Ruxolitinib for pediatric patients with treatment-naïve and steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease: the REACH4 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: In REACH4, a phase 1/2, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, the pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety of ruxolitinib were evaluated in treatment-naïve and steroid-refractory pediatric patients with grade 2 to 4 acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD; n = 45). Ruxolitinib dosing was based on age and targeted the exposure in adults receiving 10 mg twice daily; group 1 (aged ≥12 to <18 years) received 10 mg twice daily and preliminary starting doses for groups 2 (aged ≥6 to <12 years) and 3 (aged ≥2 to <6 years) were 5 mg twice daily and 4 mg/m2 twice daily, respectively. The phase 1 primary objective was to assess ruxolitinib PK parameters and define an age-appropriate recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for patients aged <12 years. The phase 2 primary objective was to measure the activity of ruxolitinib as assessed by overall response rate (ORR) at day 28; the key secondary objective was to assess the durable ORR at day 56. Ruxolitinib exposure was comparable across age groups; starting doses were confirmed as the RP2D. The median duration of ruxolitinib exposure was 3.8 months (range, 0.3-11.2). ORR in all patients was 84.4% (90% confidence interval [CI], 72.8-92.5) at day 28, with a durable ORR at day 56 of 66.7% (90% CI, 53.4-78.2); high response rates were observed across age groups and in both treatment-naïve and steroid-refractory subgroups. Adverse events were consistent with those expected in patients with aGVHD (anemia, decreased neutrophil and leukocyte count) treated with ruxolitinib. In pediatric patients with aGVHD, ruxolitinib showed clinically meaningful efficacy with no new safety signals. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03491215.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".