MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MOMENTUM: Phase 3 randomized study of momelotinib (MMB) versus danazol (DAN) in symptomatic and anemic myelofibrosis (MF) patients previously treated with a JAK inhibitor.

2022· article· en· W4286295706 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruben A. Mesa, Aaron T. Gerds, Alessandro M. Vannucchi, Haifa Kathrin Al‐Ali, David Lavie, Andrew Kuykendall, Sebastian Grosicki, Alessandra Iurlo, Yeow Tee Goh, Mihaela Lazaroiu, Miklós Egyed, María Laura Fox, Donal P. McLornan, Andrew C. Perkins, Sung‐Soo Yoon, Vikas Gupta, Jean‐Jacques Kiladjian, Rafe Donahue, Jun Kawashima, Srđan Verstovšek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSierra Wireless (Canada)Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersSierra Oncology
KeywordsMedicineAnemiaClinical endpointPlaceboMyelofibrosisGastroenterologyInternal medicineRandomizationHematocritRuxolitinibRandomized controlled trialSurgeryUrologyBone marrowPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7002 Background: MMB, an oral JAK1/2 and ACVR1/ALK2 inhibitor, showed clinical activity on MF symptoms, RBC transfusion requirements (anemia), and spleen volume in the SIMPLIFY trials. This pivotal phase 3 study of MF patients (pts) previously treated with a JAK inhibitor (JAKi) tested MMB vs DAN on key symptom, anemia, and spleen volume endpoints at 24 weeks (wks). Methods: Eligibility: Primary or post-ET/PV MF; DIPSS high risk, Int-2, or Int-1; MF Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MFSAF TSS) ≥10; Hgb <10 g/dL; prior JAKi for ≥90 days, or ≥28 days if RBC transfusions ≥4 units in 8 wks or Gr 3/4 thrombocytopenia, anemia, or hematoma; palpable spleen ≥5 cm. Stratification: TSS, palpable spleen, and RBC units transfused. JAKi taper and washout was ≥21 days. Randomization: 2:1 to MMB 200 mg QD plus DAN placebo or DAN 600 mg QD plus MMB placebo for 24 wks, after which pts could receive open-label MMB. Assessments: Pt reported symptoms using a daily eDiary and spleen volume by MRI or CT. The primary endpoint was TSS response (≥50% reduction from baseline [BL]) rate at wk 24. Secondary endpoints, assessed sequentially at wk 24, were RBC transfusion independence (TI) rate, splenic response rate (SRR; ≥25% reduction in volume from BL), change from BL in TSS, SRR (≥35% reduction from BL) and rate of zero transfusions since BL. Results: 94 of 130 (72%) MMB pts and 38 of 65 (58%) DAN pts completed the 24-wk randomized treatment (RT) phase. Median BL TSS were 28 (MMB) and 26 (DAN), Hgb were 8.1 (MMB) and 7.9 (DAN) g/dL, and platelets were 97 (MMB) and 94 (DAN) x109/L. BL TI was 13% (MMB) and 15% (DAN). Prior JAKi was ruxolitinib in 195 pts (100%) and fedratinib in 9 pts (5%). All primary and key secondary endpoints were met (Table). Most common Gr ≥3 TEAEs in the RT phase of the study were thrombocytopenia (MMB, 22%; DAN, 12%) and anemia (MMB, 8%; DAN, 11%). Gr ≥3 infections occurred in 15% of MMB and 17% of DAN pts. Peripheral neuropathy occurred in 5 (4%) of MMB (all Gr ≤2) and 1 (2%) of DAN (Gr ≤2) pts in the RT phase, and none discontinued study drug. Overall, TEAEs led to study drug discontinuation in 18% of MMB and 23% of DAN pts in RT phase. A trend toward improved OS up to wk 24 was seen with MMB vs DAN (HR=0.506, p=0.0719). Conclusions: In symptomatic and anemic MF pts, MMB was superior to DAN for symptom responses, transfusion requirements, and spleen responses with comparable safety and favorable survival. MMB may address a critical unmet need, particularly in MF pts with anemia. Clinical trial information: NCT04173494. [Table: see text]

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207