MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Updated safety and efficacy data from the phase 3 MANIFEST-2 study of pelabresib in combination with ruxolitinib for JAK inhibitor treatment-naïve patients with myelofibrosis.

2024· article· en· W4399519971 on OpenAlexaff
Raajit K. Rampal, Sebastian Grosicki, Dominik Chraniuk, Elisabetta Abruzzese, Prithviraj Bose, Aaron T. Gerds, Alessandro M. Vannucchi, Francesca Palandri, Sung‐Eun Lee, Vikas Gupta, Alessandro Lucchesi, Andrew Kuykendall, Ruben A. Mesa, Jean‐Jacques Kiladjian, Moshe Talpaz, Morgan Harris, Manlei Wu, Barbara Brown, Claire Harrison, John Mascarenhas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuxolitinibMedicineMyelofibrosisInternal medicinePhases of clinical researchOncologyClinical trialSurgeryBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6502 Background: Pelabresib (PELA) is an oral, small-molecule, investigational BET inhibitor that aims to decrease expression of genes involved in MF. MANIFEST-2 (NCT04603495), a global, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 study, investigated the efficacy and safety of PELA + ruxolitinib (PELA+RUX) vs placebo + RUX (PBO+RUX) in JAKi treatment-naïve patients (pts) with MF. Methods: Eligible pts had DIPSS score ≥ INT-1, platelet count ≥100 × 109/L, spleen volume ≥450 cm3, ≥2 symptoms with an average score ≥3 or total symptom score (TSS) ≥10 (MFSAF v4.0), peripheral blast count <5%, and ECOG PS ≤2. Pts were randomized 1:1. PELA or PBO was administered (QD for 14 consecutive days of 21) with RUX (BID for 21 days [1 cycle]). Primary endpoint was ≥35% spleen volume reduction from baseline (BL) (SVR35) at Week (Wk) 24. Secondary endpoints included absolute change in TSS and ≥50% reduction in TSS from BL (TSS50) at Wk 24, and safety. Other endpoints included hemoglobin (Hb) response (≥1.5 g/dL mean increase from BL without transfusions in the prior 12 wks), RBC transfusion number and bone marrow fibrosis (BMF). Results: As of Aug 31, 2023, 430 pts were randomized. At Wk 24, 65.9% (141/214) vs 35.2% (76/216) (p<0.001) of pts had an SVR35 response in the PELA+RUX vs PBO+RUX arms, respectively. SVR35 responders at any time were 80.4% (172/214) vs 50.0% (108/216); 80% (137/172) vs 63% (68/108) of responders reached SVR35 at Wk 12 scan; 83.7% (144/172) vs 79.6% (86/108) maintained response at cutoff. Mean change in absolute TSS was -15.99 (SE 1.028) vs -14.05 (SE 0.986) (p=0.0545), and TSS50 was 52.3% (112/214) vs 46.3% (100/216) (p=0.216) at Wk 24. There was a 2-fold difference in pts with both SVR35 and TSS50 with PELA+RUX (40.2% [86/214]) vs PBO+RUX (18.5% [40/216]). Hb response occurred in 10.7% (23/214) vs 6.0% (13/216) of pts, with differences in mean Hb levels maintained at 48 wks. In pts with anemia (Hb BL <10 g/dL), Hb response occurred in 16.4% (11/67) vs 14.1% (10/71). A total of 30.8% (66/214) vs 39.8% (86/216) of required RBC transfusion during the first 24 wks. BMF improvement ≥1 grade occurred in 38.5% (40/104) vs 24.2% (24/99) of pts (odds ratio 2.09; p=0.019). Of 426 pts evaluated for safety, the most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20%) in the PELA+RUX vs PBO+RUX arms were anemia (43.9% vs 55.6% [Grade ≥3, 23.1% vs 36.4%]), thrombocytopenia (32.1% vs 23.4% [9% vs 5.6%]), platelet count decreased (20.8% vs 15.9% [4.2% vs 0.9%]), and diarrhea (23.1% vs 18.7% [0.5% vs 1.4%]). Updated results will be presented at the congress. Conclusions: PELA+RUX significantly and durably reduced splenomegaly, with a trend toward reduced TSS, and improved anemia and BMF at Wk 24 compared with PBO+RUX in JAKi treatment-naïve pts with MF, addressing key hallmarks of MF. Resultssupport a potential paradigm shift to combination therapy for MF. CH and JM contributed equally. Clinical trial information: NCT04603495 .

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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