olutasidenib与ivosidenib在复发或对venetoclax难治的异柠檬酸脱氢酶1突变急性髓系白血病患者中的有效性:2102-HEM-101试验与基于美国电子健康记录的外部对照组

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Catherine E Lai, Thomas P Leahy, Alex J Turner, Amber Thomassen, Lixia Wang, Aaron D Sheppard, Jorge Cortes
{"title":"olutasidenib与ivosidenib在复发或对venetoclax难治的异柠檬酸脱氢酶1突变急性髓系白血病患者中的有效性:2102-HEM-101试验与基于美国电子健康记录的外部对照组","authors":"Catherine E Lai, Thomas P Leahy, Alex J Turner, Amber Thomassen, Lixia Wang, Aaron D Sheppard, Jorge Cortes","doi":"10.1080/10428194.2025.2514894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>First-line venetoclax (VEN) treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has high relapse rates, with limited evidence guiding subsequent therapy sequencing. This study evaluated the effectiveness of olutasidenib (OLU) versus ivosidenib (IVO) for patients withIDH1 relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML previously treated with VEN based therapy. Outcomes were compared between a subcohort of OLU-treated patients from the 2102-HEM-101 trial and an external control arm of IVO-treated patients from the Loopback Analytics electronic health record database. Entropy balancing was applied to align key prognostic variables. Risk differences (RD) for response/TI were estimated <i>via</i> logistic regression, and hazard ratios (HR) for OS <i>via</i> Cox regression. Following weighting, treatment with OLU versus IVO was associated with significantly higher rates of complete response (RD: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.49), transfusion independence (RD: 0.27; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.53), and OS (HR: 0.33; 95%CI: 0.11, 0.94). Results suggest favorable effectiveness of OLU versus IVO in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":18047,"journal":{"name":"Leukemia & Lymphoma","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of olutasidenib versus ivosidenib in patients with mutated isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 acute myeloid leukemia who are relapsed or refractory to venetoclax: the 2102-HEM-101 trial versus a US electronic health record-based external control arm.\",\"authors\":\"Catherine E Lai, Thomas P Leahy, Alex J Turner, Amber Thomassen, Lixia Wang, Aaron D Sheppard, Jorge Cortes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10428194.2025.2514894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>First-line venetoclax (VEN) treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has high relapse rates, with limited evidence guiding subsequent therapy sequencing. This study evaluated the effectiveness of olutasidenib (OLU) versus ivosidenib (IVO) for patients withIDH1 relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML previously treated with VEN based therapy. Outcomes were compared between a subcohort of OLU-treated patients from the 2102-HEM-101 trial and an external control arm of IVO-treated patients from the Loopback Analytics electronic health record database. Entropy balancing was applied to align key prognostic variables. Risk differences (RD) for response/TI were estimated <i>via</i> logistic regression, and hazard ratios (HR) for OS <i>via</i> Cox regression. Following weighting, treatment with OLU versus IVO was associated with significantly higher rates of complete response (RD: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.49), transfusion independence (RD: 0.27; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.53), and OS (HR: 0.33; 95%CI: 0.11, 0.94). Results suggest favorable effectiveness of OLU versus IVO in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leukemia & Lymphoma\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leukemia & Lymphoma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2025.2514894\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leukemia & Lymphoma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2025.2514894","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

venetoclax (VEN)治疗急性髓系白血病(AML)的一线治疗复发率高,指导后续治疗排序的证据有限。该研究评估了olutasidenib (OLU)与ivosidenib (IVO)对先前接受VEN治疗的idh1复发/难治性AML患者的有效性。结果比较了来自2102-HEM-101试验的olu治疗患者亚队列和来自Loopback Analytics电子健康记录数据库的ivo治疗患者的外部对照组。应用熵平衡对关键预测变量进行对齐。通过logistic回归估计反应/TI的风险差异(RD),通过Cox回归估计OS的风险比(HR)。加权后,与IVO相比,OLU治疗的完全缓解率显著更高(RD: 0.25;95%CI: 0.01, 0.49),输血独立性(RD: 0.27;95%CI: 0.01, 0.53)和OS (HR: 0.33;95%ci: 0.11, 0.94)。结果表明,在这一人群中,OLU与IVO的效果较好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of olutasidenib versus ivosidenib in patients with mutated isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 acute myeloid leukemia who are relapsed or refractory to venetoclax: the 2102-HEM-101 trial versus a US electronic health record-based external control arm.

First-line venetoclax (VEN) treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has high relapse rates, with limited evidence guiding subsequent therapy sequencing. This study evaluated the effectiveness of olutasidenib (OLU) versus ivosidenib (IVO) for patients withIDH1 relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML previously treated with VEN based therapy. Outcomes were compared between a subcohort of OLU-treated patients from the 2102-HEM-101 trial and an external control arm of IVO-treated patients from the Loopback Analytics electronic health record database. Entropy balancing was applied to align key prognostic variables. Risk differences (RD) for response/TI were estimated via logistic regression, and hazard ratios (HR) for OS via Cox regression. Following weighting, treatment with OLU versus IVO was associated with significantly higher rates of complete response (RD: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.49), transfusion independence (RD: 0.27; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.53), and OS (HR: 0.33; 95%CI: 0.11, 0.94). Results suggest favorable effectiveness of OLU versus IVO in this population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Leukemia & Lymphoma
Leukemia & Lymphoma 医学-血液学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
384
审稿时长
1.8 months
期刊介绍: Leukemia & Lymphoma in its fourth decade continues to provide an international forum for publication of high quality clinical, translational, and basic science research, and original observations relating to all aspects of hematological malignancies. The scope ranges from clinical and clinico-pathological investigations to fundamental research in disease biology, mechanisms of action of novel agents, development of combination chemotherapy, pharmacology and pharmacogenomics as well as ethics and epidemiology. Submissions of unique clinical observations or confirmatory studies are considered and published as Letters to the Editor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信