MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P557: HEMATOLOGIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH IVOSIDENIB + AZACITIDINE COMPARED WITH PLACEBO + AZACITIDINE IN PATIENTS WITH NEWLY-DIAGNOSED ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA

2022· article· en· W4283333295 on OpenAlexaff
Hartmut Döhner, Pau Montesinos, Susana Vives Polo, Ewa Zarzycka, Jingjing Wang, Giambattista Bertani, Michael Heuser, R. Calado, Andre C. Schuh, S.-P. Yeh, Claudio Cerchione, S. Daigle, Jia-Jun Hui, S. Pandya, D. Gianolio, Christian Récher, Stéphane de Botton

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboMyeloid leukemiaInternal medicineGastroenterologyAzacitidinePopulationSurgeryPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ivosidenib (IVO) is a potent oral targeted inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (mIDH1). IVO plus azacitidine (AZA) significantly improved event-free survival (EFS), overall survival and complete remission + partial hematologic recovery rates compared with placebo + AZA, in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the Phase 3 AGILE trial (NCT03173248). Aims: To report blood count recovery results from the AGILE trial. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to IVO 500 mg QD + AZA 75 mg/m2 SC or IV for 7 days in 28-day cycles (n=72), or placebo+AZA (n=74). Red blood cell (RBC)/platelet transfusion history were assessed at screening and follow-up. Bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood samples were obtained at screening, and during weeks 9, 17, 25, 33, 41, 53, and every 24 weeks thereafter, and at end of treatment and during EFS follow up. Samples were analyzed at each local site according to ICSH guidelines. All patients gave written informed consent. Results: In the IVO+AZA and placebo+AZA arms, 4.2% and 5.5% of pts, respectively, received concomitant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Hemoglobin levels steadily increased from baseline at a similar rate in both treatment arms. Mean platelet count recovered from baseline values in the IVO+AZA and placebo+AZA arms (71.0 and 92.6 x 109/L, respectively) as early as week 9 of treatment (171.1 and 155.1 x 109/L, respectively) and continued to steadily increase thereafter in the treated population. In pts receiving IVO+AZA, mean neutrophil counts rapidly increased from baseline (0.99 x 109/L) to week 2 (2.05 x 109/L) and week 5 (4.07 x 109/L), and then generally stabilized to within the normal range to study end (last available cycle value; ~2.0 x 109/L). Mean neutrophil counts initially declined with placebo+AZA before slowly recovering to near-normal levels after 36-40 weeks. The increased blood counts were accompanied by a rapid decrease in the mean BM blast percentage from 54.8% at baseline to 12.0% and 7.2% at week 9 and 17, respectively, in IVO+AZA treated patients and were maintained for 149 weeks. The decline in BM blasts was slower in the placebo+AZA arm (53.7%, 34.6% and 19.6% at baseline, week 9 and week 17, respectively). Among patients who were RBC/platelet transfusion-dependent at baseline (~54.0% in both groups), 46.2% in the IVO+AZA group achieved RBC/platelet transfusion independence compared with 17.5% in the placebo+AZA arm (1-sided p=0.0032). Additionally, fewer adverse events of febrile neutropenia (28.2% vs 34.2%) and infections (28.2% vs 49.3%) were reported in the IVO+AZA arm compared to the placebo+AZA arm. Summary/Conclusion: IVO+AZA demonstrated a significant clinical benefit compared with placebo+AZA and this sub-analysis demonstrated a rapidly improved recovery of blood counts and a reduced dependence on RBC and/or platelet transfusion. Moreover, rates of febrile neutropenia and infections were reduced with IVO+AZA.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemaSphereSame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207