MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Persistence with Generic Imatinib for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: A Matched Cohort Study

2017· article· en· W2969113056 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adi J. Klil‐Drori, Hui Yin, Laurent Azoulay, Alexa Del Corpo, Michaël Harnois, Michel‐Olivier Gratton, Lambert Busque, Sarit Assouline

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineDiscontinuationHazard ratioImatinibImatinib mesylateMyeloid leukemiaCohortProportional hazards modelConfidence intervalOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Generic imatinib (GI) has been approved for use in Canada and other countries based on bioequivalence. A high rate of GI discontinuation has been reported to be related to intolerance (Islamagic E, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2017;17:238) but no clinical studies have been conducted to determine whether GI is clinically comparable to branded imatinib (BI) for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). In Quebec, GI was approved and reimbursed in early 2013 and was mandated to replace BI for patients with public drug coverage later the same year. We compared persistence on GI to that on BI in a matched cohort study. Methods: Patients who started GI between 2013 and 2016 were selected from the Quebec CML registry. Each was matched with a BI user who had recorded use of BI at the same calendar date, had the closest duration of prior BI use and closest age. In both cohorts, patients who previously received therapy other than imatinib for their CML were excluded. Matched pairs were followed until switch in therapy, death, withdrawal of consent or end of study (31 December 2016). Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to evaluate persistence, defined as time until switch in therapy, between GI and BI users. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment discontinuation or switch with GI, comparing GI with BI, adjusting for sex, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and Charlson comorbidity index. Results: A total of 167 matched pairs were included; mean age (SD) and mean duration (SD) of prior BI therapy was similar between GI and BI users (57.2 (14.4) and 58.3 (13.4) years and 6.1 (4.2) and 5.7 (4.5), respectively). At 42 months, 72.8% (95% CI, 63.4.5%-81.7%) of GI users and 88.9% (95% CI, 82.8%-93.6%) of BI users persisted with their TKI (Figure, P= 0.03). Overall, GI use was associated with an increased risk of switch (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.18-3.86), compared with BI. In GI users, 36 patients switched therapy, 11 for suboptimal response (defined as loss of response, including loss of MMR or failure to achieve a milestone) and 25 for intolerance, which included 21 switching back to BI. Most (63.5%) of the switches occurred in the first year of GI use, and most for intolerance (66.7%, n=24). Of note, there were seven grade 3 adverse events in GI users (fatigue, weakness, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, muscle cramps). Among BI users, 17 patients switched for suboptimal response (n=8), and intolerance (n=9). Of note, in GI and BI users respectively, 13 and 4 patients stopped therapy in deep molecular response. Discussion: In this matched cohort study with close to 4 years of follow-up, GI users were twice more likely to stop their TKI than users of BI users, marking lower persistence. In most terminations of GI use, the patients reverted to BI, and intolerance was the main cause for TKI switch. Future studies are warranted to investigate the safety profile of GI. Disclosures Busque: Pfizer: Honoraria; Paladin: Honoraria; Bristol Myer Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis Canada Inc.: Honoraria. Assouline: Novartis Canada Inc.: Honoraria; Bristol Myer Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Paladin: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria.

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)0.003
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207