MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Phase 1 Open Label, Dose Escalation Study of Nilotinib in Steroid Dependent/Refractory Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease

2011· article· en· W2560387080 on OpenAlexaff
George L. Chen, Paul A. Carpenter, Raewyn Broady, Tara B. Gregory, Sally Arai, Laura Johnston, Mary E.D. Flowers, Jan H. Beumer, Jodie Mendolsohn, Xin Zhou, Spenser Perloff, Joanne Otani, David B. Miklos

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNilotinibMedicinePrednisoneAdverse effectRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineTyrosine-kinase inhibitorPharmacologyDosingImatinibCorticosteroidGastroenterologyUrologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1986 Imatinib is clinically active in cGvHD. Nilotinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targets the same receptors as imatinib but with different affinities. These targets and their IC50s are: DDR1 3.7 nM, DDR2 5.2 nM, ABL 25 nM, PDGFRA 53 nM, KIT 158 nM, and NQO2 1800 nM. We hypothesized that nilotinib is safe, tolerable, and clinically efficacious in cGvHD. We present preliminary safety and pharmacokinetic data from a phase 1 trial of nilotinib for steroid dependent/refractory cGvHD. Methods. All subjects had extensive steroid dependent/refractory cGVHD treated previously with ≥ 2 agents. Previous treatment with imatinib was allowed. Steroid refractory was defined as progressive cGVHD despite prednisone ≥ 0.5 mg/kg/d for ≥ 1 month; steroid dependence was cGVHD requiring prednisone ≥0.25 mg/kg/d for ≥ 3 months. This was a dose escalation trial with 4 sequential dose levels: 200 mg daily, 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg daily, and 400 mg twice daily followed by a dose extension phase at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Enrollment followed a standard 3+3 design. Steroids and two other immunosuppressants were allowed. Steroids were tapered as tolerated and other immunosuppressant dosing remained constant. Safety was determined by the observation of adverse events graded according to CTCAE v. 4.0 criteria. Trough plasma nilotinib concentrations were determined by HPLC before the daytime day 8 dose. Results. Median age was 49 years (range 23–75). Mean time to study enrollment from transplant was 3.3 years (range 1.7–7.8) and from cGVHD diagnosis 2.9 years (range 0.4–6.6). Sixteen subjects have been enrolled and 14 are evaluable. The median follow-up is 4.5 months (range 0.1–8.0). The MTD was reached at 200 mg daily. The maximum administered dose (MAD) was 200 mg twice daily. The dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were grade 3 Pneumocystis pneumonia and grade 3 asymptomatic lipase elevation. Grade 2–3 adverse events possibly/probably attributed to nilotinib are shown below; no grade 4–5 adverse events attributed to nilotinib have occurred to date. Median trough plasma concentration of nilotinib 1 week after drug initiation at the MTD was 997 nM (range 661–1380, n=3) and at the MAD was 3110 nM (range 1210–4200, n=3). Trough nilotinib concentrations were higher at the MAD and were associated with DLT occurrence. Conclusions. 200 mg daily is the MTD in the cGvHD population. Safety and clinical effect at the MTD is being evaluated in an ongoing 35 subject extension study. The MTD results in a trough plasma concentration that may be adequate to inhibit the nilotinib receptor targets except for NQO2. Confirmatory pharmacodynamic studies are planned. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Nilotinib for treatment of chronic graft versus host disease.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207