MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical benefit of luspatercept in patients (pts) with lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) and high transfusion burden in the phase III MEDALIST study.

2020· article· en· W3030843870 on OpenAlexaff
Amer M. Zeidan, Guillermo Garcia‐Manero, Amy E. DeZern, Pierre Fenaux, Peter L. Greenberg, Michael R. Savona, Joseph G. Jurcic, Amit Verma, Ghulam J. Mufti, Rena Buckstein, Valeria Santini, Abderrahmane Laadem, Jennie Zhang, Anita Rampersad, Daniel Sinsimer, Chrystal U. Louis, Peter G. Linde, Alan F. List, Mikkael A. Sekeres

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnemiaPopulationInternal medicineRandomizationPlaceboClinical trialMyelodysplastic syndromesRefractory (planetary science)Phases of clinical researchInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemSurgeryBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7554 Background: Anemic pts with LR-MDS and high baseline RBC transfusion burden (HTB) have very few treatment options and constitute a pt population with significant clinical unmet need. In this secondary analysis of the MEDALIST trial (NCT02631070), we sought to evaluate the clinical benefit of luspatercept in this pt population. Methods: MEDALIST is a randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of luspatercept in pts with anemia due to LR-MDS with ring sideroblasts (RS) (Fenaux & Platzbecker et al. NEJM. 2020;382:140-51). Pts were aged ≥ 18 years; had IPSS-R-defined Very low-, Low-, or Intermediate-risk MDS with RS; were refractory, intolerant, or unlikely to respond to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (serum erythropoietin > 200 U/L); and had anemia requiring regular RBC transfusions (≥ 2 units/8 weeks in the 16 weeks prior to randomization). 229 pts were randomized 2:1 to luspatercept (starting dose 1.0 mg/kg; titration up to 1.75 mg/kg allowed) or PBO subcutaneously every 3 weeks. HTB was defined as ≥ 6 RBC units transfused/8 weeks. Results: 153 pts were randomized to luspatercept and 76 to PBO. As of July 1, 2019, 23/66 (34.8%) and 12/66 (18.2%) HTB pts receiving luspatercept achieved a ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% reduction from baseline in RBC transfusion burden over ≥ 24 weeks, respectively, vs 3/33 (9.1%; P = 0.0063) and 1/33 (3.0%; P = 0.0363) pts receiving PBO. 6/66 (9.1%) luspatercept-treated HTB pts and 1/33 (3.0%) PBO-treated HTB pt achieved RBC-transfusion independence (TI) ≥ 8 weeks in Weeks 1–24 ( P = 0.2699). The median (range) time to achieve RBC-TI with luspatercept was 50.0 days (1.0–100.0) and median (range) duration of RBC-TI in the luspatercept arm was 42.6 weeks (8.4–81.1). Mean number of transfusion events in Weeks 1–24 was 9.2 in the luspatercept arm vs 12.4 in the PBO arm (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.794 [0.660–0.956]). 65/66 (98.5%) luspatercept- and 29/33 (87.9%) PBO-treated HTB pts reported ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 11/66 (16.7%) and 3/33 (9.1%) pts, respectively, reported ≥ 1 TEAE leading to discontinuation. 28/66 (42.4%) luspatercept- and 15/33 (45.5%) PBO-treated pts reported ≥ 1 serious AE. Incidence of grade 3–4 TEAEs in HTB pts was similar between arms (53.0% luspatercept vs 54.5% PBO). Conclusions: Luspatercept treatment resulted in clinically significant reductions in transfusion burden and reduced number of transfusion events in HTB pts with LR-MDS with RS, with an acceptable safety profile consistent with the overall population. Clinical trial information: NCT02631070 .

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designRandomized 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207