Evaluation of Romiplostim In a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Study of a Japanese Population with Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 3704 Introduction: Chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by both increased platelet destruction and decreased platelet production. Romiplostim increases platelet counts by binding and activating the thrombopoietin receptor. Romiplostim has been approved for the treatment of adult ITP in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia. This study evaluated dosing, efficacy, and safety in a Japanese population of adults with ITP. Methods: This phase 3 study was placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized 2:1 (romiplostim:placebo). Patients were eligible for the study if they were Japanese patients with ITP diagnosed at least 6 months before the initial screening, were aged ≥ 20 years, and were H pylori negative or had received at least 1 treatment for H pylori eradication. Patients were stratified by splenectomy status (yes or no). After a 3-week evaluation period, patients were treated for 12 weeks with a weekly subcutaneous injection of either romiplostim or placebo. The starting dose was 3 mcg/kg with dose adjustments to a maximum of 10 mcg/kg to achieve a platelet count within the target range of ≥ 50 to ≤ 200 × 109/L. Patients were monitored posttreatment until their platelet count dropped to ≤ 50 × 109/L or for a maximum of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was number of weeks with platelet response (platelet count ≥ 50 × 109/L). Results: Thirty-four patients enrolled (22 romiplostim, 12 placebo), 24 (71%) were female, the median (range) age was 55 (44 - 64) years, and the median (range) baseline platelet count was 19 (3 – 32) × 109/L. Patients had received a median of 4 (1 – 19) prior ITP therapies, and 15 (44%) had previously undergone a splenectomy; 23 (68%) patients were receiving concurrent ITP therapy at baseline. All patients completed the study. Romiplostim demonstrated superiority to placebo on weekly platelet response, incidence of increase in platelet count ≥ 20 × 109/L from baseline, change from baseline in mean of last 4 platelet counts during week 2 to week 13, and number of weeks with platelet counts within the target range (Table 1), and 16 (73%) romiplostim patients had platelet counts ≥ 200 × 109/L. Twenty-one (95%) patients in the romiplostim group had a platelet response with a median time of 1 week until first response. Results for weekly platelet response were comparable irrespective of splenectomy status and baseline concurrent ITP therapy. Two (17%) patients in the placebo group achieved a platelet response. In romiplostim-treated patients, posttreatment platelet counts remained > 50 × 109/L for 8 weeks in one and for 12 weeks in another. The mean weekly dose of romiplostim for the study was 2.6 mcg/kg compared with the dose range of 3–4 mcg/kg in prior phase 3 studies (Kuter et al. Lancet. 2008;371:395–403). There was a low incidence of rescue medication use in the study (Table 1). The adverse events profile was comparable to that seen in non-Japanese studies. Patients in both treatment groups experienced similar proportions of adverse events (91% romiplostim, 92% placebo). Adverse events with > 10% higher frequency in the romiplostim group than placebo group) were (romiplostim, placebo) nasopharyngitis (41%, 17%), headache (32%, 17%), peripheral edema (18%, 0%), back pain (14%, 0%), and pain in extremity (14%, 0%). Significant (≥ grade 3) bleeding events occurred in 1 patient in the romiplostim group (subarachnoid hemorrhage) and 1 patient in the placebo group (subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage). There were no adverse events of bone marrow reticulin, thrombosis, or detection of neutralizing antibodies. Conclusion: Romiplostim significantly increased and maintained platelet counts and was well-tolerated in a Japanese ITP population. Disclosures: Tomiyama: Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co.: Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau. Kurokawa:Novartis: Consultancy; Shionogi & Co., Ltd.: Consultancy. Wei:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lizambri:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".