MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis of Varicella Zoster Virus Reactivation among Bortezomib-Treated Patients in the APEX Study.

2006· article· en· W2551131842 on OpenAlexaff
Asher Chanan‐Khan, Pieter Sonneveld, Michael W. Schuster, David Irwin, Edward A. Stadtmauer, Thierry Façon, Jean‐Luc Harousseau, Dina Ben‐Yehuda, Sagar Lonial, Hartmut Goldschmidt, Donna Reece, Rachel Neuwirth, Kenneth C. Anderson, Paul G. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBortezomibVaricella zoster virusIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineDexamethasoneAdverse effectProteasome inhibitorMultiple myelomaGastroenterologySurgeryImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Bortezomib (btz, VELCADE®), a selective and reversible proteasome inhibitor, is approved for the second-line treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). There is a tendency for reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV;herpes zoster) among patients (pts) receiving immunosuppressive agents for cancer. Rates of VZV reactivation during btz therapy in phase 2 studies were reported to be 11% in SUMMIT and 13% in CREST. To investigate whether btz increases the incidence of VZV reactivation, data were reviewed from the phase 3 APEX trial of btz vs high-dose dexamethasone (dex) in pts with relapsed MM following 1–3 prior therapies. METHODS: The APEX trial was described previously [Richardson et al. N Engl J Med2005;352:2487–98]. Use of prophylactic anti-virals and anti-bacterials was not mandated by this protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, including age, prior ASCT, β2-microglobulin, and disease stage, were comparable between the btz and dex arms. The incidence of VZV reactivation was significantly higher with btz vs dex (13% [42/331] vs 5% [15/332], respectively; p=0.0002). Most VZV reactivation events in both arms were grade 1/2. Notably, the incidence of grade 3/4 events was similar between the two arms (1.8% [6/331] vs 1.5% [5/332]), as was the rate for serious adverse events (1.5% [5/331] vs 0.9%, [3/332], respectively). The incidence of other opportunistic infections, including VZV, was comparable between the btz and dex arms; 23% vs 20%, respectively. There were no deaths due to VZV reactivation in either arm. Median time to onset of VZV reactivation tended to be shorter in the btz arm vs dex, though this was not statistically significant (31 vs 51 days; p=0.221). At first assessment post VZV reactivation event, median ALC was significantly lower in the btz vs dex arm (1050 vs 1750 cells/μL; p=0.028). However, immediately prior to the event, median ALC was similar between arms (1030 vs 1100 cells/μL; p=0.529). CONCLUSIONS: Btz was associated with a higher incidence of VZV reactivation events than dex. The reasons for this are unclear and require further study. Preliminary evidence from recent studies has shown that this adverse event of btz could be overcome with the use of prophylactic acyclovir [Mateos et al. Blood 2006; Epub ahead of print].

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments→French-language works237,207→