Updated efficacy and safety data from the AGILE study in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia treated with ivosidenib + azacitidine compared to placebo + azacitidine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7012 Background: Ivosidenib (IVO) is a potent oral targeted inhibitor of mutant IDH1. In the AGILE study in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia, IVO plus azacitidine (AZA) significantly improved event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), complete remission (CR), and CR or CR with partial hematologic recovery (CR+CRh) rates v placebo (PBO) plus AZA. As of March 2021, median OS (mOS) was 24 months (IVO+AZA) v 7.9 months (PBO+AZA; HR: 0.44; p=0.0005). Long-term follow-up data are presented. Methods: In the double-blind AGILE study, pts were randomized 1:1 to IVO 500 mg QD + AZA 75 mg/m 2 SC or IV for 7 days in 28-day cycles, or PBO+AZA. Long-term follow-up data (June 2022) for OS, blood count recovery, transfusion independence and safety are described here. Results: 148 pts were randomized: 73 to IVO+AZA; 75 to PBO+AZA. Median treatment duration was 10.8 months (IVO+AZA) v 3.2 months (PBO+AZA). Five PBO+AZA pts crossed over to IVO+AZA after March 2021 (Table), and no adjustment was made for crossover in the updated OS analysis. At a median follow-up of 28.6 months, mOS was 29.3 months (95% CI 13.2, not reached) for IVO+AZA v 7.9 months (95% CI 4.1, 11.3) for PBO+AZA (HR 0.42 [0.27, 0.65]; p<0.0001). OS rates were 62.9% and 38.3% at 12 months and 53.1% and 17.4% at 24 months, with IVO+AZA and PBO+AZA, respectively. In the IVO+AZA arm, hemoglobin levels steadily increased from baseline (BL; 88.8 g/L) to cycle 8, and then stabilized; mean platelet count recovered from BL values (72.7 x 10 9 /L) as early as week 8 (171.9 x 10 9 /L) and remained stable; and mean neutrophil counts rapidly increased from BL (0.98 x 10 9 /L) to week 3 (3.99 x 10 9 /L) and week 4 (4.36 x 10 9 /L), and then stabilized to within the normal range. Conversion from BL transfusion dependence (red blood cell and/or platelet transfusion dependence) to post-BL transfusion independence was significantly higher with IVO+AZA than PBO+AZA (53.8% v 17.1%, respectively; p=0.0004). There were fewer neutropenic fever events (27.8% v 33.8%) and infections (34.7% v 51.4%) with IVO+AZA than with PBO+AZA. TEAEs led to discontinuation of IVO+AZA or PBO+AZA in 26.4% and 25.7% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: Updated data on OS (>5 months longer mOS and a greater risk reduction in deaths compared to the initial analysis), transfusion independence, blood count recovery and safety confirms the clinically and statistically robust benefit in favor of IVO+AZA at long-term follow up. Patient disposition. Clinical trial information: NCT03173248 . [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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".