Long‐term follow‐up of <scp>VIALE‐A</scp>: Venetoclax and azacitidine in chemotherapy‐ineligible untreated acute myeloid leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venetoclax-azacitidine is approved for treatment of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy based on the interim overall survival (OS) analysis of the VIALE-A study (NCT02993523). Here, long-term follow-up is presented to address survival benefit and long-term outcomes with venetoclax-azacitidine. Patients with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive venetoclax-azacitidine or placebo-azacitidine. OS was the primary endpoint; complete remission with/without blood count recovery (CR/CRi) was a key secondary endpoint. This final analysis was conducted when 100% of the predefined 360 OS events occurred. In VIALE-A, 431 patients were enrolled to venetoclax-azacitidine (n = 286) or placebo-azacitidine (n = 145). At 43.2 months median follow-up, median OS was 14.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1-18.7) with venetoclax-azacitidine, and 9.6 months (95% CI, 7.4-12.7) with placebo-azacitidine (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.47-0.72], p < .001); the estimated 24-month OS rate was 37.5% and 16.9%, respectively. Median OS for patients with IDH1/2 mutations and those with measurable residual disease responses was reached in this final analysis. CR/CRi rate was similar to interim analysis. Any-grade hematologic and gastrointestinal adverse events were most common in venetoclax-azacitidine and placebo-azacitidine arms, including thrombocytopenia (47% and 42%) and neutropenia (43% and 29%). No new safety signals were identified. Long-term efficacy and safety confirm venetoclax-azacitidine is an improvement in standard-of-care for patients with AML who are not eligible for intensive chemotherapy because of advanced age or comorbidities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".