MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417004462 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-738

End-of-study results from the ICON3 pines trial, a phase 3, randomized trial of eltrombopag vs. standard first-line treatment for newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia in children

2025· article· en· W4417004462 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 FritchLilla, 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, Tung Wynn, Loan Hsieh, Maritza E. Ruiz, Bogdan Dinu, Julia MW Wong, Pei‐Chi Kao, Staci D. Arnold, Carolyn M. Bennett, Jenny M. Despotovic, Robert J. Klaassen, Ellis J. Neufeld, Cindy Neunert, Wendy B. London, Rachael F. Grace

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEltrombopagRituximabClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialRomiplostimImmune thrombocytopeniaIntention-to-treat analysisRandomization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed patients Eltrombopag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, NCT03939637, was an investigator-initiated, prospective, open label, randomized, multi-center trial sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America (ICON) and funded by Novartis. Patients (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 to receive the experimental treatment, eltrombopag (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 platelet response endpoint within 12 weeks was achieved by 67% pts in the epag arm, compared with 35% pts in the SOC arm; the trial closed early for efficacy per DSMB recommendation (Shimano et al, ASH 2024). We now report secondary objectives from study completion. Methods: Pts were followed on study for 1 year. From weeks 13-52, pts randomized to epag could continue the study drug, with dosage weans per protocol. Pts in the SOC arm who had persistent ITP and those in the epag arm who had not responded could receive second-line therapies after week 12. Platelet counts were measured at 6 months and 1 year, as well as at monthly intervals for those remaining on epag. Complete response (CR) at 1 year was defined as platelet count ≥150 x109/L. Disease resolution at 1 year was defined as CR ≥3 months after discontinuing most recent platelet active medication, without having received rituximab or splenectomy. Pts were evaluable for secondary objectives if they received at least one dose of protocol therapy. Analyses were performed a) within the subgroup with known data at 1 year, and b) with last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) to address missing data. Results: 78 pts were randomized to epag and 40 to SOC therapy. 12 pts came off study early due to withdrawal of consent (4), lost to follow-up (6), or other (2). Median duration of therapy in the epag arm was 111 days (range 7-390). 27 (35%) pts in the epag arm vs 22 (56%) in the SOC arm did not require any treatment after week 12, p=0.02, and 43 (55%) vs 25 (64%) did not require any treatment after 6 months, p=0.35. The most commonly used subsequent agents were romiplostim, rituximab, and mycophenolate mofetil in pts randomized to epag, and epag and romiplostim for pts randomized to SOC. 106 pts completed the full 1-year study (73 [94%] for epag; 33 [83%] for SOC).18 pts (25%) in the epag arm remained on study drug at 1 year. 24/73 (33%) pts in the epag arm vs 11/33 (33%) pts in the SOC arm remained on platelet active medication at 1 year. Disease resolution by 1 year occurred in 50 (47%) pts overall, and in 33 (45%) epag pts vs 17 (52%) SOC pts, p=0.55, with similar results for CR and for LOCF analyses. Disease resolution at 1 year was no different among age groups [15/28 (54%) epag arm vs 7/11 (64%) SOC ages 1-<6; 11/26 (42%) vs 5/12 (42%) ages 6-<12; and 7/19 (37%) vs 5/10 (50%) ages 12-<18]. Disease resolution at 1 year occurred in 16/26 (62%) epag vs 10/13 (77%) SOC treatment-naïve pts who enrolled on the trial as upfront therapy. 33 (45%) pts in epag arm vs 15 (45%) in SOC arm had “primary remission,” defined as CR at 1 year with no second-line agents and ≥3 months after discontinuing most recent platelet active medication. 8 (11%) in epag arm vs 3 (9%) in SOC arm had “disease stability,” defined as platelets between 50-150 x109/L and were ≥3 months after discontinuing most recent platelet active medication. Sustained response off treatment (SROT, inclusive of those with disease resolution or disease stability) occurred in 41 (56%) in epag arm vs 20 (61%) in SOC. There were 14 adverse events (AEs) (including 4 serious AEs) during weeks 13-52 in 9 pts (6 epag, 3 SOC). Conclusions: In this population of pediatric pts with newly diagnosed ITP, 47% overall had disease resolution by 1 year, with no difference between treatment arms in 1-year response rates. SROT at 12 months was 56% in epag and 61% in SOC. Many pts on the epag arm were able to discontinue medication quickly, within a median of 4 months. Given these findings and the improved sustained platelet response to epag compared to SOC during weeks 6-12, epag should be considered for upfront and early use in pediatric pts with newly diagnosed ITP who require pharmacologic treatment in order to obtain a more stable platelet count.

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)0.004
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 score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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