Initial Report of Part B Phase 1/2 Efficacy and Safety Results for Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Rilzabrutinib in Patients with Relapsed Immune Thrombocytopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Rilzabrutinib is a potent oral, reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can treat hematological autoimmune diseases through multiple putative mechanisms of action: (1) inhibition of B-cell activation, (2) interruption of antibody-coated cell phagocytosis by FcϒR in spleen and liver, and (3) induce sustained anti-inflammatory effects (Langrish J Immunol 2021). Preliminary evidence showed that rilzabrutinib treatment resulted in rapid and durable platelet responses with a favorable safety profile in previously treated patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) as studied in part A of a phase 1/2 clinical study (LUNA 2; Kuter N Engl J Med 2022). This abstract summarizes the results of part B that focused on the durability of response with rilzabrutinib in relapsed ITP patients. Methods: Part B of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of rilzabrutinib 400 mg bid in patients with relapsed ITP (NCT03395210). Adult patients aged 18-80 y were eligible with ≥2 baseline platelet counts <30x10 9/L no less than 7 days apart in the 15 days before the first dose. Eligible patients were required to have a past response (achievement of platelet count ≥50x10 9/L) to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg)/anti-D or corticosteroid (CS) that was not sustained and failed ≥1 other ITP therapy (that was not IVIg or CS). Stable doses of concomitant CS/thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RA) were allowed with rilzabrutinib. The primary endpoints for part B were safety and durable platelet response defined as platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L on ≥8 of the last 12 weeks of rilzabrutinib without rescue medication. Patients completing 24 weeks of rilzabrutinib with platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L or ≥30x10 9/L and doubling from baseline in ≥4 of the last 8 weeks of treatment without rescue medication could continue rilzabrutinib in the long-term extension (LTE) period. Results: At baseline, 26 enrolled patients had a median age of 57 y (range, 20-75), 62% were female, and median baseline platelet count was 13x10 9/L (range, 2-24x10 9/L). Patients had a median duration of ITP of 10.3 y (range, 0.7-48.2) and had received a median of 6 prior unique ITP therapies (range, 3-19; 46% splenectomy). Seventeen patients (65%) received concomitant non-rescue CS and/or TPO-RA. Nine patients (35%; 95% CI, 17%-56%) achieved the primary endpoint of durable platelet response. Approximately 25% of patients achieved platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L by day 15 of rilzabrutinib treatment (Figure 1A). In 16 patients who achieved platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L, median time to first platelet count ≥50x10 9/L was 15 days (range, 7-134). Median platelet counts for all patients (responders and non-responders) increased over time, exceeding the platelet count thresholds of 30x10 9/L at day 57 and 50x10 9/L at day 120 (Figure 1B). The mean number of weeks with platelet counts ≥50x10 9/L and/or ≥30x10 9/L and doubling from baseline was both 9.3 weeks (SD, 10.1). Three patients (12%) received rescue medication in the main treatment period. Fifteen patients (58%) completed 24 weeks of rilzabrutinib and 11 (42%) entered the LTE. Over the main treatment period, the median duration of treatment was 167 days (range, 7-169). Sixteen patients (62%) had ≥1 related treatment-emergent adverse event (AE), including 35% diarrhea, 23% headache, and 15% nausea. Most AEs were grade 1 or 2; there was 1 treatment-related AE of grade 3 blood creatinine phosphokinase increase. There was no treatment-related grade ≥2 bleeding/thrombotic events or infections, serious AEs, or deaths. Conclusion: Part B study results were consistent with part A. Rilzabrutinib demonstrated rapid, stable, and durable platelet responses in patients with relapsed ITP, with a favorable safety profile in part B.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".