MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405044256 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-194610

Efficacy and Safety of Pozelimab Plus Cemdisiran Vs Ravulizumab in Patients with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Who Are Naïve to Complement Inhibition

2024· article· en· W4405044256 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Patriquin, Jun‐Ho Jang, Lisa Aurand, Deepak Taneja, Andrew P. Magyar, Bradley Dain, Karoline A. Meagher, Lorah Perlee, Amal Souttou, Morag Griffin

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParoxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuriaMedicineInternal medicineEculizumabClinical endpointGastroenterologyInterim analysisNeutropeniaClinical trialSurgeryAntibodyImmunologyChemotherapyComplement system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is an ultra-rare, acquired, life-threatening disorder, characterized by hemolysis and an increased risk of thrombosis often co-existing with bone marrow insufficiency. Standard of care includes C5 inhibitors, given as chronic intravenous (IV) infusions. The combination of pozelimab and cemdisiran (combo), administered subcutaneously (SC) after one IV loading dose, is a novel approach currently being investigated for its ability to achieve complete, durable inhibition of terminal complement. Pozelimab is an investigational monoclonal antibody that binds to and inhibits activation of C5 while cemdisiran is a silencing RNA that reduces circulating C5. Here, we present results from an exploratory arm of a 26-week (wk), phase 3, open-label, active-controlled trial (NCT05133531) along with interim results of a follow-on open label extension (OLE) study (NCT05744921). Aims/Methods: Treatment-naïve patients (pts) with PNH were randomized 1:1 (combo vs ravulizumab [ravu]) in the main trial. Combo pts received SC treatment every 4 wks (Q4W). From wk 2, ravu was administered IV every 8 wks per label. Both arms included an initial IV loading dose on day 1. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in intravascular hemolysis assessed by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). All pts who enrolled in the 108-wk OLE received combo SC Q4W. Ravu pts entering the OLE transitioned to combo therapy over a period of 8 wks following completion of the main trial. The last ravu dose was given 8 wks prior to OLE start. Results: Forty-eight pts were randomized (n=25 combo, n=23 ravu). Mean baseline LDH was 6.5x ULN in combo pts and 6.1x ULN in ravu pts. At wk 26, mean LDH was 0.8x ULN in combo pts and 1.2x ULN in ravu pts. From wks 8 - 26, LDH ≤1.5x ULN was maintained at every visit in 88% of combo pts vs 74% of ravu pts. The % of pts with LDH ≤1.5x ULN across each post-baseline visits ranged from 96-100% with combo vs 65-87% with ravu. Similarly, the % of pts with LDH ≤1x ULN ranged from 67-96% with combo vs 35-74% on ravu. Five of 23 pts treated with ravu and 1/25 on combo failed to achieve meaningful LDH control. Transfusion avoidance was defined as not requiring a red blood cell transfusion based on post-baseline hemoglobin values. A similar number of pts in each arm met criteria for transfusion avoidance (14 combo, 15 ravu). One pt in each arm had breakthrough hemolysis in the main study. Nineteen pts switched from ravu to combo in the OLE (data cut-off Feb 15, 2024), of whom 68% had an LDH ≤1.5x ULN at baseline. After switching to combo, >90% had an LDH ≤1.5x ULN at each visit. Four of 5 pts (80%) not achieving meaningful LDH control on ravu in the main trial achieved control with combo. In the main trial, 84% of combo pts vs 87% of ravu pts had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); the most common was headache (7 pts [28%] combo vs 4 pts [17%] ravu). Two pts (8%) on combo had serious adverse events (SAEs): 1 with post-traumatic cellulitis that resolved with treatment, and 1 with fever, seizure, and hemolytic crisis within 1 wk of the first combo dose, and prior to achieving LDH control, that resolved on treatment; on day 130 of the study this pt had a fatal SAE of sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation. No SAEs were reported in patients who received ravu. In the OLE, 13 (68.4%) pts had TEAEs with the most common being injection site reactions (3 pts,15.8%). Three (15.8%) pts had SAEs (1 pt with pyrexia; 1 pt with a urinary tract infection and a fall; and 1 pt with acute hemolysis secondary to infection and Klebsiella pneumonia; all recovered with treatment). No pt discontinued combo due to an adverse event. There were notype 3 hypersensitivity TEAEs due to large drug-target-drug (DTD) immune complexes nor fatal TEAEs. Conclusion: The combination of pozelimab and cemdisiran led to robust control of LDH, with more pts achieving meaningful LDH control vs ravu. The safety profile is generally consistent with other approved C5 inhibitors. The potential transition regimen using cemdisiran to reduce C5 prior to administering a different C5 antibody appears effective at mitigating DTD reactions. Results support development of the combination of pozelimab and cemdisiran in PNH and other complement-mediated diseases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207