Dataset Information

Ruxolitinib vs best available therapy for ET intolerant or resistant to hydroxycarbamide.

ABSTRACT: Treatments for high-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) address thrombocytosis, disease-related symptoms, as well as risks of thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation to myelofibrosis, and leukemia. Patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC) have a poor outlook. MAJIC (ISRCTN61925716) is a randomized phase 2 trial of ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor) vs best available therapy (BAT) in ET and polycythemia vera patients resistant or intolerant to HC. Here, findings of MAJIC-ET are reported, where the modified intention-to-treat population included 58 and 52 patients randomized to receive ruxolitinib or BAT, respectively. There was no evidence of improvement in complete response within 1 year reported in 27 (46.6%) patients treated with ruxolitinib vs 23 (44.2%) with BAT (P = .40). At 2 years, rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, and transformation were not significantly different; however, some disease-related symptoms improved in patients receiving ruxolitinib relative to BAT. Molecular responses were uncommon; there were 2 complete molecular responses (CMR) and 1 partial molecular response in CALR-positive ruxolitinib-treated patients. Transformation to myelofibrosis occurred in 1 CMR patient, presumably because of the emergence of a different clone, raising questions about the relevance of CMR in ET patients. Grade 3 and 4 anemia occurred in 19% and 0% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) in the BAT arm, and grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 5.2% and 1.7% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) of BAT-treated patients. Rates of discontinuation or treatment switching did not differ between the 2 trial arms. The MAJIC-ET trial suggests that ruxolitinib is not superior to current second-line treatments for ET. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN61925716.

SUBMITTER: Harrison CN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6410531 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMyelofibrosis is a hematologic malignancy characterized by splenomegaly and debilitating symptoms. Thrombocytopenia is a poor prognostic feature and limits use of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1)/Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitor ruxolitinib.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of JAK2 inhibitor pacritinib with that of best available therapy (BAT), including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia.Design, setting, and participantsFor this phase 3 randomized international multicenter study-the PERSIST-2 study-of pacritinib vs BAT, 311 patients with myelofibrosis and platelet count 100 × 109/L or less were recruited for analysis. Crossover from BAT was allowed after week 24 or for progression of splenomegaly.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to pacritinib 400 mg once daily, pacritinib 200 mg twice daily, or BAT.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary end points were rates of patients achieving 35% or more spleen volume reduction (SVR) and 50% or more reduction in total symptom score (TSS) at week 24. Efficacy analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat efficacy population, comprising all patients with a randomization date allowing for week 24 data.ResultsOverall, 311 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.70 [9.08] years; 171 men [55%] and 140 women [45%]) were included in the study; 149 patients (48%) had prior ruxolitinib. The most common BAT was ruxolitinib (44 patients [45%]); 19 patients (19%) received watchful-waiting only. The intention-to-treat efficacy population included 75 patients randomized to pacritinib once daily; 74, pacritinib twice daily, and 72, BAT. Pacritinib (arms combined) was more effective than BAT for 35% or more SVR (27 patients [18%] vs 2 patients [3%]; P = .001) and had a nonsignificantly greater rate of 50% or more reduction in TSS (37 patients [25%] vs 10 patients [14%]; P = .08). Pacritinib twice daily led to significant improvements in both end points over BAT (≥35% SVR: 16 patients [22%] vs 2 patients [3%]; P = .001; ≥50% reduction in TSS: 24 patients [32%] vs 10 patients [14%]; P = .01). Clinical improvement in hemoglobin and reduction in transfusion burden were greatest with pacritinib twice daily. For pacritinib once daily, pacritinib twice daily, and BAT, the most common (>10%) grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (32 patients [31%], 34 patients [32%], 18 patients [18%]), and anemia (28 patients [27%], 23 patients [22%], 14 patients [14%]). In the pacritinib once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, discontinuation owing to adverse events occurred in 15 patients (14%), 10 patients (9%), and 4 patients (4%).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia, including those with prior anti-JAK therapy, pacritinib twice daily was more effective than BAT, including ruxolitinib, for reducing splenomegaly and symptoms.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02055781.

Project description:BackgroundRuxolitinib is approved for patients with polycythemia vera (PV) who are resistant/intolerant to hydroxyurea, but its impact on preventing thrombosis or disease-progression is unknown.MethodsA retrospective, real-world analysis was performed on the outcomes of 377 patients with resistance/intolerance to hydroxyurea from the Spanish Registry of Polycythemia Vera according to subsequent treatment with ruxolitinib (n = 105) or the best available therapy (BAT; n = 272). Survival probabilities and rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, acute myeloid leukemia, myelofibrosis, and second primary cancers were calculated according to treatment. To minimize biases in treatment allocation, all results were adjusted by a propensity score for receiving ruxolitinib or BAT.ResultsPatients receiving ruxolitinib had a significantly lower rate of arterial thrombosis than those on BAT (0.4% vs 2.3% per year; P = .03), and this persisted as a trend after adjustment for the propensity to have received the drug (incidence rate ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.3; P = .09). There were no significant differences in the rates of venous thrombosis (0.8% and 1.1% for ruxolitinib and BAT, respectively; P = .7) and major bleeding (0.8% and 0.9%, respectively; P = .9). Ruxolitinib exposure was not associated with a higher rate of second primary cancers, including all types of neoplasia, noncutaneous cancers, and nonmelanoma skin cancers. After a median follow-up of 3.5 years, there were no differences in survival or progression to acute leukemia or myelofibrosis between the 2 groups.ConclusionsThe results suggest that ruxolitinib treatment for PV patients with resistance/intolerance to hydroxyurea may reduce the incidence of arterial thrombosis.Lay summaryRuxolitinib is better than other available therapies in achieving hematocrit control and symptom relief in patients with polycythemia vera who are resistant/intolerant to hydroxyurea, but we still do not know whether ruxolitinib provides an additional benefit in preventing thrombosis or disease progression. We retrospectively studied the outcomes of 377 patients with resistance/intolerance to hydroxyurea from the Spanish Registry of Polycythemia Vera according to whether they subsequently received ruxolitinib (n = 105) or the best available therapy (n = 272). Our findings suggest that ruxolitinib could reduce the incidence of arterial thrombosis, but a disease-modifying effect could not be demonstrated for ruxolitinib in this patient population.

Project description:BackgroundAnemia is considered a negative prognostic risk factor for survival in patients with myelofibrosis. Most patients with myelofibrosis are anemic, and 35-54 % present with anemia at diagnosis. Ruxolitinib, a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, was associated with an overall survival benefit and improvements in splenomegaly and patient-reported outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis in the two phase 3 COMFORT studies. Consistent with the ruxolitinib mechanism of action, anemia was a frequently reported adverse event. In clinical practice, anemia is sometimes managed with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of concomitant ruxolitinib and ESA administration in patients enrolled in COMFORT-II, an open-label, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib with best available therapy for treatment of myelofibrosis. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg twice daily or best available therapy. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan.ResultsThirteen of 146 ruxolitinib-treated patients had concomitant ESA administration (+ESA). The median exposure to ruxolitinib was 114 weeks in the +ESA group and 111 weeks in the overall ruxolitinib arm; the median ruxolitinib dose intensity was 33 mg/day for each group. Six weeks before the first ESA administration, 10 of the 13 patients had grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities. These had improved to grade 2 in 7 of the 13 patients by 6 weeks after the first ESA administration. The rate of packed red blood cell transfusions per month within 12 weeks before and after first ESA administration remained the same in 1 patient, decreased in 2 patients, and increased in 3 patients; 7 patients remained transfusion independent. Reductions in splenomegaly were observed in 69 % of evaluable patients (9/13) following first ESA administration.ConclusionsConcomitant use of an ESA with ruxolitinib was well tolerated and did not affect the efficacy of ruxolitinib. Further investigations evaluating the effects of ESAs to alleviate anemia in ruxolitinib-treated patients are warranted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00934544; July 6, 2009).

Project description:ObjectiveThe vitamin D endocrine system may have a variety of actions on cells and tissues involved in COVID-19 progression especially by decreasing the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Calcifediol can rapidly increase serum 25OHD concentration. We therefore evaluated the effect of calcifediol treatment, on Intensive Care Unit Admission and Mortality rate among Spanish patients hospitalized for COVID-19.DesignParallel pilot randomized open label, double-masked clinical trial.SettingUniversity hospital setting (Reina Sofia University Hospital, Córdoba Spain.) PARTICIPANTS: 76 consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, clinical picture of acute respiratory infection, confirmed by a radiographic pattern of viral pneumonia and by a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR with CURB65 severity scale (recommending hospital admission in case of total score > 1).ProceduresAll hospitalized patients received as best available therapy the same standard care, (per hospital protocol), of a combination of hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 h on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 h for the following 5 days), azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days. Eligible patients were allocated at a 2 calcifediol:1 no calcifediol ratio through electronic randomization on the day of admission to take oral calcifediol (0.532 mg), or not. Patients in the calcifediol treatment group continued with oral calcifediol (0.266 mg) on day 3 and 7, and then weekly until discharge or ICU admission. Outcomes of effectiveness included rate of ICU admission and deaths.ResultsOf 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50 %) p value X2 Fischer test p < 0.001. Univariate Risk Estimate Odds Ratio for ICU in patients with Calcifediol treatment versus without Calcifediol treatment: 0.02 (95 %CI 0.002-0.17). Multivariate Risk Estimate Odds Ratio for ICU in patients with Calcifediol treatment vs Without Calcifediol treatment ICU (adjusting by Hypertension and T2DM): 0.03 (95 %CI: 0.003-0.25). Of the patients treated with calcifediol, none died, and all were discharged, without complications. The 13 patients not treated with calcifediol, who were not admitted to the ICU, were discharged. Of the 13 patients admitted to the ICU, two died and the remaining 11 were discharged.ConclusionOur pilot study demonstrated that administration of a high dose of Calcifediol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a main metabolite of vitamin D endocrine system, significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment of patients requiring hospitalization due to proven COVID-19. Calcifediol seems to be able to reduce severity of the disease, but larger trials with groups properly matched will be required to show a definitive answer.

Project description:IntroductionTreatment options for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections are limited and CRE infections remain associated with high clinical failure and mortality rates, particularly in vulnerable patient populations. A Phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomized controlled trial (TANGO II) was conducted from 2014 to 2017 to evaluate the efficacy/safety of meropenem-vaborbactam monotherapy versus best available therapy (BAT) for CRE.MethodsA total of 77 patients with confirmed/suspected CRE infection (bacteremia, hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, complicated urinary tract infection/acute pyelonephritis) were randomized, and 47 with confirmed CRE infection formed the primary analysis population (microbiologic-CRE-modified intent-to-treat, mCRE-MITT). Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to meropenem-vaborbactam (2 g/2 g over 3 h, q8h for 7-14 days) or BAT (mono/combination therapy with polymyxins, carbapenems, aminoglycosides, tigecycline; or ceftazidime-avibactam alone). Efficacy endpoints included clinical cure, Day-28 all-cause mortality, microbiologic cure, and overall success (clinical cure + microbiologic eradication). Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory findings.ResultsWithin the mCRE-MITT population, cure rates were 65.6% (21/32) and 33.3% (5/15) [95% confidence interval (CI) of difference, 3.3% to 61.3%; P = 0.03)] at End of Treatment and 59.4% (19/32) and 26.7% (4/15) (95% CI of difference, 4.6% to 60.8%; P = 0.02) at Test of Cure;.Day-28 all-cause mortality was 15.6% (5/32) and 33.3% (5/15) (95% CI of difference, - 44.7% to 9.3%) for meropenem-vaborbactam versus BAT, respectively. Treatment-related AEs and renal-related AEs were 24.0% (12/50) and 4.0% (2/50) for meropenem-vaborbactam versus 44.0% (11/25) and 24.0% (6/25) for BAT. Exploratory risk-benefit analyses of composite clinical failure or nephrotoxicity favored meropenem-vaborbactam versus BAT (31.3% [10/32] versus 80.0% [12/15]; 95% CI of difference, - 74.6% to - 22.9%; P < 0.001).ConclusionsMonotherapy with meropenem-vaborbactam for CRE infection was associated with increased clinical cure, decreased mortality, and reduced nephrotoxicity compared with BAT.Clinical trials registrationNCT02168946.FundingThe Medicines Company.

Dataset Information

Ruxolitinib vs best available therapy for ET intolerant or resistant to hydroxycarbamide.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets