Comparison Study of Standard Care Against Combination of Growth Factors Agents for Low-risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (REGIME)
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
Purpose
REGIME is comparing two treatments, with Darbepoetin Alpha (DA) and Filgrastim (Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, G-CSF), to the standard treatment for Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS).
After giving Informed Consent patients will undergo a number of tests to confirm eligibility. Once eligibility is confirmed patients will be randomly assigned to one of the three treatments group: A: Darbepoetin Alpha (DA), B: Darbepoetin Alpha and Filgrastim (DA+G-CSF), C: Blood transfusion only. Patients will be required to attend the clinic once a month for 24 weeks. After 24 weeks if a patient has reacted favorably to the treatment they may continue on the treatment regime up to 52 weeks. After week 24 all patients will be required to attend the clinic twice more, at week 36 and 52.
Patients will be followed for a further 5 years to record loss of response, transformation to Acute Myeloid Leukaemia and/or Refractory Anemia with Excess Blasts and death.
| Condition | Intervention | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
Myelodysplastic Syndrome |
Drug: Darbepoetin alpha Drug: Filgrastim Procedure: Blood Red Cell Transfusion |
Phase 3 |
| Study Type: | Interventional |
| Study Design: | Allocation: Randomized Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study Intervention Model: Factorial Assignment Masking: Open Label |
| Official Title: | REGIME: A Randomised Controlled Trial of Prolonged Treatment With Darbepoetin Alpha, With or Without Recombinant Human Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Versus Best Supportive Care in Patients With Low-risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS). |
- Quality of Life [ Time Frame: weeks 0 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the Quality of Life of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 0 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Quality of Life [ Time Frame: weeks 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the Quality of Life of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Quality of Life [ Time Frame: weeks 24 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the Quality of Life of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Quality of Life [ Time Frame: weeks 36 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the Quality of Life of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Quality of Life [ Time Frame: weeks 52 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the Quality of Life of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 4 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 8 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 16 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 20 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 24 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 36 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Haemoglobine response [ Time Frame: week 52 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To compare the haemoglobin response of low risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) patients randomised to receive prolonged treatment with DA alone, DA with G-CSF or best supportive care alone
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: every week ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: week 4 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: week 8 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: week 12 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: week 16 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: week 20 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: week 24 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: week 36 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
- Utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment [ Time Frame: week 52 ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]To assess the utility of prognostic factor and predictive factor assessment, in particular against the predictive model proposed by Hellstrom-Lindberg.
| Estimated Enrollment: | 360 |
| Study Start Date: | November 2010 |
| Estimated Study Completion Date: | November 2015 |
| Estimated Primary Completion Date: | November 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) |
| Arms | Assigned Interventions |
|---|---|
| Active Comparator: Darbepoetin Alfa |
Drug: Darbepoetin alpha
Aranesp 500 mcg vials once every 2 weeks.
Other Name: Aranesp
|
| Active Comparator: G-CSF |
Drug: Filgrastim
300 mcg vials twice a week, 3-4 days apart
Other Name: Neupogen
|
|
Active Comparator: Best Supportive Care
Red cell transfusion support to achieve a predicted post-transfusion haemoglobin of 11.0 to 12.0 g/dl at a quantity and frequency such that the minimum haemoglobin is never below 8.0 g/dl
|
Procedure: Blood Red Cell Transfusion
Red cell transfusion support to achieve a predicted post-transfusion haemoglobin of 11.0 to 12.0 g/dl at a quantity and frequency such that the minimum haemoglobin is never below 8.0 g/dl or such that the patient is never excessively symptomatic, according to local transfusion guidelines/policy.
Other Name: Blood transfusion.
|
Eligibility| Ages Eligible for Study: | 18 Years and older |
| Genders Eligible for Study: | Both |
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | No |
Inclusion Criteria:
- Males and females aged over 18 years, (no upper age limit)
- ECOG performance status 0-2
- Life expectancy more than 6 months
A confirmed diagnosis of MDS - WHO type:
- refractory anaemia (RA)
- hypoplastic RA ineligible for/or failed immunosuppressive therapy (ALG, cyclosporine)
- refractory anaemia with ring sideroblasts (RARS)
- refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia
- myelodysplastic syndrome unclassifiable
- IPSS low or Int-1, but with BM blasts less than 5%
- A haemoglobin concentration of less than 10g/dl and/or red cell transfusion dependence
- Able to understand the implications of participation in the Trial and give written informed consent.
Exclusion Criteria:
- MDS with bone marrow blasts greater or equal than 5%
- Myelodysplastic syndrome associated with del(5q)(q31-33) syndrome
- Chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (monocytes greater than1.0x109/l)
- Therapy-related MDS
- Splenomegaly, with spleen greater or equal than 5 cm from left costal margin
- Platelets less than 30x109/l
- Uncorrected haematinic deficiency. Patient deplete to iron, B12 and folate according to local lab ranges
- Women who are pregnant or lactating.
- Females of childbearing potential and all males must be willing to use an effective method of contraception (hormonal or barrier method of birth control; abstinence) for the duration of the study and for up to 3 months after the last dose of study medication. Note: Subjects are not considered of child bearing potential if they are surgically sterile (they have undergone a hysterectomy, bilateral tubal ligation, or bilateral oophorectomy) or they are postmenopausal
- Females of childbearing potential must have a negative pregnancy test prior to starting the study.
- Uncontrolled hypertension, previous venous thromboembolism, or uncontrolled cardiac or pulmonary disease
- Previous serious adverse events to the study medications or its components
- Patients who have had previous therapy with ESAs ± G-CSF within 4 weeks of study entry
- Patients currently receiving experimental therapy, e.g. with thalidomide, or who are participating in another CTIMP.
- Medical or psychiatric illness, which makes the patient unsuitable or unable to give informed consent.
- Patients with malignancy requiring active treatment (except hormonal therapy).
- Patients with a history of seizures
Contacts and Locations| Contact: Eva Controle, BSc | 00442078828499 ext 8499 | e.controle@qmul.ac.uk |
| Contact: REGIME Coordinators | 00442078828499 ext 8499 | regime@qmcr.qmul.qc.uk |
| United Kingdom | |
| Birmingham Cancer Research UK Clinical Trial Unit | Not yet recruiting |
| Birmingham, United Kingdom, B15 2TT | |
| Contact: Data Manager 00441214159132 regime@trials.bham.ac.uk | |
| CECM Institute of Cancer | Not yet recruiting |
| London, United Kingdom, EC1M 6BQ | |
| Contact: Eva Controle, BSc 00442078828499 e.controle@qmul.ac.uk | |
| Contact: REGIME Coordinators 00442078828499 regime@qmcr.qmul.ac.uk | |
| St Bartholomew's Hospital | Not yet recruiting |
| London, United Kingdom, EC1A 7BE | |
| Contact: Sarah Knight sarah.knight@bartsandthelondon.nhs.uk | |
| Principal Investigator: Samir G Agrawal | |
| King's College Hospital Haematoloy Laboratory | Not yet recruiting |
| London, United Kingdom, SE5 9RS | |
| Contact: Aloysius Ho 00442077374000 ext 4153 | |
| Study Director: | Samir G Agrawal, MRCP FRCPath PhD | Barts and The London NHS Trust |
More Information
Additional Information:
No publications provided
| Responsible Party: | Dr Samir G. Agrawal, Barts & The London NHS Trust |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT01196715 History of Changes |
| Other Study ID Numbers: | MDS201001, 2009-017462-23, CRUK/08/009 |
| Study First Received: | July 26, 2010 |
| Last Updated: | March 14, 2012 |
| Health Authority: | United Kingdom: Research Ethics Committee United Kingdom: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency |
Keywords provided by Barts & The London NHS Trust:
|
Quality of Life Erythroid response disease progression survival Overall erythroid response at 24 weeks |
Quality of life at 24 weeks Quality of life at 12, 36 and 52 weeks Overall erythroid response at 12 and 52 weeks Incidence of disease progression Overall Survival |
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
|
Myelodysplastic Syndromes Preleukemia Bone Marrow Diseases Hematologic Diseases Precancerous Conditions Neoplasms Lenograstim Darbepoetin alfa |
Adjuvants, Immunologic Immunologic Factors Physiological Effects of Drugs Pharmacologic Actions Hematinics Hematologic Agents Therapeutic Uses |
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on May 16, 2013