Pharmacokinetics and safety of carfilzomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and end-stage renal disease (ESRD): an open-label, single-arm, phase I study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pharmacokinetics (PK) of carfilzomib have been previously studied in multiple myeloma patients with varying degrees of renal impairment (normal, mild, moderate, severe, and end-stage renal disease [ESRD]) at doses of 15 and 20 mg/m 2 . This study evaluated carfilzomib PK at higher doses of 27 and 56 mg/m 2 in normal renal function and ESRD patients. Patients received carfilzomib on two consecutive days/week for 3 weeks every 28-day cycle: 20 mg/m 2 (cycle 1 day 1–2), escalated to 27 mg/m 2 on cycle 1 day 8; if tolerated, 56 mg/m 2 starting cycle 2 day 1. The primary objective was PK assessment with safety/tolerability and response rate as secondary and exploratory objectives, respectively. 26 patients were enrolled (15 normal, 11 ESRD). There was a trend toward higher area under the concentration time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration in ESRD versus normal renal function patients; however, high interpatient PK variability was discerned. Relative to patients with normal renal function, ESRD patients showed 33% higher AUC. Overall response rate was 43% for the normal renal function and 60% for the ESRD groups. Safety findings were generally similar between the two groups and consistent with the known safety profile of carfilzomib in multiple myeloma patients. There were no meaningful differences in PK between patients with normal renal function and ESRD in light of carfilzomib exposure–response relationships. These results continue to support dosing recommendation that no starting dose adjustment of carfilzomib appears warranted in patients with baseline renal impairment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".