MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417023485 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-5588

Comprehensive analyses of patient-reported outcomes from the phase 3 VERIFY study of rusfertide or placebo plus current standard of care for polycythemia vera

2025· article· en· W4417023485 on OpenAlexaff
Aniket Bankar, Andrew Kuykendall, Naveen Pemmaraju, Kristen Pettit, Joseph J. Shatzel, Alessandro Lucchesi, Valentín García‐Gutiérrez, Harinder Gill, Joseph M. Scandura, Francesca Palandri, Matthew Reaney, Cristina Ivanescu, Christina Daskalopoulou, Phil Dinh, Sarita Khanna, Suneel Gupta, Arturo Molina, David Cella

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhlebotomyPolycythemia veraPlaceboClinical endpointMyeloproliferative neoplasmHematocritRuxolitinibClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) characterized by erythrocytosis that is often accompanied by fatigue, pruritus, problems with concentration, and other symptoms. At times, these symptoms can be debilitating. Rusfertide is a first-in-class hepcidin mimetic peptide that controls erythrocytosis. In the ongoing randomized phase 3 VERIFY study (NCT05210790), compared to placebo (PBO) plus current standard of care (SOC), rusfertide added to SOC for PV met its primary endpoint, 2 key secondary patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints, and 2 additional key secondary endpoints at Week 32. Here, we present additional data from the 2 key secondary endpoints in VERIFY Part 1a that relied on the PROMIS Fatigue Short Form (SF)-8a and MFSAF Total Symptom Score 7 (TSS7) PROs and PRO-focused exploratory endpoints. Methods: In the VERIFY Part 1a double-blind period (Weeks 0-32), patients (pts) requiring frequent phlebotomy with or without cytoreductive therapy (CRT) to achieve and maintain hematocrit <45% received once-weekly rusfertide or PBO added to pts’ current SOC. Two key alpha-controlled secondary endpoints evaluated mean change from baseline (BL) to end of VERIFY Part 1a (Week 32) in the PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a T-score and the MFSAF TSS7 (includes fatigue, night sweats, itch, abdominal discomfort, pain under left ribs, early satiety, and bone pain). Exploratory endpoints included mean change from BL at Week 32 in pts who were symptomatic at BL (ie, pts with moderate or severe symptoms at BL; severity determined using Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGI-S] groupings) in the PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a T-score, the MFSAF TSS4 (ie, PV-relevant symptoms, eg, fatigue, night sweats, itch, and abdominal discomfort), and the single item measuring problems with concentration from the MPN Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF). Negative numbers indicate improvement in all these measures. Results: Pts (N=293; 73.0% male; median age, 57 yrs) received rusfertide (n=147) or PBO (n=146) with or without CRT. At BL, mean (standard deviation [SD]) PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a T-Score was similar in the rusfertide and PBO groups (52.5 [11.7] and 51.2 [10.1], respectively). Mean (SD) change from BL to Week 32 in the PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a T-Score was -3.9 (8.2) and -1.1 (8.1) in the rusfertide and PBO groups, respectively (least-squares means [LSM] difference (standard error [SE]), -1.98 [0.88]; p=0.025). At BL, mean (SD) MFSAF TSS7 was 10.7 (11.4) and 9.5 (10.2) in the rusfertide and PBO groups, respectively. Mean (SD) change from BL to Week 32 in the MFSAF TSS7 was -2.96 (8.0) and -0.06 (5.7) in the rusfertide and PBO groups, respectively (LSM difference [SE], -1.87 [0.82]; p=0.024). In pts who were symptomatic at BL, mean (SD) change from BL to Week 32 was a) -9.8 (8.8) and -5.2 (8.3) for the PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a T-score in the rusfertide and PBO groups, respectively (LSM difference [SE], -3.83 [1.92]; nominal p=0.0496), and b) was -6.4 (5.8) and -1.8 (5.7) for MFSAF TSS4 in the rusfertide and PBO groups, respectively (LSM difference [SE], -4.54 [1.33]; nominal p=0.001). In the rusfertide group, a greater number of pts improved by ≥1 severity category (eg, improvement from “severe” to “moderate”; improvement from “moderate” to “mild”) in the PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a and MFSAF TSS7 vs PBO. In pts who were symptomatic at BL, mean (SD) change from BL to Week 32 in the MPN-SAF problems with concentration item was -2.5 (1.9) and -1.9 (2.2) in the rusfertide and PBO groups, respectively (LSM difference [SE], -1.08 [0.48]; nominal p=0.027). Conclusions: In VERIFY, the first phase 3 study in PV to prospectively investigate PROs as key secondary endpoints, rusfertide led to statistically significant improvements vs PBO in patient-reported symptoms. Rusfertide significantly reduced fatigue and overall symptom burden (PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a and MFSAF TSS7 scores) and resulted in significant improvements from BL (p<0.05) in pts with moderate-to-severe symptoms at BL in core PV symptoms (MFSAF TSS4) and problems with concentration (MPN-SAF) vs PBO. In the rusfertide group, more pts improved by ≥1 severity category in the PROMIS Fatigue SF-8a and MFSAF TSS7 vs PBO. Overall, these results confirm the robustness of rusfertide’s clinical benefit in PV, particularly in pts with moderate or severe symptoms at BL. Support: Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 topicMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→