MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400533986 · doi:10.1007/s12325-024-02928-4

Momelotinib versus Continued Ruxolitinib or Best Available Therapy in JAK Inhibitor-Experienced Patients with Myelofibrosis and Anemia: Subgroup Analysis of SIMPLIFY-2

2024· article· en· W4400533986 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Harrison, Alessandro M. Vannucchi, Christian Récher, Francesco Passamonti, Aaron T. Gerds, Juan Carlos Hernández‐Boluda, Abdulraheem Yacoub, Shireen Sirhan, Catherine Ellis, Bharat Patel, Bryan Strouse, Uwe Platzbecker

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuxolitinibMedicineMyelofibrosisAnemiaPost-hoc analysisInternal medicineGastroenterologySubgroup analysisRandomized controlled trialSurgeryMeta-analysisBone marrow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Some Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors such as ruxolitinib and fedratinib do not address and may worsen anemia in patients with myelofibrosis. In these cases, the JAK inhibitor may be continued at a reduced dose in an effort to maintain splenic and symptom control, with supportive therapy and/or red blood cell (RBC) transfusions added to manage anemia. This post hoc descriptive analysis of the phase 3 SIMPLIFY-2 trial evaluated the relative benefits of this approach versus switching to the JAK1/JAK2/activin A receptor type 1 inhibitor momelotinib in patients for whom anemia management is a key consideration. METHODS: SIMPLIFY-2 was a randomized (2:1), open-label, phase 3 trial of momelotinib versus best available therapy (BAT; 88.5% continued ruxolitinib) in JAK inhibitor-experienced patients with myelofibrosis (n = 156). Patient subgroups (n = 105 each) were defined by either baseline (1) hemoglobin (Hb) of < 100 g/L or (2) non-transfusion independence (not meeting the criteria of no transfusions and no Hb of < 80 g/L for the previous 12 weeks); outcomes have been summarized descriptively. RESULTS: In both subgroups of interest, week 24 transfusion independence rates were higher with momelotinib versus BAT/ruxolitinib: baseline Hb of < 100 g/L, 22 (33.3%) versus 5 (12.8%); baseline non-transfusion independent, 25 (34.7%) versus 1 (3.0%). Mean Hb levels over time were also generally higher in both subgroups with momelotinib, despite median transfusion rates through week 24 with momelotinib being comparable to or lower than with BAT/ruxolitinib. Spleen and symptom response rates with momelotinib in these subgroups were comparable to the intent-to-treat population, while rates with BAT/ruxolitinib were lower. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe anemia and/or in need of RBC transfusions, outcomes were improved by switching to momelotinib rather than continuing ruxolitinib and using anemia supportive therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02101268.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207