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}
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.
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