MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405044679 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-193644

Efficacy Findings in a Phase 3, Randomized Trial of Eltrombopag Vs. Standard First-Line Treatment for Newly Diagnosed Immune Thrombocytopenia in Children

2024· article· en· W4405044679 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin A. Shimano, Amanda B. Grimes, Melissa J. Rose, Shipra Kaicker, Sanjay Shah, Michael Briones, Elizabeth Gunn, Taizo A. Nakano, Jeffrey D. Lebensburger, Michele P. Lambert, Stephanie A. Fritch Lilla, Rohith Jesudas, Cathy Lee‐Miller, Alexis A. Thompson, Rukhmi Bhat, Stacey Rifkin-Zenenberg, Suvankar Majumdar, Manpreet Kochhar, Shelley E. Crary, Kerry Hege, Jennifer Rothman, James B. Ford, Joshua J. Bies, John Fort, Loan Hsieh, Maritza E. Ruiz, Karen Carrier, Bogdan Dinu, Julia MW Wong, Pei‐Chi Kao, Wendy B. London, Staci D. Arnold, Carolyn M. Bennett, Jenny M. Despotovic, Robert J. Klaassen, Ellis J. Neufeld, Cindy Neunert, Rachael F. Grace

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEltrombopagMedicineRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineImmune thrombocytopeniaPediatricsPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: First-line treatments for patients (pts) with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and anti-D globulin. Eltrombopag (epag), a thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was FDA approved for children with chronic ITP in 2015. The efficacy of epag in the newly diagnosed phase of pediatric ITP is unknown. Methods: The Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed pts Epag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, NCT03939637, is an investigator-initiated, prospective, open label, randomized, multi-center trial sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America (ICON) and funded by Novartis. Pts ages 1-<18 with primary ITP, ≤3 months from diagnosis, with platelet count <30 x109/L who required pharmacologic treatment per the treating clinician were randomized 2:1, stratified by age and prior treatment status, to receive the experimental treatment, epag, or investigator's choice of one of 3 standard first-line therapies (SOC): prednisone, IVIg, or anti-D globulin at specified doses. The primary endpoint of ‘response’ was ≥3 of 4 platelet counts >50 x109/L during weeks 6-12 without rescue treatment. This intent-to-treat analysis includes data from all randomized pts for the first 12 weeks of the study. Secondary endpoint analyses include data from all evaluable pts who received at least 1 dose of assigned treatment. TheWHO Bleeding Scale and Modified Buchanan Scale (MBS) were used to assess bleeding severity. The parent-proxy reported KIDS ITP Tool (KIT) scores were used to measure health-related quality-of-life (QoL). A one-sided z-test, at alpha=0.025, tested the superiority of epag vs SOC for the primary endpoint. Two planned interim analyses utilized O'Brien-Fleming efficacy and futility monitoring boundaries. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test compared the proportion of pts with high bleeding scores (WHO ≥2 or MBS ≥3) between the two arms. A t-test compared the number of rescue therapies and the absolute change in KIT score between the two arms. Results: The epag arm had a statistically significant higher proportion of responders as compared to the SOC arm (p=0.0023; z-score=3.04) in the second planned interim analysis, crossing the monitoring boundary for efficacy for the primary endpoint. The primary endpoint of platelet response was achieved by 51/78 (65%) pts in the epag arm, compared with 13/40 (33%) pts in the SOC arm (p=0.0007). Trial accrual was closed early for efficacy per DSMB recommendation. Between May 2019 - January 2024, 122 pts were randomized across 23 institutions; 4 pts were subsequently deemed ineligible, and 118 were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (n=78 epag, n=40 SOC). Of the 118, 46 were aged 1-<6 years, 42 aged 6-<12 years, and 30 aged 12-<18 years. Forty-six pts received upfront treatment on the study, and 72 pts had treatment failure prior to enrollment. Median platelet count at enrollment was 4 x109/L (range 1 - 23) in the epag arm and 8 x109/L (1 - 28) in the SOC arm. Median WHO bleeding score at enrollment was 2 (range 0 - 3) and MBS was 3 (range 0 - 3) in the epag arm and 1 (0 - 3) and 2 (0 - 3), respectively, in the SOC arm. In the SOC arm, treatments prescribed were prednisone (n=29) and IVIg (n=11). The proportion of pts with a high bleeding score in the epag vs SOC arm was similar at weeks 1-4 and week 12. The proportion of pts who received rescue therapy was lower in the epag arm [15/78 (19%)] than the SOC arm [18/39 (46%)] (p=0.002). The mean absolute change from baseline in parent proxy-reported KIT overall scores in the epag arm vs SOC arm was 8.7 vs 10.1 at 1 week (p=0.45), 13.4 vs 10.7 at 4 weeks (p=0.24), and 15.6 vs 11.2 at 12 weeks (p=0.14), consistent with a clinically meaningful improvement in QoL at all time points in both arms. There were 20 AEs grade 3 or higher (including 6 SAEs) in the epag arm, and 6 (3 SAEs) in the SOC arm during the first 12 weeks. The most common AEs were headache (3 epag, 3 SOC) and epistaxis (1 epag, 2 SOC). Drug-related SAEs occurred in 6 pts (epag - 2 elevated LFTs, 2 headache (HA); SOC - 1 allergic reaction, 1 HA). There were no thromboembolic events. There was 1 intracranial hemorrhage in the epag arm. Enrolled pts are completing 12 months of follow up on the study per protocol. Conclusion: In pediatric pts with newly diagnosed ITP requiring pharmacologic treatment, epag leads to a significantly higher rate of a durable platelet response in the absence of rescue treatments as compared with standard first-line therapies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→