MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379981910 · doi:10.1002/hon.3164_340

Ibrutinib (Ibr) dose modification for management of early cardiac adverse events in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Pooled analysis of 7 clinical trials

2023· article· en· W4379981910 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandra Tedeschi, Inhye E. Ahn, Graeme Fraser, Richard Greil, Talha Munir, Neil E. Kay, Ian W. Flinn, Shane Lee, Chadi Saifan, Jeffrey D. Kearbey, Sandipkumar Patel, Jacqueline C. Barrientos

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersPharmacyclics
KeywordsMedicineIbrutinibAdverse effectInternal medicineVenChronic lymphocytic leukemiaOncologyVenetoclaxGastroenterologyLeukemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Sustained progression-free survival (PFS) has been demonstrated with continuous Ibr-based therapy and with time-limited treatment (tx) with the Ibr + venetoclax (Ven) combination in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Adverse events (AEs), including cardiac AEs, have been observed with all BTK inhibitors; for Ibr, they are more frequent in the first year of tx. Active management of AEs with dose reductions may facilitate continuation of Ibr tx and optimize outcomes. Methods: Pooled data from 1210 evaluable patients from the primary analyses of 7 clinical studies evaluating continuous single-agent Ibr (PCYC-1102 [n = 48]; PCYC-1112 [n = 195]; RESONATE-2 [n = 136]), continuous Ibr-based combination therapy (iLLUMINATE [n = 113]; HELIOS [n = 289]), or time-limited tx with Ibr + Ven (CAPTIVATE [n = 323]; GLOW [n = 106]) were analyzed to evaluate incidence of early cardiac AEs and outcomes of subsequent Ibr dose reductions (for any AE), both occurring within 12 months of Ibr-based tx initiation in patients with CLL/SLL. Cardiac AEs were identified using terms under the system organ class for cardiac disorders. AE recurrence (same or worse grade) was evaluated by preferred term and measured up to 30 days after last dose of Ibr or start of next-line therapy, whichever occurred first. Results: 212 patients had a cardiac AE; the majority were grade 1–2, with only 72 patients having a grade 3–4 cardiac AE. Of those, 52 (25%), 75 (35%), and 85 (40%) patients received single-agent Ibr, Ibr + anti-CD20, and Ibr + Ven, respectively. In total, 17/212 (8%) patients had dose reductions of Ibr (to 280 mg, n = 8; to 140 mg, n = 9); only 4 patients had a dose reduction specifically following a cardiac AE. Among these 17 patients, 3 (18%) received single-agent Ibr, 5 (29%) received Ibr + anti-CD20, and 9 (53%) received Ibr + Ven. Eight of 9 patients (89%) who received Ibr + Ven and had a dose reduction went on to complete tx. Patients with cardiac AEs with versus without dose reductions tended to be older (≥75 y: 29% vs. 19%), were less heavily pretreated (≥1 prior line of tx: 12% vs. 41%), had less bulky disease (29% vs. 42%), and had fewer cytogenetic abnormalities (del[17p]: 6% vs. 12%; del[11q]: 12% vs. 26%; mutated TP53: 0% vs. 9%; Table). Median follow-up was 21.8 and 16.0 months for patients with and without dose reductions, respectively. No patient with a dose reduction had recurrence of the same cardiac AE at the same or worse severity, both overall and as a serious AE (vs 22% and 11% in patients without dose reduction, respectively). No patient died due to recurrence of the same cardiac AE, regardless of dose reduction. PFS was not negatively impacted by dose reduction (n = 17; median PFS not reached, 24-month PFS: 94%). Conclusions: Dose reduction following early cardiac AEs may enable patients to continue benefiting from Ibr tx while mitigating risks for recurrence or worsening of cardiac AEs. The research was funded by: This research was funded by Pharmacyclics LLC, and AbbVie Company. Keyword: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract. A. Tedeschi Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen Other remuneration: Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen G. A. M. Fraser Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, Janssen Honoraria: AbbVie, Janssen Research funding: Celgene, Janssen Other remuneration: Speakers bureau: Janssen, Lundbeck R. Greil Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda Stock ownership: Eli Lilly Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Sandor Research funding: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Sandor, and Takeda Other remuneration: travel/accommodations/expenses from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, and Roche T. Munir Consultant or advisory role: MorphoSys and Sunesis Honoraria: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, and Novartis Other remuneration: travel/accommodations/expenses from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen N. E. Kay Research funding: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, MEI, and Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie company I. W. Flinn Consultant or advisory role: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Century Therapeutics, Genentech, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, Great Point Partners, Hutchison MediPharma, Iksuda Therapeutics, InnoCare Pharma, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, MorphoSys, Novartis, Nurix Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Unum Therapeutics, Verastem, Vincerx Pharma, Yingli Pharmaceuticals Research funding: AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Agios, ArQule, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Calithera Biosciences, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Curis, Forma Therapeutics, Forty Seven, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, IGM Biosciences, Incyte, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Loxo, Merck, MorphoSys, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Rhizen Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Teva, TG Therapeutics, Trillium Therapeutics, Triphase Research & Development Corp., Unum Therapeutics, Verastem S. Lee Employment or leadership position: AbbVie, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company, and Regeneron Stock ownership: AbbVie C. Saifan Employment or leadership position: AbbVie Stock ownership: AbbVie J. Kearbey Employment or leadership position: AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare Stock ownership: AbbVie, Merck, Eli Lilly Other remuneration: Patents/royalties: The Ohio State University S. Patel Employment or leadership position: AbbVie Stock ownership: AbbVie J. C. Barrientos Consultant or advisory role: BeiGene, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, MEI Honoraria: Janssen Research funding: Merck, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company, and Velosbio

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207