MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Expanded Access Program (EAP) for Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) Plus Dexamethasone in over 1400 Subjects with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

2006· article· en· W2979691426 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Chen, Donna Reece, David S. Siegel, Rubén Niesvizky, Ralph V. Boccia, Edward A. Stadtmauer, Rafat Abonour, David Irwin, Jonathan Polikoff, Shaji Kumar, Richard A. Gams, Laurie Kenvin, Dale McElveen, Angela Hu, Dennis Pietronigro, Robert Knight, Jerome B. Zeldis

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideMedicineMultiple myelomaDexamethasoneInternal medicineThalidomideInterim analysisData monitoring committeeExpanded accessNeutropeniaRefractory (planetary science)OncologySurgeryClinical trialToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid®) in combination with dexamethasone was approved in the US on June 29, 2006 for the treatment of subjects with multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior therapy. On February 28, 2005 based upon a positive interim analysis of two pivotal placebo-controlled Phase III studies, an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended the studies be unblinded and all subjects in both studies be given access to lenalidomide. In April 2005, the FDA in association with myeloma patient advocacy groups requested Celgene establish an expanded access program to make lenalidomide plus dexamethasone available to subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma while the treatment was awaiting approval. Aim: To provide lenalidomide to multiple myeloma subjects with a high likelihood of benefit and to obtain additional safety data. Methods: Subjects with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma that received at least 1 prior therapy were eligible. Subjects received 25 mg lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone in 4-week cycles until disease progression was documented, study drug was discontinued, or lenalidomide became commercially available for this indication. Results: Between September 8, 2005 and July 25, 2006, approximately 1400 subjects in the US and Canada were enrolled into the study. A data snapshot taken March 17, 2006 demonstrated that 746 subjects had been enrolled, median age was 63 years, 60% were male, and 66.5% had Stage III disease. Median time on study was 7.1 weeks (0.1–24.4) and median daily dose was 20.5 mg. At least one Grade 3 or 4 adverse event was reported in 261 (35%) of the 746 subjects. Most commonly reported Grade 3–4 events were neutropenia (7.9% of subjects), thrombocytopenia (6.0%), fatigue (3.6%), anemia (3.5%), pneumonia (3.1%) and hyperglycemia (2.0%). These most commonly reported Grade 3–4 adverse events were the same as those found in the previous pivotal studies, however, their frequencies of occurrence were lower in the current study probably due to ongoing data collection and differences in study maturity. Likewise, the most commonly reported adverse events (all grades) were the same as those reported in the two previous pivotal studies. Conclusion: Preliminary data from this expanded access program in over 1400 subjects with multiple myeloma are consistent with results from two earlier Phase III pivotal studies. The EAP of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in multiple myeloma represents a model of how government, advocacy groups, healthcare providers and industry can work together to quickly provide treatment to subjects in need while a clearly active treatment regimen is awaiting approval.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207