteristics and symptom burden of PV pts resistant to or intolerant of HU enrolled in the RESPONSE-2 study, which unlike RESPONSE, enrolled PV patients with a nonpalpable spleen. METHODS: RESPONSE-2 is an open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of Rux vs BAT in PV pts who are HU-resistant/-intolerant, require phlebotomy (PBT), and have no palpable spleen. Pts' BL symptom burden, BL QOL and BL pt-reported outcomes (PRO) were assessed by using 10-items modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MPN-SAF TSS), the Pruritus Symptom Impact Scale (PSIS), European QOL Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Polycythemia Vera V2.0 (WPAI: PV). RESULTS: A total of 149 pts were enrolled. BL demographic data from both arms combined are summarized in the Table. Forty percent of the patients were resistant whereas 60% were intolerant of HU treatment. Other than HU, prior treatments included interferons (15.4%), alkylating agents (8.1%), alkyl sulfonates (2.7%), pyrimidine analogs (0.7%), and other antineoplastic agents (1.0%). Ninety-seven percent of pts had at least 1 PBT within 16 weeks (wks) prior to screening and 72% had ≥ 2 PBT within 24 wks prior to screening. Past medical histories included hypertension (49%), pruritus (23%) and fatigue (9%). BL demographics of pts in RESPONSE-2 were generally comparable with previous PV studies (Table). Despite using frequent phlebotomy and cytoreductive agents during the screening period prior to randomization, 55% and 52% of pts had WBC counts greater than 10 × 109/L and platelet counts greater than 400 × 109/L, respectively, suggesting inadequately controlled disease even while receiving therapy. Additionally, pts had significant symptom burden at BL as measured by the MPN-SAF with fatigue (3.6) and pruritus (3.4) (Table). As measured by EQ-5D-5L scale, 26% and 19% of pts reported moderate to extreme pain/discomfort and depression, respectively. In WPAI outcomes, 40 of 149 pts reported missing work due to PV accounting for 14.3% of their working time. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: Demographic and BL data from the RESPONSE-2 study highlight the significant unmet medical need in this inadequately controlled HU-resistant/-intolerant PV population. As expected, pts in RESPONSE-2 reported lower scores for symptoms associated with splenomegaly (early satiety, 1.8 vs 2.0; abdominal discomfort, 1.7 vs 2.0) as compared with RESPONSE population. In comparison to PV pts with splenomegaly in the RESPONSE trial, pts without splenomegaly in the RESPONSE-2 trial have a distinct but comparable disease burden with marked fatigue and pruritus. Table 1. Baseline demographics and symptoms (n = 149) Age, median (range), years 66.0 (26.0, 87.0) Time since diagnosis of PV, median, months 80.7 Male, % 57.7 Female, % 42.3 ECOG performance status, % 0 1 72.5 26.8 Hematocrit (%), median,(n=149) 43.0 n (%) < 40 ≥ 40 to ≤ 45 > 45 2 (1.3) 146 (98.0) 1 (0.7) WBC count (x 109/L), median (n=149) 10.6 n (%) ≤ 10 > 10 and ≤ 15 > 15 67 (45.0) 43 (28.9) 39 (26.2) PLT count (x 109/L), median (n=148) 420.0 n (%) < 100 ≥ 100 and < 400 ≥ 400 to < 600 ≥ 600 2 (1.3) 68 (45.6) 38 (25.5) 40 (26.8) JAK2 mutation, n (%) (n=149) Positive Negative Unknown 143 (96.0) 4 (2.7) 2 (1.3) MPN-SAF Symptom (n) Mean (SD) Total score (n=145) 2.0 (1.67) Fatigue (n=146) 3.6 (2.72) Early satiety (n=145) 1.8 (2.47) Abdominal discomfort (n=143) 1.7 (2.44) Inactivity (n=142) 2.1 (2.77) Concentration problem (n=146) 2.3 (2.75) Night sweats (n=145) 2.2 (3.07) Pruritus (n=145) 3.4 (3.37) Bone pain (n=144) 2.1 (2.89) Fever (n=144) 0.2 (0.92) Weight loss (n=142) 0.7 (1.72) Disclosures Passamonti: Novartis: Consultancy. Cavo:JANSSEN, CELGENE, AMGEN: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bensasson:Novartis: Employment. Khan:Novartis: Employment. Mounedji: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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
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 designRandomized 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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