MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

VERIFY: A randomized controlled phase 3 study of the hepcidin mimetic rusfertide (PTG-300) in patients with polycythemia vera (PV).

2024· article· en· W4399481122 on OpenAlexaff
Aniket Bankar, Kristen Pettit, Joseph J. Shatzel, Abdulraheem Yacoub, Naveen Pemmaraju, Harinder Gill, Antonín Hluší, Alessandro Lucchesi, Samah Alimam, Jiří Mayer, Francesca Palandri, Daniel Sasca, Katharina Modelska, Suneel Gupta, Ifode Ajari, Sarita Khanna, Arturo Molina, Andrew Kuykendall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycythemia veraMedicineHepcidinInternal medicineGastroenterologyOncologyAnemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TPS6592 Background: PV is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by overproduction of red blood cells and increased risk of thrombosis. Patients may require frequent therapeutic phlebotomies (TP) alone or in combination with cytoreductive therapy to maintain hematocrit (HCT) <45%. Hepcidin regulates iron homeostasis but is downregulated in PV, increasing iron availability for erythropoiesis, which complicates TP optimization. In a phase 2 study (REVIVE, NCT04057040), rusfertide led to rapid, sustained, and durable HCT control with over 90% of patients achieving TP independence in part 2.1 It was well tolerated; majority (77.1%) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) had a maximum grade of 2. There were no Grade 4 or 5 TEAEs. The phase 3 study VERIFY (NCT05210790) aims to confirm efficacy and safety of rusfertide in patients with PV. Methods: VERIFY is a multicenter, global, randomized trial comparing efficacy and safety of rusfertide (starting dose: 20 mg subcutaneously once weekly) vs. placebo when added to ongoing therapy for PV. Patients with PV who require frequent TP with or without concurrent cytoreductive therapy to control HCT are included in this 3-part study: Part 1a: 1:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on parallel-group period lasting 32 weeks (Week 0-32); Part 1b: open-label treatment phase with cross-over for previous placebo-treated patients. During this phase, all patients who completed Part 1a successfully will receive rusfertide for 20 weeks (Week 32-52); and Part 2: long term extension phase where all patients who complete Part 1b will continue to receive rusfertide for 104 weeks (Week 52-156). Results: Major inclusion criteria prior to randomization include PV diagnosis by 2016 WHO criteria; ≥3 TP in the previous 28 weeks or ≥5 in the previous 12 months due to inadequate HCT control; HCT <45%, white blood cells 4-20 × 109/L and platelets 100-1000 × 109/L at Week 0; stable PV therapy regimen in patients receiving cytoreduction at randomization; and cessation of cytoreductive therapy 2-6 months before screening in patients treated with TP alone. Major exclusion criteria are thrombosis or bleeding (active and/or chronic) within 2 months before randomization and a history of invasive malignancy within the previous 5 years. Primary endpoint is the proportion of patients achieving a response in Part 1a from Week 20-32. A response is defined as absence of TP eligibility. TP eligibility: HCT ≥45% and ≥3% higher than baseline HCT or HCT ≥48%. Secondary endpoints are mean number of TPs from Week 0-32; proportion of patients with HCT <45% from Week 0-32; mean change from baseline to Week 32 in total fatigue score measured by PROMIS Short Form and in total symptom score measured by MFSAF v4.0. Conclusions: VERIFY opened in January 2022 and aims to enroll approximately 250 patients globally. Reference: 1. Ritchie EK, et al. Blood.2023;142(Suppl 1):745. Clinical trial information: NCT05210790 .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207