Outcomes of Reduced Frequency Dosing of Ibrutinib in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Following Complete or Partial Remission: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib is a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown to be a superior choice in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and a simple, oral alternative to other chemoimmunotherapies. The standard dose is 420 mg daily; however, its irreversible binding mechanism allows adequate target blockade at much lower doses due to prolonged effect. Dose reductions or interruptions are often used in clinical practice to limit its distinct side effects, including diarrhea, bleeding and atrial fibrillation and emerging evidence exists that these do not hinder efficacy. Using a retrospective clinical audit of a single-center outpatient hematology clinic, we aimed to examine outcomes and toxicities of a reduced frequency dose regimen of ibrutinib in patients beyond the confines of a clinical trial. METHODS: A small pilot study was conducted on 16 voluntary CLL patients that had achieved partial or complete remission on standard dose ibrutinib and were considering cessation due to side effects. Patients were consented and prescribed a 420 mg thrice weekly regimen and side effects and outcomes were recorded on routine review. A retrospective clinical audit from 2015 to 2018 was then conducted to compare pilot participants to patients that had remained on standard dosing and results from the extended follow-up of the landmark RESONATE trial. RESULTS: None of the 16 patients in the pilot relapsed or died during the study period equating to a 100% progression free and overall survival. There was resolution or reduction in all side effects reported following switchover; however, the study was too small to establish a statistical relationship. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate use of a thrice weekly regimen to reduce ibrutinib-related toxicities whilst preserving safety and efficacy in patients following complete or partial remission on standard dose therapy. Higher powered, prospective studies are required to establish positive health and financial implications in the elderly and vulnerable CLL demographic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".