MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of renal impairment (RI) on pharmacokinetics (PK) and clinical outcomes with mezigdomide plus dexamethasone (DEX) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

2024· article· en· W4399480666 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Trudel, Nizar J. Bahlis, Rakesh Popat, María‐Victoria Mateos, Annette Juul Vangsted, Karthik Ramasamy, Joaquín Martínez‐López, Hang Quach, Robert Z. Orlowski, Joseph W. Burnett, Allison Gaudy, Wen‐Cong Chen, Jing Gong, Joseph T. Hadala, Cynthia Donahue, Phillip J. Koo, Yue Zhu, Jessica Katz, Paul G. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDexamethasonePharmacokineticsMultiple myelomaRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineOncologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7539 Background: RI is a common complication in MM and may alter drug elimination, leading to increased systemic exposures, risk of adverse events (AEs), and dosing adjustments. The novel CELMoD agent mezigdomide (MEZI) is being investigated alone or with DEX in the CC-92480-MM-001 (NCT03374085) phase 1/2 trial. MEZI has shown dose-dependent linear PK with rapid absorption and is mainly eliminated through hepatic metabolism, with renal elimination playing a smaller role. Here we investigate the impact of RI on the efficacy, safety, and PK of MEZI + DEX in RRMM. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had RRMM, ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, triple-class refractoriness, and disease progression ≤ 60 days of last therapy. Pts were stratified by creatinine clearance (CrCl), excluding those with CrCl < 45 mL/min or needing dialysis. Oral MEZI (1 mg) was given on days 1–21 per 28-day cycle + weekly DEX. MEZI doses were not adjusted based on RI. Responses, AEs, and PK were assessed descriptively over the full population and in pts with no RI (CrCl ≥ 90 mL/min), mild RI (CrCl 60–< 90 mL/min), and moderate RI (CrCl 30–< 60 mL/min) at baseline. MEZI clearance and PK exposure were estimated from an integrated population PK model. PK exposure parameters were stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) staging. Results: 101 pts received MEZI + DEX in the dose-expansion cohort; 37 had no RI, 41 had mild RI, and 23 had moderate RI. Grade (Gr) 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were similar, occurring in 91.1% (overall), 89.2% (no RI), 90.2% (mild RI), and 95.7% (moderate RI) of pts. TEAEs were mostly hematologic, with neutropenia the most common Gr 3/4 TEAE; its occurrence did not differ in no RI (75.7%), mild RI (75.6%), and moderate RI (73.9%) cohorts. Non-hematologic Gr 3/4 TEAEs were low. Eighty-nine (88.1%) and 32 (31.7%) pts had MEZI dose interruptions and reductions, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 40.6% in all pts, 56.8% in no-RI pts, 29.3% in mild-RI pts, and 34.8% in moderate-RI pts (Table). Evaluated as a continuous variable, CrCl showed no apparent relationship with MEZI oral clearance or systemic exposures. This was supported by subgroup evaluation of MEZI exposures by CKD stage. Results showed MEZI exposures in mild or moderate RI are consistent with no RI. Conclusions: Based on renal function, there was no adverse trend between efficacy, safety, and PK of MEZI + DEX. MEZI dose modifications are likely not required for pts with mild to moderate RI. Clinical trial information: NCT03374085 . [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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→