MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916182471 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-111479

Updated Results from an Open-Label, Multicenter, Expanded Treatment Protocol (ETP) Phase (Ph) 3b Study of Ruxolitinib (RUX) in Patients (Pts) with Polycythemia Vera (PV) Who Were Hydroxyurea (HU) Resistant or Intolerant and for Whom No Alternative Treatment (Tx) Was Available

2018· article· en· W2916182471 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lynda Foltz, Gian-Matteo Pica, Hacène Zerazhi, Jan Van Droogenbroeck, Sorin Visanica, Enrique Báez de la Fuente, Brian Leber, António Almeida, Dana Ranta, Mauricio Reyes Cartes, Jean‐Jacques Kiladjian, Linda Chrit, Zhaoyu Yin, Juliane Morando, Timothy Devos

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationRuxolitinibPopulationInternal medicineClinical endpointGastroenterologySurgeryClinical trialPediatricsMyelofibrosisBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Few Tx options are available for pts with inadequately controlled PV. European LeukemiaNet defined resistance/intolerance was seen in ≈25% pts treated with HU (Alvarez-Larran et al, 2012). In the HU-resistant/intolerant PV pts evaluated in the pivotal RESPONSE study (week [wk] 208), RUX was well tolerated and superior to standard therapy in achieving durable hematocrit (HCT) control, hematologic response, and spleen size and symptom reductions. This Ph 3b ETP study was planned to provide RUX Tx to HU-resistant/intolerant PV pts, who have no alternative standard Tx, and are not eligible for any ongoing clinical studies. Results from wk 24 data cutoff of this study (Devos et al) were presented at ASH 2017. Here, we report consolidated findings from the ETP study at wk 96 data cutoff (Dec 29, 2017 [final database lock]) to further support the use of RUX in this pt population with an unmet medical need. METHODS RUX Tx was initiated at a starting dose of 10 mg bid (could be titrated to a maximum of 25 mg bid). Visits were scheduled every 4 wks until wk 24 and every 12 wks thereafter; final analysis was done when all pts had been followed for 30 days after discontinuation of Tx or completion of Tx per protocol (transitioned to commercial RUX or until Dec 31, 2017, whichever date occurred first). The primary endpoint was to assess the safety of RUX. Secondary endpoints included change in HCT level, change in spleen length, and pt-reported outcomes (change in MPN-SAF TSS score). HCT control at wk 24 was defined by absence of phlebotomy (PBT) eligibility starting at wk 8 and continuing through wk 24, with no more than 1 PBT eligibility occurring after first dose date and prior to wk 8. PBT eligibility was defined by confirmed HCT >45% (at least 3 percentage points higher than HCT at baseline [BL]), or confirmed HCT >48%. Blood count remission at wk 24 was defined by HCT control, and white blood cell count <10 × 109/L, and platelet count ≤400 × 109/L. RESULTS At data cutoff, 161 pts with PV were enrolled (BL characteristics similar to that presented at ASH 2017). End of Tx was reported for all 161 pts: Tx duration completed per protocol (141 pts), adverse event (AE [12 pts]), consent withdrawal (3 pts), pt decision (2 pts), disease progression (2 pts), and death (due to accident [1 pt]). The median exposure was 25.1 wks (range, 0.4-104.7), and median dose intensity of RUX was 20.0 mg/day (range, 6.7-47.7). AEs (regardless of study drug relationship) led to dose adjustment/interruption in 37.9% pts and study drug discontinuation in 8.7% pts. The most common hematologic AEs (rate=number of events per 100 pt-year exposure [pt-year exposure=110.2]; all grades]) included anemia (31.8) and thrombocytosis (10.0), while headache (24.5), diarrhea (14.5), constipation (12.7), and fatigue (12.7) were the most frequent non-hematologic AEs. For all reported grade 3/4 AEs, exposure-adjusted rate was less than 3. Thromboembolic events (all grade; Standardized MedDRA Query) were reported in 3 pts. Disease progression was reported in 4 pts (myelofibrosis=3 pts; acute myeloid leukemia=1 pt). The incidence of other neoplasms (regardless of study drug relationship) was low (leiomyoma, malignant melanoma, marginal zone lymphoma, renal cancer [1 pt each]; squamous cell carcinoma [2 pts]; basal cell carcinoma [3 pts]). Infections (all grades) were reported in 57 pts (grade 3/4 in 5 pts). At wk 24, 73 pts (45.3% [95% CI, 37.5%-53.4%]) achieved HCT control; hematologic remission was seen in 29 pts (18% [95% CI 12.4%-24.8%]). Changes in blood count parameters over time are shown in Fig. 1. In evaluable pts (N=105), use of PBT decreased from BL (39 PBTs between screening and BL) to end of Tx (5 PBTs in 12 wks prior). Best spleen response from BL for each pt by wk 96 is shown in Fig. 2. At least 50% spleen length reduction was seen in 86.7% (78/90) of pts from BL at any time in the study. Overall, 33.8% (46/136) of pts had ≥50% reduction in MPN-SAF TSS from BL at the end of Tx. CONCLUSION The observed safety profile of RUX in the ETP study was consistent with that of the RESPONSE studies. Efficacy results were close to the observed values in the RESPONSE studies. RUX Tx resulted in HCT control, hematologic remission, spleen response, and symptom reduction in this HU-resistant/intolerant pt population in need of a viable Tx option. Safety and efficacy findings from this ETP study support the use of RUX for pts with inadequately controlled PV, an unmet medical need. Disclosures Foltz: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Leber:Novartis Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de Almeida:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Ranta:Novartis: Consultancy. Cartes:Novartis: Honoraria. Kiladjian:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chrit:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yin:Novartis: Employment. Morando:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Devos:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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