Efficacy of Ruxolitinib By Baseline Spleen Volume in Patients with Polycythemia Vera Resistant to or Intolerant of Hydroxyurea

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1840-1840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Mark M Jones ◽  
Shui He ◽  
Jingjin Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
Polycythemia Vera ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Response Trial

Abstract Background : Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm defined by erythrocytosis; patients may also have increased platelets and white blood cells as well as splenomegaly and disease-related symptoms. JAK/STAT activation is the primary driver of PV pathogenesis, in most cases resulting from the JAK2V617F mutation. The RESPONSE trial compared ruxolitinib (RUX) and best available therapy (BAT) in patients with PV and splenomegaly who were intolerant of or resistant to hydroxyurea (HU) according to modified European LeukemiaNet criteria. At the time of the primary analysis, RUX demonstrated superior improvements in hematocrit (HCT) control, symptom burden, and spleen volume compared with BAT. This post hoc analysis of RESPONSE was conducted to determine if treatment outcomes were influenced by baseline spleen volume. Methods : Patients with PV ≥18 years of age who were resistant to or intolerant of HU with palpable spleen (confirmed by MRI/CT to be ≥450 cm3) and phlebotomy requirement were randomized 1:1 to receive open-label RUX 10 mg BID or BAT. The primary endpoint was a composite that required a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume at Week 32 and hematocrit (HCT) control. HCT control was defined as lack of phlebotomy eligibility (based on HCT values) between Weeks 8–32 with no more than 1 phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and Week 8. A linear regression was conducted to determine the effect of baseline spleen volume on the percent change in spleen volume at Week 32. A logistic regression was conducted to determine the effect of baseline spleen volume on HCT control through Week 32. Spleen volume was measured by MRI at screening and Weeks 16 and 32. Hematocrit was assessed at screening, prerandomization, and every 2 weeks from Day 1 to Week 12, followed by every 4 weeks until Week 32. Results :The RESPONSE trial enrolled 222 patients (RUX, 110; BAT, 112). Median (range) spleen volume at baseline was 1195 cm3 (396–4631 cm3) in the RUX arm and 1322 cm3 (254–5147 cm3) in the BAT arm. Baseline median (range) spleen length by palpation was 7.0 cm (0.0–24.0 cm) in the RUX arm and 7.0 cm (0.0–25.0 cm) in the BAT arm. In the 24 weeks prior to screening, most patients in both arms had ≥2 phlebotomy procedures (RUX, 87%; BAT, 80%). There was no correlation between the percentage change in spleen volume at Week 32 and baseline spleen volume; linear regression showed no significant effect of baseline spleen volume on the percentage change in spleen volume at Week 32 (P=0.40). No significant effect of baseline spleen volume on HCT control through Week 32 was identified based on logistic regression analysis (P=0.37). Conclusion : In PV patients with inadequate response to or intolerant of HU, the degree of splenomegaly at baseline did not influence achievement of HCT control or reduction in spleen volume with RUX therapy. Disclosures Vannucchi: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Habr:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kiladjian:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Clinical Benefit of Ruxolitinib Treatment after Crossover from Best Available Therapy in Patients with Polycythemia Vera: Analysis of the RESPONSE Trial

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3181-3181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
Martin Griesshammer ◽  
Tamas Masszi ◽  
Simon Durrant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Polycythemia Vera ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Response Trial

Abstract Background : Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by erythrocytosis, and in many cases leukocytosis and thrombocytosis. PV is driven by activating mutations in the JAK/STAT pathway, primarily JAK2V617F. For high-risk patients, a commonly used first-line therapy is hydroxyurea (HU); however, a subgroup of patients become intolerant of or resistant to HU. The phase 3 RESPONSE trial compared ruxolitinib (RUX) and best available therapy (BAT) in patients with PV who were intolerant of or resistant to HU (modified European LeukemiaNet criteria). Patients randomized in the BAT arm were permitted to cross over to receive RUX from Week 32 of the study. The results of the primary analysis comparing RUX to BAT prior to crossover have been reported, in which RUX was superior to BAT in achieving hematocrit control, reductions in spleen volume, and improvements in PV-related symptoms. This current analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of RUX treatment in patients who crossed over from BAT relative to their original BAT treatment and relative to those originally randomized to RUX. Methods : Enrollment criteria included PV diagnosis, age ≥18 years, resistance to or intolerance of HU, splenomegaly, and phlebotomy requirement to control hematocrit. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive open-label RUX 10 mg BID or BAT administered based on investigator judgment. BAT may have included HU, interferon/pegylated interferon, pipobroman, anagrelide, immunomodulators (eg, lenalidomide or thalidomide), or no medication. The protocol allowed for dose modifications (RUX, 5-mg BID increments [25 mg BID max]; BAT was adjusted per investigator judgment). Patients in the BAT group could cross over to RUX from Week 32 if they had not met the primary endpoint, or after Week 32 due to protocol-defined disease progression. The primary study endpoint was a composite of hematocrit control and a ≥35% reduction in spleen size at Week 32. Hematocrit was assessed at screening, every 2 weeks from Day 1 to Week 12, followed by every 4 weeks until Week 32, and 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 24, and 32 weeks following crossover. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging at screening and study Weeks 16, 32, 48, 64, 80 and every 32 weeks thereafter. The number of phlebotomy procedures was evaluated over time in each group. Results : A total of 110 patients were randomized to RUX and 112 to BAT; study discontinuation by Week 32 (before crossover was permitted) was 11% in both groups. However, most patients in the BAT arm crossed over to receive RUX treatment immediately after the Week 32 visit (84% between Weeks 32 and 48); only 3% of patients remained in the BAT arm compared with 85% in the RUX arm at the time of the data analysis (median 81-week follow-up). With up to 32 weeks on BAT therapy, 25% of patients in this group did not require a phlebotomy; in contrast, with up to 32 weeks on RUX, 79% of patients after crossover and 74% of patients initially randomized to RUX did not require phlebotomy. The number of phlebotomy procedures adjusted for 100 patient-years during BAT therapy was 196.8 vs 38.5 after crossover to RUX and 34.1 on randomized RUX treatment. Reduction in spleen volume from baseline at any visit occurred in 49% of patients receiving BAT, vs 73% of patients after crossover to RUX and 88% of patients initially randomized to RUX. The proportion of patients achieving at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume (best percentage change) was 1.8% during BAT treatment vs 38.5% after crossover to RUX and 60.0% during randomized RUX treatment. Conclusion : Treatment with RUX after crossover from BAT resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared with original BAT treatment. These findings support the primary RESPONSE results and further validate the efficacy of RUX in this patient population. Disclosures Kiladjian: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Masszi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Durrant:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals : Employment, Equity Ownership. Habr:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding.

Ruxolitinib Efficacy By Hematocrit Control in Patients with Polycythemia Vera: An Analysis of the RESPONSE Trial

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 3201-3201
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Ruben Mesa ◽  
Mark M Jones ◽  
Shui He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polycythemia Vera ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Jak2 Inhibitor ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Response Trial

Abstract Background: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by erythrocytosis and overactive JAK/STAT activity. The RESPONSE trial compared ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, with best available therapy (BAT) in patients (pts) with PV intolerant of or resistant to hydroxyurea according to modified European LeukemiaNet criteria. RUX was superior to BAT in achieving the primary endpoint (21% vs 1%; P<0.0001), and 60% of pts randomized to RUX achieved protocol-defined hematocrit (HCT) control through Wk 32 vs 20% of pts randomized to BAT (J Clin Oncol32:5s, 2014; suppl, abstract 7026). However, the actual phlebotomy rate between Wks 8−32 was only 20% in pts randomized to RUX compared with 62% in pts randomized to BAT, and 85% of pts in the RUX arm continued to receive treatment at the median 81-wk follow-up, suggesting most pts derived some benefit from RUX. Therefore, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy of RUX in pts who did and did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control. Methods: Phlebotomy-dependent PV pts with splenomegaly, aged ≥18 years, and resistant to or intolerant of HU were enrolled. Pts were required to have HCT between 40%−45% 14 days prior to randomization; those who did not could enter a phlebotomy control period to achieve a HCT in this range within 14 days of randomization. Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to RUX or BAT. BAT pts could cross over to receive RUX from Wk 32 if they had not met the primary endpoint, or after Wk 32 due to protocol-defined disease progression. The primary composite endpoint comprised HCT control and a ≥35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume (SV) at Wk 32. HCT control was defined as lack of phlebotomy eligibility between Wks 8−32 with no more than 1 phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and Wk 8. Phlebotomy eligibility was based on protocol-defined HCT values (regardless of receipt of phlebotomy), and pts with missing data or assessments outside of protocol-defined time windows were considered non-responders. In pts who were HCT control non-responders (HCT-N) as defined by protocol, time to second phlebotomy eligibility was evaluated. For this analysis, pts without phlebotomy eligibility were excluded and phlebotomies in the first 8 wks were not considered. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated in both HCT control responders (HCT-R) and HCT-N, including the 14-item modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Results: Of 222 randomized pts (RUX, n=110; BAT, n=112), most were male (RUX, 60%; BAT, 71%) and the median age (range) was similar between treatment arms (RUX, 62.0 [34.0–90.0]; BAT, 60.0 [33.0–84.0]). Although pts had a HCT between 40% and 45% within 14 days prior to randomization (with or without phlebotomy), 24% of pts had a HCT >45% on Day 1 (similar between treatment arms) illustrating that many pts have poor HCT control over short intervals of observation. RUX treatment resulted in long-term benefits on HCT levels, even in pts who did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control through Wk 32. Among the RUX HCT-R group, the probability of maintaining HCT response was 97% at 48 wks and 87% at 80 wks. Most BAT pts crossed over to receive RUX immediately after the Wk 32 visit (84% between Wks 32 and 48). In the RUX HCT-N pts, the median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility was 52 wks, compared with 21 wks for BAT HCT-N pts (Figure). Compared with the entire BAT group, more RUX-R and RUX-N pts had a ≥50% improvement in the MPN-SAF total symptom score at Wk 32 (RUX-N, 38%; RUX-R, 40%; BAT, 4%). Median changes from baseline at Wk 32 in key symptoms such as tiredness (RUX-N; −50%; RUX-R, −49%; BAT, −4%), itching (RUX-N, −88%; RUX-R, −97%; BAT, −2%), and night sweats (RUX-N, −100%; RUX-R, −97%; BAT, 4%) were also greater among RUX-R and RUX-N pts than BAT pts. RUX-N and RUX-R pts were also more likely to consider their symptoms to be “much improved” or “very much improved” on the PGIC compared with BAT pts (RUX-N, 57%; RUX-R, 74%; BAT, 13%). Conclusion: Among pts receiving RUX who did not achieve protocol-defined HCT control, the median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility was 1 year. In contrast, pts on BAT had a median time to subsequent phlebotomy eligibility of 21 wks. Furthermore, pts in the RUX arm achieved meaningful improvements in PV-related symptoms, regardless of meeting the endpoint of HCT control, while pts treated with BAT showed worsening or no improvement. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Kiladjian:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Habr:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Long-Term Safety, Efficacy, and Survival Findings From Comfort-II, a Phase 3 Study Comparing Ruxolitinib with Best Available Therapy (BAT) for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 801-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Cervantes ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Dietger Niederwieser ◽  
Andres Sirulnik ◽  
Viktoriya Stalbovskaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Extension Phase ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 801 Background: Ruxolitinib is a potent JAK1 & 2 inhibitor that has demonstrated superiority over traditional therapies for the treatment of MF. In the two phase 3 COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life. COMFORT-II is a randomized, open-label study evaluating ruxolitinib versus BAT in patients (pts) with MF. The primary and key secondary endpoints were both met: the proportion of pts achieving a response (defined as a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume) at wk 48 (ruxolitinib, 28.5%; BAT, 0%; P < .0001) and 24 (31.9% and 0%; P < .0001), respectively. The present analyses update the efficacy and safety findings of COMFORT-II (median follow-up, 112 wk). Methods: In COMFORT-II, 219 pts with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and splenomegaly were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib (15 or 20 mg bid, based on baseline platelet count [100-200 × 109/L or > 200 × 109/L, respectively]) or BAT. Efficacy results are based on an intention-to-treat analysis; a loss of spleen response was defined as a > 25% increase in spleen volume over on-study nadir that is no longer a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median follow-up was 112 wk (ruxolitinib, 113; BAT, 108), and the median duration of exposure 83.3 wk (ruxolitinib, 111.4 [randomized and extension phases]; BAT, 45.1 [randomized treatment only]). Because the core study has completed, all pts have either entered the extension phase or discontinued from the study. The primary reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (AEs; ruxolitinib, 11.6%; BAT, 6.8%), consent withdrawal (4.1% and 12.3%), and disease progression (2.7% and 5.5%). Overall, 72.6% of pts (106/146) in the ruxolitinib arm and 61.6% (45/73) in the BAT arm entered the extension phase to receive ruxolitinib, and 55.5% (81/146) of those originally randomized to ruxolitinib remained on treatment at the time of this analysis. The primary reasons for discontinuation from the extension phase were progressive disease (8.2%), AEs (2.1%), and other (4.1%). Overall, 70 pts (48.3%) treated with ruxolitinib achieved a ≥ 35% reduction from baseline in spleen volume at any time during the study, and 97.1% of pts (132/136) with postbaseline assessments experienced a clinical benefit with some degree of reduction in spleen volume. Spleen reductions of ≥ 35% were sustained with continued ruxolitinib therapy (median duration not yet reached); the probabilities of maintaining the spleen response at wk 48 and 84 are 75% (95% CI, 61%-84%) and 58% (95% CI, 35%-76%), respectively (Figure). Since the last report (median 61.1 wk), an additional 9 and 12 deaths were reported in the ruxolitinib and BAT arms, respectively, resulting in a total of 20 (14%) and 16 (22%) deaths overall. Although there was no inferential statistical testing at this unplanned analysis, pts randomized to ruxolitinib showed longer survival than those randomized to BAT (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27–1.00). As expected, given the mechanism of action of ruxolitinib as a JAK1 & 2 inhibitor, the most common new or worsened grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities during randomized treatment were anemia (ruxolitinib, 40.4%; BAT, 23.3%), lymphopenia (22.6%; 31.5%), and thrombocytopenia (9.6%; 9.6%). In the ruxolitinib arm, mean hemoglobin levels decreased over the first 12 wk of treatment and then recovered to levels similar to BAT from wk 24 onward; there was no difference in the mean monthly red blood cell transfusion rate among the ruxolitinib and BAT groups (0.834 vs 0.956 units, respectively). Nonhematologic AEs were primarily grade 1/2. Including the extension phase, there were no new nonhematologic AEs in the ruxolitinib group that were not observed previously (in ≥ 10% of pts), and only 1 pt had a new grade 3/4 AE (epistaxis). Conclusion: In COMFORT-II, ruxolitinib provided rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly; this analysis demonstrates that these reductions are sustained over 2 years of treatment in the majority of pts. Ruxolitinib-treated pts showed longer survival than those receiving BAT, consistent with the survival advantage observed in previous (Verstovsek et al. NEJM. 2012) and current analyses of COMFORT-I, as well as with the comparison of pts of the phase 1/2 study with matched historical controls (Verstovsek et al. Blood. 2012). Disclosures: Cervantes: Sanofi-Aventis: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Celgene: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Pfizer: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Advisory Board, Advisory Board Other; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: AdvisoryBoard Other, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Sirulnik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stalbovskaya:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. McQuity:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunter:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte: Employment, stock options Other. Passamonti:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Barbui:Novartis: Honoraria. Gisslinger:AOP Orphan Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knoops:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison:Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

The Use of Erythropoietic-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) with Ruxolitinib in Patients with Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF), Post-Polycythemia Vera Myelofibrosis (PPV-MF), and Post-Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis (PET-MF).

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 2838-2838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Frances McMullin ◽  
Claire N Harrison ◽  
Dietger Niederwieser ◽  
Hilde Demuynck ◽  
Nadja Jakel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Spleen Size ◽  
Epoetin Alfa ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 2838 Background: Ruxolitinib (rux), a potent oral JAK1 & 2 inhibitor, has demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life in 2 phase 3 COMFORT studies in MF patients (pts). Consistent with rux's known mechanism of action, anemia was one of the most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) and was generally transient and manageable leading to discontinuation in only 1 pt. In clinical practice, anemia can be managed with ESAs, which promote red blood cell proliferation via cytokine receptors that signal through the JAK pathway. Because these agents act upstream of rux in the JAK2 pathway, it is important to determine the effects of these medications on the safety and efficacy of rux. This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of rux in pts receiving concomitant ESA in COMFORT-II. Methods: COMFORT-II is an open-label, randomized, multicenter study. Pts were randomized (2:1) to receive rux 15 or 20 mg bid or best available therapy (BAT; as selected by the investigator). Use of ESAs (eg, darbepoetin alfa, epoetin alfa, epoetin nos), although not prohibited, was discouraged for pts randomized to rux because ESAs can increase spleen size, which could confound efficacy analyses. Spleen volume was assessed by MRI or CT every 12 wk. The rate of transfusions was calculated as the number of units transfused per exposure duration (typically 12 wk). Results: Concomitant use of ESA was reported for 13 (PMF, n = 10; PET-MF, n = 2; PPV-MF, n = 1) of the 146 pts who were treated with rux (darbepoetin alfa, 2% [n = 3]; epoetin alfa, 6% [n = 9]; epoetin nos, < 1% [n = 1]). The median exposure to rux was similar for pts who received an ESA (+ESA group; 500 d) vs those who did not receive ESA (468 d), and the median dose intensity of rux was the same for each group (30 mg/d). As shown in the table, 8 pts (62%) had no change, 2 pts (15%) had a decrease, and 3 pts (23%) had an increase in the rate of packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions per mo after the first administration of ESA compared with 12 wk before ESA use. Six wk prior to the first administration of ESA, 10/13 pts (77%) had grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities; however, 6 wk after the administration of ESA, most pts' conditions improved to grade 2 (7/13 [54%]). The majority of pts (77%) did not have any change in their reticulocyte counts within the 6 wk before and after the administration of ESA; 1 pt (8%) had a marked increase; for 2 pts (15%), the data were not available. The AEs reported in pts who received ESA were similar to those previously reported with rux. Serious AEs were reported for 8 pts in the +ESA group (3 events in 2 pts that were possibly related to study drug). Within the last assessment prior to and the first assessment after the first administration of ESA, 7/9 evaluable pts (78%) had spleen volume reductions. Conclusions: In this analysis, although the sample size is small, rux was generally well tolerated in pts who received ESA, and the tolerability profile of rux was similar to that reported in previous studies. Rux-treated pts who received ESA generally did not have any change in their transfusion rates, but the rate of grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities decreased within 6 wk of the first administration of ESA, suggesting that the use of ESA in combination with rux was beneficial in some pts. ESA did not appear to affect the efficacy of rux concerning spleen size reduction. The use of ESA for the treatment of anemia is common in clinical practice, and further analyses in combination with rux in this pt population are warranted. Disclosures: McMullin: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Harrison:Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; YM Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Niederwieser:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Sirulnik:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. McQuity:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stalbovskaya:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Recher:Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, travel to ASH, travel to ASH Other; sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Gisslinger:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Al- Ali:Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria.

The Effect of Ruxolitinib on White Blood Cell Counts in Patients with Polycythemia Vera: Results from the RESPONSE Trial

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4070-4070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole B. Miller ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Martin Griesshammer ◽  
Ahmad B. Naim ◽  
William Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Response Trial

Abstract Background: Age, prior thrombotic events, and an elevated hematocrit are established risk factors for increased risk of thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera (PV). Evidence also suggests that elevated white blood cell (WBC) counts ≥ 11×109/L are a significant independent risk factor for thrombosis in patients with PV (P =0.02; Barbui T, et al. Blood. 2015; 126:560-561). Therefore, this analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of ruxolitinib (Rux) and best available therapy (BAT) treatment on WBC counts among patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L in the RESPONSE trial. RESPONSE is a global, multicenter, open-label phase 3 trial investigating Rux and BAT in patients with PV who are resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea (HU). In the RESPONSE trial, Rux was associated with durable improvements in hematocrit control without phlebotomy compared with BAT as well as reductions in WBC counts. Methods: Changes from Baseline in WBC counts in the Rux arm (n=110), BAT arm (n=112), and HU subgroup of the BAT arm (n=66) were evaluated as part of an exploratory analysis using the RESPONSE 80-Week analysis dataset. Patient subgroups with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L and < 11×109/L were analyzed for changes in WBC counts at Weeks 12, 32, and 80. For patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L, the proportion of patients who achieved a decrease in WBC counts to ≤ 10×109/L or a ≥50% reduction at Week 12 and Week 32, respectively, was summarized; time to achieve the decrease was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Baseline mean WBC counts were generally similar among patients in the Rux arm, BAT arm, and HU subgroup (17.6×109/L, 19.0×109/L, and 17.4×109/L, respectively). The proportion of patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L was also similar among the Rux arm, BAT arm, and HU subgroup (75%, 71%, and 70%, respectively). In patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L, patients treated with Rux had greater mean reductions in WBC counts compared with the BAT arm and HU subgroups, and these reductions were maintained over time; mean changes from Baseline in WBC values at Week 12/Week 32 (×109/L) were -7.7/-7.2 for Rux, -3.2/-4.2 for BAT, and -1.2/-2.2 for HU. In patients with lower Baseline WBC counts, mean values remained stable over time. The change from Baseline to Week 12 for individual patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L is shown in Figure 1. In patients with Baseline WBC counts ≥ 11×109/L, worsening WBC counts were observed in 10.8% of patients in the Rux arm vs 35.4% in the BAT arm (P =0.0002) and 47.8% in the HU subgroup (P <0.0001). In this same subgroup with elevated WBC counts, a greater proportion of patients in the Rux arm achieved WBC counts ≤ 10×109/L or a ≥50% reduction compared with the BAT arm or HU subgroup (Week 12: Rux, 41% vs BAT, 19% vs HU, 13%; Week 32: Rux, 45% vs BAT, 22% vs HU, 9%); median time to this reduction was 8 weeks in the Rux arm and was not reached in the BAT arm or HU subgroup. Conclusion: Rux treatment resulted in better control of WBC counts compared to BAT in patients with PV. These changes in the Rux arm occurred early after study initiation (within a median of 8 weeks) and were durable over time. Although RESPONSE was not powered to assess the impact of Rux on thromboembolic events, the lower rate of thromboembolic events observed in the Rux arm vs the BAT arm (1.8 vs 8.2 per 100 patient-years of exposure) is consistent with the observed effects of Rux on hematocrit, WBC counts, and C-reactive protein levels, which are all associated with thromboembolic risk. Disclosures Miller: Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kiladjian:Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Naim:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gadbaw:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Vannucchi:Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Ruxolitinib for Patients (Pts) with Polycythemia Vera: Responders Vs Non-Responders As Defined in the Response Trial

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2947-2947
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Jean-Jacques Kiladjian ◽  
Monika Wroclawska ◽  
Tuochuan Dong ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi
Keyword(s):  
Polycythemia Vera ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hematological Parameters ◽  
Jak2 V617f ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Allele Burden ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Response Trial

Introduction: The RESPONSE trial (NCT01243944) compared ruxolitinib (Rux) and best available therapy (BAT) in pts with polycythemia vera (PV) who were intolerant of or resistant to hydroxyurea (HU) according to modified European LeukemiaNET criteria. In the primary analysis, at week (Wk) 32, 60% of (pts) randomized to Rux achieved HCT control (HCT <45%). The present analysis evaluated the effect of baseline characteristics on HCT response at Wk 32, and aimed to determine the long-term clinical efficacy of Rux in pts who did and did not achieve the protocol-defined HCT control (i.e., HCT control responders and non-responders at Wk 32) in RESPONSE at Wk 256. Methods: Adult pts with phlebotomy-dependent PV with splenomegaly, and resistant to or intolerant of HU were enrolled. Pts were randomized to receive Rux (at a starting dose of 10 mg BID) or single-agent BAT (1:1). HCT control was defined as lack of phlebotomy eligibility between Wks 8−32 with no more than 1 phlebotomy eligibility between randomization and Wk 8. Phlebotomy eligibility was based on protocol-defined HCT values (HCT > 45% and ≥ 3 percentage points higher than baseline or > 48%, whichever was lower; regardless of receipt of phlebotomy), and pts with missing data or assessments outside of protocol-defined time windows were considered non-responders. In this analysis, a logistic regression model was fitted to identify the significant baseline factors to predict HCT control response at Wk 32. Time to phlebotomy eligibility in the HCT control responders and time from the first phlebotomy eligibility to the second phlebotomy eligibility in the HCT control non-responders were plotted, and the changes in hematological parameters (HCT, WBC and platelet count), spleen volume and allele burden over time, up to Wk 256, were studied in HCT control responders and non-responders who were randomized to Rux treatment arm in RESPONSE. Results: A total of 222 pts were randomized to receive either Rux (n = 110) or BAT (n = 112). Baseline WBC (P=0.0198) and baseline JAK2 V617F allele burden (P=0.0159), were found to be predictors of the HCT response within Rux treated pt group (n = 110). In the HCT responder subgroup of the Rux arm, 23% (15/66) pts needed their first phlebotomy by Wk 256. In the HCT non-responder subgroup of the Rux arm, out of 28 patients who experienced their first phlebotomy between Wk 8 and Wk 32, 64% (18/28) of pts required subsequent phlebotomy by Wk 256, with a median duration of 28.4 Wks (12.7, NA). Pts receiving Rux demonstrated controlled hematologic parameters (HCT, WBC, and platelets) over the course of study, regardless of whether they were HCT control responders and HCT control non-responders at Wk 32. From Wk 48 to Wk 80, 97% HCT control responder pts and 84% HCT control non-responder pts of the Rux treatment arm required no phlebotomies. From Wk 80 to Wk 256, 91% and 68% of the evaluable pts in the Rux treatment arm remained phlebotomy-free for HCT control responders and non-responders, respectively. By Wk 256, spleen volume on an average was reduced from baseline by approximately 35% and 50% for HCT control responders and non-responders, respectively. In pts with available assessments, allele burden on an average was reduced approximately from 80% at baseline to 55% at Wk 256 in the HCT control responders, and approximately from 70% at baseline to 40% at Wk 256 in the HCT control non-responders. Conclusions: The results from present analysis demonstrated that the benefits of the Rux treatment were not limited to pts who achieved HCT control at Wk 32. Patients treated with Rux were able to maintain hematological parameters, spleen volume reduction, and JAK2 V617F allele burden reduction for a longer duration (up to 5 years), regardless of whether they were HCT control responders or non-responders at Wk 32. Disclosures Verstovsek: Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pharma Essentia: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; Protaganist Therapeutics: Research Funding. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wroclawska:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Dong:Novartis: Employment. Vannucchi:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals A Phase 2 Study of the Safety and Efficacy of INCB050465, a Selective PI3Kδ Inhibitor, in Combination with Ruxolitinib in Patients with Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 353-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naval G. Daver ◽  
Marina Kremyanskaya ◽  
Casey O'Connell ◽  
Kim-Hien Dao ◽  
Stephen T Oh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Percent Change ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Median Percent Change

Abstract Introduction: Despite the demonstrated efficacy of ruxolitinib (Rux) in patients (pts) with myelofibrosis (MF), suboptimal or declining responses to Rux occur, possibly due to persistent PI3K/AKT activation with chronic JAK inhibitor therapy. We evaluated the combination of INCB050465, a potent and highly selective PI3Kδ inhibitor (≥19,000-fold selectivity for PI3Kδ vs other isoforms) and Rux in pts with MF with suboptimal response to chronic Rux monotherapy. Methods: Pts with primary, post-polycythemia vera or post-essential thrombocythemia MF with suboptimal response or loss of response (palpable spleen >10 cm below left subcostal margin [LSM], or splenomegaly 5-10 cm below LSM and presence of 1 symptom score ≥5 or 2 symptom scores ≥3 using the Screening Symptom Form) after ≥6 months of Rux monotherapy (5-25 mg twice daily, stable dose for ≥8 weeks [wks]), and ECOG performance status ≤2 were eligible for this phase 2 study (NCT02718300). All pts in Part 1 (safety run-in) and Part 2 (expansion) received oral INCB050465 once-daily (QD) for 8 wks followed by once-weekly (QW) at the same dose plus Rux (existing stable dose for ≥8 wks). Part 1 assessed up to 3 dose levels of INCB050465 (5, 10, and 20 mg). In Part 2, pts were randomized to treatment groups (TGs) in a 1:1 ratio between two doses of INCB050465 determined in Part 1. Primary endpoints were to identify tolerated INCB050465 dose in combination with Rux (Part 1) and percent change in spleen volume from baseline through wk 12 (Part 2). Results: At data cutoff (May 01, 2018), 10 and 18 pts were enrolled in Parts 1 and 2, respectively. INCB050465 doses of 10 mg (TG10, n=3) followed by 20 mg (TG20, n=7) were explored in Part 1. No DLTs were observed, thus the 5 mg dose was not assessed, and the 10 mg (TG10, n=11) and 20 mg (TG20, n=7) doses were expanded in Part 2. In Part 1 (n=10) (median age, 69 years [60-79]; males, 60%), median spleen volume (cm3) was 3058 (996-5324) at baseline. Five pts (50%) discontinued treatment due to progressive disease (n=1, TG10), physician decision (n=1; TG20), adverse event (AE; n=1; TG20, blood bilirubin increased), consent withdrawal (n=1; TG10), and decision to proceed to transplant (n=1; TG10). Median percent change in spleen volume was +4.3% and -2.0% at wks 12 and 24, respectively (Figure). By wk 16, 40% of pts reported that their MF-related symptoms were much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) form. In Part 2 (n=18) (median age, 63.5 years [41-89]; males, 38.9%), median spleen volume (cm3) was 2201 (327-3569) and median total symptom score (TSS; by the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form [MPN-SAF]) was 30 (3-61) at baseline. One pt in TG20 discontinued treatment due to physician decision. Median percent change in spleen volume was -0.3% and -5.2% at wks 12 and 24, respectively (Figure). By wk 16, 33.3% of pts reported that their MF-related symptoms were much or very much improved on the PGIC. Median percent change in TSS by the MPN-SAF was -21.9% and -27.8% at wks 12 and 24, respectively. MPN-SAF TSS was a planned longitudinal endpoint only for Part 2 and updated data for Part 2 pts will be presented. In both Parts 1 and 2, nonhematologic treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurring in ≥3 pts were primarily grade (Gr) 1/2 (Table). Most common new or worsening Gr 3/4 hematologic AEs were thrombocytopenia (Gr 3: 4 pts [14.3%]; Gr 4: 4 pts [14.3%]) and neutropenia (Gr 3: 2 pts [7.1%]; both pts had Gr 2 neutropenia at baseline). No serious TEAEs of interest were reported. TEAEs led to INCB050465 dose interruption in 11 pts (thrombocytopenia [n=8 events], pyrexia [n=2 events], and abdominal pain, diarrhea, alanine aminotransferase increased, and aspartate aminotransferase increased [n=1 event each]), and to Rux dose interruption in 3 pts (pyrexia [n=2 events] and thrombocytopenia [n=1 event]). Conclusion: The add-on strategy of INCB050465 plus Rux demonstrated preliminary efficacy in MF pts with suboptimal spleen and/or symptom response to chronic Rux monotherapy. The dosing regimen (QD for 8 wks followed by QW) of INCB050465 in this study seemed to mitigate AEs observed with other PI3K inhibitors (limited Gr 3/4 TEAEs and no TEAEs of colitis or rash reported). Long term dosing strategies will be explored in Part 3 of the study, and additional trials are underway to identify optimal dosing of INCB050465 for enhanced safety and efficacy in combination with other agents. Disclosures Daver: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kremyanskaya:Incyte: Research Funding. O'Connell:Incyte: Research Funding. Dao:Incyte: Consultancy. Oh:Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Verstovsek:Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhou:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Assad:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yacoub:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes with Ruxolitinib (RUX) in Patients with Myelofibrosis (MF) Stratified By Transfusion Status: A Pooled Analysis of the COMFORT-I and -II Trials

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3118-3118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikas Gupta ◽  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Ronald Paquette ◽  
Jason R. Gotlib ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Transfusion Independence ◽  
First Occurrence ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: The phase 3 COMFORT trials demonstrated that the Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor RUX reduces spleen volume, prolongs overall survival (OS), and improves MF−related symptoms and measures of quality of life in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF, compared with either placebo (COMFORT-I) or best available treatment (BAT; COMFORT-II). Many patients with MF are anemic or transfusion-dependent; the impact of these features on clinical outcomes is unknown. We evaluated the relationship between transfusion requirement and clinical outcomes in patients treated with RUX in the COMFORT studies. Methods: Analyses of data pooled from COMFORT-I and -II were stratified by baseline anemia status (defined as receiving ≥2 units of red blood cells [RBCs] within the 12 weeks before baseline or baseline hemoglobin [Hb] <10 g/dL). Transfusion independence was defined as the absence of RBC transfusions and maintenance of Hb levels ≥8 g/dL for ≥12 weeks; transfusion dependence was defined as a requirement for ≥4 units of RBCs or Hb levels <8 g/dL during an 8-week interval (Gupta V, et al. JCO [ASCO Abstracts]. 2015;33[s15]:abstract TPS7102). Patients achieving transfusion independence during Weeks 13-24 were considered responders for independence by Week 24; those developing transfusion dependence during Weeks 17-24 were considered dependent by Week 24. Effects of transfusion status at Week 24 on MF Symptom Assessment Form total symptom scores (TSS), spleen volume, and body weight were assessed descriptively. The effect on OS was evaluated using the landmark approach (including patients completing ≥24 weeks of study treatment) with stratified log-rank tests for responder vs nonresponder comparisons. Times to first occurrence of transfusion independence and first occurrence of transfusion dependence in the ITT population (censored at last clinical visit), and time to discontinuation among patients in the RUX group who were anemic at baseline (censored at Week 240) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Overall, 301 patients were randomized to RUX (baseline anemia, n=138 [45.8%]) and 227 to the control group (placebo or BAT; baseline anemia, n=113 [49.8%]). In the RUX group, a greater proportion of patients who were nonanemic at baseline (range, 73.4%-73.8%) achieved transfusion independence compared with those who had anemia at baseline (range, 15.5%-22.4%). Week 24 transfusion independence vs nonindependence status did not significantly affect OS in the RUX group (P=0.1322; Figure A), whereas it was significant (P=0.0004; Figure B) in the control group. Similarly, Week 24 transfusion dependence vs nondependence status did not significantly affect OS in the RUX group (P=0.4547; Figure C), whereas it was significant (P=0.0323; Figure D) in the control group. Median OS was significantly longer in the RUX vs control group for patients who were not transfusion independent (baseline anemia, 200 vs 137 weeks; nonanemic, 271 vs 166 weeks; overall P=0.002) or became transfusion dependent (baseline anemia, 210 vs 127 weeks; nonanemic, 292 vs 90 weeks; overall P=0.0323). Changes from baseline in spleen volume, body weight, and TSS at Week 24 were not affected by transfusion or anemia status in the RUX group; however, TSS worsened in the control group among patients who did not achieve transfusion independence vs those who did. Risk of transfusion dependence decreased after Week 24 in the RUX group. The probability of becoming transfusion independent after 1 year of treatment was similar in both treatment groups (approximately 0.75); median time to transfusion independence for the RUX and control groups was 16.6 and 12.0 weeks, respectively. For patients in the RUX group who became transfusion dependent, the mean monthly units of RBCs peaked at Week 20 (2.82 units), decreasing thereafter to 0.52 units at Week 240. Transfusion dependence did not affect RUX discontinuation rates or dosage. Conclusion: Transfusion requirement had little impact on clinical outcomes or treatment discontinuation within the RUX group but was associated with reduced OS and worsened TSS in the control group. The risk of becoming transfusion dependent, units of RBCs administered, and the monthly proportion of patients requiring transfusions decreased rapidly after 24 weeks of RUX treatment. Disclosures Gupta: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Verstovsek:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma Corp: Research Funding; Galena BioPharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Lilly Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Paquette:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cervantes:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gao:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Langmuir:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gopalakrishna:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment, Equity Ownership. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

A Pooled Overall Survival (OS) Analysis of 5-Year Data from the COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II Trials of Ruxolitinib for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3110-3110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Vikas Gupta ◽  
Jason R. Gotlib ◽  
Ruben A. Mesa ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background:The Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib has been evaluated for patients with MF in the phase 3 COMFORT studies. In both trials, ruxolitinib prolonged OS, reduced splenomegaly, and improved MF-related symptoms and quality of life compared with controls. Here, we report the results of an exploratory pooled analysis of OS in the COMFORT studies at 5 years of follow-up. Methods: The double-blind COMFORT-I trial and the open-label COMFORT-II trial were randomized phase 3 studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2 (int-2) or high-risk primary MF (PMF), post-polycythemia vera MF (PPV-MF), or post-essential thrombocythemia MF (PET-MF). The comparator was placebo in COMFORT-I and best available therapy (BAT) in COMFORT-II. The ruxolitinib starting dose was 15 or 20 mg twice daily based on baseline platelet counts (100-200 and >200 × 109/L, respectively); dose modifications were permitted for safety and efficacy. Patients were allowed to cross over to ruxolitinib from the control arm for progressive splenomegaly, defined as a ≥25% increase in spleen volume from baseline (COMFORT-I) or study nadir (COMFORT-II), or select protocol-defined progression events; crossover was mandatory following treatment unblinding in COMFORT-I. OS was a secondary endpoint in both studies and was evaluated in an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using a Cox proportional hazard model that estimated the treatment effect stratified by clinical trial and International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) risk. The crossover-corrected treatment effect was estimated using a rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method. Results: Overall, 528 patients were randomized: 301 to ruxolitinib (COMFORT-I, n=155; COMFORT-II, n=146) and 227 to placebo (n=154) or BAT (n=73). All ongoing patients in the control arms crossed over to ruxolitinib by the 3-year follow-up. Patient populations were similar between the two trials and their details were previously published. In the combined ruxolitinib group, 162 patients (53.8%) had high-risk MF and 139 (46.2%) had int-2 risk MF based on IPSS criteria. At the 5-year ITT analysis, 128 patients (42.5%) died in the ruxolitinib group compared with 117 (51.5%) in the control group. The risk of death was reduced by 30% with ruxolitinib compared with control (median OS: ruxolitinib, 63.5 mo; control, 45.9 mo; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91; P=0.0065; Figure A). After correcting for crossover using RPSFT, OS advantage was more pronounced for patients originally randomized to ruxolitinib (median OS: ruxolitinib, 63.5 mo; control, 27 mo; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59; Figure B). An analysis of OS censoring patients at the time of crossover also demonstrated that ruxolitinib prolonged survival compared with control (median OS: ruxolitinib, 63.5 mo; control, 28.3 mo; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36−0.78; P=0.0013; Figure C). Among all patients treated with ruxolitinib, those with lower-risk disease had longer survival compared with those with high-risk disease (median OS: int-2, not reached [estimated, 102 mo]; high-risk, 50 mo; HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.95-4.20; P<0.0001; Figure D). In a subgroup analysis, OS favored ruxolitinib compared with placebo for patients with int-2 or high-risk MF (data not shown). At 5 years, median OS appeared to favor patients with int-2 (n=58) or high-risk (n=89) PMF who were originally randomized to ruxolitinib compared with historical (Cervantes et al; J Clin Oncol 30:2981-2987) controls (int-2 PMF, not reached [estimated, 70 mo] vs 48 mo; high-risk PMF, 34 vs 27 mo); OS was longer among patients with int-2 vs high-risk PMF (P=0.0003). Subgroup analyses showed that ruxolitinib provided an OS advantage regardless of age (>65 or ≤65 y), sex, disease type (PMF, PPV-MF, PET-MF), risk status (int-2 or high), JAK2V617F mutation status, baseline spleen volume (>10 or ≤10 cm), anemia, white blood cell count (>25 or ≤25 × 109L), or platelet count (>200 or ≤200 × 109/L). Conclusion: Long-term treatment with ruxolitinib up to 5 years prolonged survival in patients with MF compared with BAT or placebo. Corrections for patients who crossed over to ruxolitinib suggested that the separation between ruxolitinib and control OS curves was primarily caused by a delay in ruxolitinib treatment. The results suggest that earlier treatment with ruxolitinib may provide a greater survival advantage for patients with MF. Disclosures Gupta: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cervantes:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Sun:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gao:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Dong:Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Naim:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gopalakrishna:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment, Equity Ownership. Harrison:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals A Phase 2a Study of the LSD1 Inhibitor Img-7289 (bomedemstat) for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 556-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Pettit ◽  
Aaron T. Gerds ◽  
Abdulraheem Yacoub ◽  
Justin M. Watts ◽  
Maciej Tartaczuch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Platelet Count ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Spleen Volume ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Equity Ownership

Ruxolitinib (Jakafi®) is the one approved therapy for myelofibrosis (MF) based on reduction of splenomegaly and symptoms but JAK inhibition has not proven to significantly modify disease progression. There remains the need for novel therapies with distinct modes of action that can improve the patient experience of MF and impact progression. Lysine-specific demethylase, LSD1, is an epigenetic enzyme critical for self-renewal of malignant myeloid cells and differentiation of myeloid progenitors. LSD1 bound to GFI1b permits maturation of progenitors to megakaryocytes and enables their normal function. IMG-7289 (bomedemstat) is an orally available LSD1 inhibitor. In mouse models of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), IMG-7289 reduced elevated peripheral cell counts, spleen size, inflammatory cytokines, mutant allele frequencies, and marrow fibrosis (Jutzi et al. 2018) supporting its clinical development. IMG-7289-CTP-102 is an ongoing, multi-center, open-label study that recently transitioned from a Phase 1/2a dose-range finding study to a Phase 2b study of IMG-7289 administered orally once-daily in adult patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF resistant to or intolerant of ruxolitinib. The key objectives are safety, PD, changes in spleen volume (MRI/CT) and total symptoms scores (TSS) using the MPN-SAF instrument. Inclusion criteria included a platelet count ≥100K/μL. Bone marrow (BM) biopsies and imaging studies (both centrally-read) were conducted at baseline and during washout (post-Day 84). The MPN-SAF was self-administered weekly. Phase 1/2a patients were treated for 84 days followed by a washout of up to 28 days. Patients demonstrating clinical benefit could resume treatment for additional 12 week cycles. Dosing was individually tailored using platelet count as a biomarker of effective thrombopoiesis. Patients were started at a presumed sub-therapeutic dose of 0.25 mg/kg/d and up-titrated weekly until the platelet count rested between 50 and 100K/μL. This preliminary analysis includes 20 patients; 18 enrolled in the Phase 1/2a study, 2 in the Phase 2b portion. 50% had PMF, 35% Post-ET-MF, 15% Post-PV-MF. The median age was 65 (48-89) with 70% males. The median baseline platelet count was 197 k/μL (102-1309k/μL). 12 patients (56%) were transfusion-dependent at baseline. Sixty percent were IPSS-classified as high risk, the remainder, intermediate risk-2. 71% had more than 1 mutation of the 261 AML/MPN genes sequenced of which 63% were high molecular risk (ASXL1, U2AF1, SRSF2) mutations; 31% had abnormal karyotypes. Sixteen patients completed the first 12 weeks; 4 patients withdrew, one due to fatigue (Day 33), one for progressive disease (Day 39), one due to physician decision (Day 76), one for an unrelated SAE of cellulitis (Day 83). All patients were up-titrated from the starting dose 0.25 mg/kg to an average daily dose of 0.89 mg/kg ± 0.20 mg/kg, the dose needed to achieve the target platelet count range; 17 achieved the target platelet range in a mean time of 45 days. Of patients evaluable for response after cycle 1 in Phase1/2a (N=14), 50% had a reduction in spleen volume from baseline (median SVR: -14%; -2% to -30%). Further, 79% (N=11) recorded a reduction in TSS (mean change -28%; -13% to -69%); for 21% of patients (N=3), the change was &gt;-50%. Improved BM fibrosis scores at Day 84 were observed in 2/13 patients. Two patients had improvement in transfusion requirements. Plasma IL-8 levels were significantly elevated in 6/14 patients at baseline and dropped in a dose-dependent manner over 21 days in 5/6 patients. The mean duration of treatment is 166 days (14-539) at the census point in this ongoing study. Nineteen patients (95%) reported 358 AEs of which 22 were SAEs. Of the SAEs, 2 were deemed by investigators as possibly related: painful splenomegaly and heart failure. There have been no safety signals, DLTs, progression to AML, or deaths. This is the first clinical study of an LSD1 inhibitor in patients with MPNs. Once-daily IMG-7289 was well-tolerated in a heterogeneous population of patients with advanced MF and limited therapeutic options. Despite under-dosing and slow dose escalation, IMG-7289 improved symptom burdens in most patients and modestly reduced spleen volumes in a subset of patients. The Phase 2b 24-week expansion study with more aggressive dosing aimed at preserving safety and enhancing efficacy is open for enrollment in the US, UK and EU. Figure Disclosures Pettit: Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding. Gerds:Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Yacoub:Hylapharm: Equity Ownership; Agios: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Ardelyx: Equity Ownership; Cara: Equity Ownership; Dynavax: Equity Ownership. Watts:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bradley:AbbVie: Other: Advisory Board. Shortt:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astex: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Natsoulis:Imago BioSciences: Consultancy, Equity Ownership. Jones:Imago BioSciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Talpaz:Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Imago BioSciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding. Peppe:Imago BioSciences: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ross:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rienhoff:Imago Biosciences: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document