Search results for: patient database

Authors: Claire Harrison, Raajit K. Rampal, Vikas Gupta, Srdan Verstovsek, Moshe Talpaz, Jean-Jacques Kiladjian, Ruben Mesa, Andrew Kuykendall, Alessandro Vannucchi, Francesca Palandri, Sebastian Grosicki, Timothy Devos, Eric Jourdan, Marielle J. Wondergem, Haifa Kathrin Al-Ali, Veronika Buxhofer-Ausch, Alberto Alvarez-Larrán, Sanjay Akhani, Rafael Muñoz-Carerras, Yury Sheykin, Gozde Colak, Morgan Harris, John Mascarenhas

Abstract:

Myelofibrosis (MF) is characterized by bone marrow fibrosis, anemia, splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms. Progressive bone marrow fibrosis results from aberrant megakaryopoeisis and expression of proinflammatory cytokines, both of which are heavily influenced by bromodomain and extraterminal domain (BET)-mediated gene regulation and lead to myeloproliferation and cytopenias. Pelabresib (CPI-0610) is an oral small-molecule investigational inhibitor of BET protein bromodomains currently being developed for the treatment of patients with MF. It is designed to downregulate BET target genes and modify nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) signaling. MANIFEST-2 was initiated based on data from Arm 3 of the ongoing Phase 2 MANIFEST study (NCT02158858), which is evaluating the combination of pelabresib and ruxolitinib in Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment-naïve patients with MF. Primary endpoint analyses showed splenic and symptom responses in 68% and 56% of 84 enrolled patients, respectively. MANIFEST-2 (NCT04603495) is a global, Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, active-control study of pelabresib and ruxolitinib versus placebo and ruxolitinib in JAKi treatment-naïve patients with primary MF, post-polycythemia vera MF or post-essential thrombocythemia MF. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pelabresib in combination with ruxolitinib. Here we report updates from a recent protocol amendment. The MANIFEST-2 study schema is shown in Figure 1. Key eligibility criteria include a Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) score of Intermediate-1 or higher, platelet count ≥100 × 10^9/L, spleen volume ≥450 cc by computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, ≥2 symptoms with an average score ≥3 or a Total Symptom Score (TSS) of ≥10 using the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form v4.0, peripheral blast count <5% and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2. Patient randomization will be stratified by DIPSS risk category (Intermediate-1 vs Intermediate-2 vs High), platelet count (>200 × 10^9/L vs 100–200 × 10^9/L) and spleen volume (≥1800 cm^3 vs <1800 cm^3). Double-blind treatment (pelabresib or matching placebo) will be administered once daily for 14 consecutive days, followed by a 7 day break, which is considered one cycle of treatment. Ruxolitinib will be administered twice daily for all 21 days of the cycle. The primary endpoint is SVR35 response (≥35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline) at Week 24, and the key secondary endpoint is TSS50 response (≥50% reduction in TSS from baseline) at Week 24. Other secondary endpoints include safety, pharmacokinetics, changes in bone marrow fibrosis, duration of SVR35 response, duration of TSS50 response, progression-free survival, overall survival, conversion from transfusion dependence to independence and rate of red blood cell transfusion for the first 24 weeks. Study recruitment is ongoing; 400 patients (200 per arm) from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia will be enrolled. The study opened for enrollment in November 2020. MANIFEST-2 was initiated based on data from the ongoing Phase 2 MANIFEST study with the aim of assessing the efficacy and safety of pelabresib and ruxolitinib in JAKi treatment-naïve patients with MF. MANIFEST-2 is currently open for enrollment.

Keywords: CPI-0610, JAKi treatment-naïve, MANIFEST-2, myelofibrosis, pelabresib

Procedia PDF Downloads 200

Authors: Julie M. Novak, Simone K. Brennan, Lacey Brim

Abstract:

Undergraduate medical education (UME) curriculum notably addresses micro-level communications (e.g., patient-provider, intercultural, inter-professional), yet frequently under-examines the role and impact of organizational communication, a more macro-level. Organizational communication, however, functions as foundation and through systemic structures of an organization and thereby serves as hidden curriculum and influences learning experiences and outcomes. Yet, little available research exists fully examining how students experience organizational communication while in medical school. Extant literature and best practices provide insufficient guidance for UME programs, in particular. The purpose of this study was to map and examine current organizational communication systems and processes in a UME program. Employing a phenomenology-grounded and participatory approach, this study sought to understand the organizational communication system from medical students' perspective. The research team consisted of a core team and 13 medical student co-investigators. This research employed multiple methods, including focus groups, individual interviews, and two surveys (one reflective of focus group questions, the other requesting students to submit ‘examples’ of communications). To provide context for student responses, nonstudent participants (faculty, administrators, and staff) were sampled, as they too express concerns about communication. Over 400 students across all cohorts and 17 nonstudents participated. Data were iteratively analyzed and checked for triangulation. Findings reveal the complex nature of organizational communication and student-oriented communications. They reveal program-impactful strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and tensions and speak to the role of organizational communication practices influencing both climate and culture. With regard to communications, students receive multiple, simultaneous communications from multiple sources/channels, both formal (e.g., official email) and informal (e.g., social media). Students identified organizational strengths including the desire to improve student voice, and message frequency. They also identified weaknesses related to over-reliance on emails, numerous platforms with inconsistent utilization, incorrect information, insufficient transparency, assessment/input fatigue, tacit expectations, scheduling/deadlines, responsiveness, and mental health confidentiality concerns. Moreover, they noted gaps related to lack of coordination/organization, ambiguous point-persons, student ‘voice-only’, open communication loops, lack of core centralization and consistency, and mental health bridges. Findings also revealed organizational identity and cultural characteristics as impactful on the medical school experience. Cultural characteristics included program size, diversity, urban setting, student organizations, community-engagement, crisis framing, learning for exams, inefficient bureaucracy, and professionalism. Moreover, they identified system structures that do not always leverage cultural strengths or reduce cultural problematics. Based on the results, opportunities for productive change are identified. These include leadership visibly supporting and enacting overall organizational narratives, making greater efforts in consistently ‘closing the loop’, regularly sharing how student input effects change, employing strategies of crisis communication more often, strengthening communication infrastructure, ensuring structures facilitate effective operations and change efforts, and highlighting change efforts in informational communication. Organizational communication and communications are not soft-skills, or of secondary concern within organizations, rather they are foundational in nature and serve to educate/inform all stakeholders. As primary stakeholders, students and their success directly affect the accomplishment of organizational goals. This study demonstrates how inquiries about how students navigate their educational experience extends research-based knowledge and provides actionable knowledge for the improvement of organizational operations in UME.

Keywords: medical education programs, organizational communication, participatory research, qualitative mixed methods

Procedia PDF Downloads 112