Disseminated Histoplasmosis in a Patient with Myelofibrosis on Ruxolitinib: A Case Report and Review of the Literature on Ruxolitinib-Associated Invasive Fungal Infections.

Ruxolitinib, a selective inhibitor of Janus kinases, is a standard treatment for intermediate/high-risk myelofibrosis (MF) but is associated with a predisposition to opportunistic infections, especially herpes zoster. However, the incidence and characteristics of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in these patients remain uncertain. In this report, we present the case of a 59-year-old woman with MF who developed disseminated histoplasmosis after seven months of ruxolitinib use. The patient clinically improved after ten weeks of combined amphotericin B and azole therapy, and ruxolitinib was discontinued. Later, the patient received fedratinib, a relatively JAK2-selective inhibitor, without relapse of histoplasmosis. We also reviewed the literature on published cases of proven IFIs in patients with MF who received ruxolitinib. Including ours, we identified 28 such cases, most commonly due to Cryptococcus species (46%). IFIs were most commonly disseminated (39%), followed by localized lung (21%) infections. Although uncommon, a high index of suspicion for opportunistic IFIs is needed in patients receiving JAK inhibitors. Furthermore, the paucity of data regarding the optimal management of IFIs in patients treated with JAK inhibitors underscore the need for well-designed studies to evaluate the epidemiology, pathobiology, early diagnosis, and multimodal therapy of IFIs in patients with hematological malignancies receiving targeted therapies.

Management of Patients with Early Myelofibrosis: A Discussion of Best Practices.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Summarize best practices for management of patients with early myelofibrosis (MF). RECENT FINDINGS: Myelofibrosis is a progressive myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) that generally produces burdensome symptoms and ultimately leads to worse overall survival than that observed in healthy controls or patients with other MPNs. Several Janus kinase inhibitors and various interferon formulations are now available for treatment of MF, with ruxolitinib notable for extending overall survival in addition to improving MF signs and symptoms. The chronic nature of the disease can lead some patients to avoid immediate treatment in favor of a watch-and-wait approach. This review summarizes the patient management approach taken in my practice, providing guidance and a discussion of best practices with an emphasis on the importance and clinical benefits of active treatment in early MF. In particular, a case is made to consider treatment with ruxolitinib for patients with intermediate-1 risk disease and to minimize delay between diagnosis and treatment initiation for patients with intermediate or high-risk disease.

Reduced dose azacitidine plus venetoclax as maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia following intensive or low-intensity induction: a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myeloid leukaemia have high rates of relapse, especially if they are unable to complete standard consolidation strategies or allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). The phase 3 QUAZAR AML-001 study showed an overall survival benefit with oral azacitidine maintenance. The BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax is highly active in acute myeloid leukaemia and synergistic with azacitidine. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low dose azacitidine plus venetoclax as maintenance therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia. METHODS: We performed a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 study at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the USA. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a WHO 2016 diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia in complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery following intensive or low-intensity induction and not immediately eligible for HSCT. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status had to be 3 or less. Patients were assigned to maintenance therapy with azacitidine 50 mg/m2 intravenously or subcutaneously for 5 days and venetoclax 400 mg orally for 7 days or 14 days. The primary outcome was relapse-free survival. The study was closed early due to slow accrual. All patients were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04062266). FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2019, and Oct 26, 2022, 35 patients were enrolled, of whom 25 (71%) were assigned to cohort 1 following intensive induction and ten (29%) to cohort 2 following low-intensity induction. Of 35 patients, 18 (51%) were male and 17 (49%) were female. The median age was 55 years (IQR 41-62). The median number of cycles given was 9 (IQR 2-22) and median follow-up time was 23·3 months (IQR 9·0-30·0). The median relapse-free survival was not reached (95% CI 20·2 to not calculable) in the full cohort, not reached (29·1 to not calculable) in cohort 1, and 30·3 months (16·5 to not calculable) in cohort 2. The 2-year relapse-free survival was 65% (95% CI 50-85) in the full cohort, 71% (53-94) in cohort 1, and 52% (27-100) in cohort 2. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (n=6), lung infection (n=4), leukopenia (n=4), and neutropenia (n=3). No deaths occurred during maintenance therapy. INTERPRETATION: Low dose azacitidine plus venetoclax is a feasible maintenance strategy in acute myeloid leukaemia following intensive and low-intensity induction. FUNDING: University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, MDS/AML Moon Shot, Genentech.

Multicolor flow cytometric immunophenotyping is highly sensitive and specific in identifying aberrant mast cells in the diagnostic workup of systemic mastocytosis.

OBJECTIVES: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping (FCI) is a fast and sensitive method for characterizing hematolymphoid neoplasms. It is not widely used in the workup of systemic mastocytosis (SM), in part because of the technical challenges and in part because the utility of FCI in assessing mast cells is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to assess the diagnostic utility of FCI in establishing a diagnosis of SM and distinguishing SM from nonneoplastic mast cells and to examine the immunophenotypic findings among SM subtypes. METHODS: We performed FCI on bone marrow samples suspicious for SM using a panel consisting of CD2, CD25, CD30, CD45, CD117, and HLA-DR. RESULTS: The cohort included 88 SM cases: 67 without an associated hematologic neoplasm (AHN) (PureSM) and 21 with an AHN (SM-AHN). We also assessed 40 normal/reactive controls. Overall, FCI was adequate for interpretation in 87 of 88 (99%) cases and detected at least 1 immunophenotypic aberrancy in 100% of SM cases. CD2, CD25, and CD30 were positive in 78%, 98%, and 90% of SM cases vs 0%, 13%, and 13% of cases with normal/reactive mast cells (P < .0001 for all). Two or 3 abnormalities were observed in 92% of SM cases but not in normal/reactive mast cells. Among SM cases, SM-AHN showed statistically significant less CD2 (38% vs 91%, P < .0001) and less co-expression of all 3 aberrant markers (CD2, CD25, and CD30 positive in 38% vs 86% of cases; P < .0001) than PureSM. Immunohistochemical analysis showed consistently weaker or focal expression of CD2, CD25, and CD30 than FCI, with CD2 and CD30 being falsely negative in 40% and 50% cases, respectively. A KIT D816V mutation was detected in 67% of PureSM cases and 76% of SM-AHN cases. CONCLUSIONS: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping is a quick, sensitive, high-yield tool for evaluating the immunophenotype of mast cells. An abnormal FCI finding should prompt careful histologic evaluation and sensitive KIT D816V mutation testing to address the possibility of SM. CD2, CD25, and CD30 are important markers for the detection of immunophenotypic aberrancy of mast cells, and their frequencies of aberrancy differ across SM subtypes.

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions | Diagnosis, Outcomes, and Management of Prefibrotic Myelofibrosis.

Prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis (prefibrotic PMF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm with distinct characteristics comprising histopathological and clinico-biological parameters. It is classified as a subtype of primary myelofibrosis. In clinical practice, it is essential to correctly distinguish prefibrotic PMF from essential thrombocythemia especially but also overt PMF besides other myeloid neoplasms. Risk stratification and survival outcomes for prefibrotic PMF are worse than that of ET but better than that of overt PMF. Rates of progression to overt PMF and blast phase disease are also higher for prefibrotic PMF than ET. In this review we first discuss the historical context to the evolution of prefibrotic PMF as an entity, its presenting features and diagnostic criteria. We emphasize the differences between prefibrotic PMF, ET, and overt PMF with regards to presenting features and disease outcomes including thrombohemorrhagic events and progression to fibrotic and blast phase disease. Next, we discuss the risk stratification models and contextualize these in the setting of clinical management. We share our view of personalizing treatment to address unique patient needs in the context of currently available management options. Lastly, we discuss areas of critical need in clinical research and speculate on the possibility of future disease course modifying therapies in prefibrotic PMF.

Interferons in the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Interferons are cytokines with immunomodulatory properties and disease-modifying effects that have been used to treat myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) for more than 35 years. The initial use of interferons was limited due to difficulties with administration and a significant toxicity profile. Many of these shortcomings were addressed by covalently binding polyethylene glycol to the interferon structure, which increases the stability, prolongs activity, and reduces immunogenicity of the molecule. In the current therapeutic landscape, pegylated interferons are recommended for use in the treatment of polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis. We review recent efficacy, molecular response, and safety data for the two available pegylated interferons, peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys) and ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft (BESREMi). The practical management of interferon-based therapies is discussed, along with our opinions on whether to and how to switch from hydroxyurea to one of these therapies. Key topics and questions related to use of interferons, such as their safety and tolerability, the significance of variant allele frequency, advantages of early treatment, and what the future of interferon therapy may look like, will be examined. Pegylated interferons represent an important therapeutic option for patients with MPNs; however, more research is still required to further refine interferon therapy.

A review of what interferons are and how they are used in the treatment of the myeloproliferative neoplasms polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary myelofibrosis Why was this paper written? This paper was written to summarize the current clinical landscape of the use of interferons for the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). What are interferons and how are they used in MPNs? Interferons are small proteins involved in cellular signaling that have been used to treat MPNs, polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), for more than 35 years. They can have modulatory effects on the immune system and on the fundamental causes of disease. The use of interferons as treatment was initially limited due to difficulties with their administration and the potential for significant adverse effects. Many of these shortcomings were addressed by chemically binding a biocompatible polymer, polyethylene glycol (PEG), to the structure of the interferon, which increases the stability of the protein, prolongs the time during which it is active, and reduces negative effects to the immune system. The combined chemical structure of PEG and interferon (pegylated interferon or peginterferon) is recommended for use in the treatment of PV, ET, and PMF. What topics are discussed in this paper? In this review paper we evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of two available pegylated interferons, peginterferon alfa-2a (Pegasys) and ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft (BESREMi) and discuss the practical clinical management of interferon-based therapies, along with the authors' opinions on whether to and how to switch therapy from hydroxyurea. Key topics and questions related to the use of interferons, such as their safety and tolerability, the significance of their effects on mutated cells, advantages of early treatment, and what the future of interferon therapy may look like, will be examined. What do the findings mean? Pegylated interferons represent an important therapeutic option for patients with MPNs; however, more research is still required to further refine interferon therapy.

A randomized, double-blind study of zinpentraxin alfa in patients with myelofibrosis who were previously treated with or ineligible for ruxolitinib: Stage 2 of a phase II trial.

Not available.

Delayed inflammatory pulmonary syndrome: A distinct clinical entity in the spectrum of inflammatory syndromes in COVID-19 infection?

BACKGROUND: During the second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a subset of critically ill patients developed delayed respiratory deterioration in the absence of new infection, fluid overload or extra-pulmonary organ dysfunction. AIM: To describe the clinical and laboratory characteristics, outcomes, and management of these patients, and to contrast this entity with other post COVID-19 immune dysregulation related inflammatory disorders. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit of a 2200-bed university affiliated teaching hospital, between May and August 2021, who fulfilled clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Outcome was assessed by a change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and levels of inflammatory markers before and after immunomodulation, duration of mechanical ventilation after starting treatment, and survival to discharge. RESULTS: Five patients developed delayed respiratory deterioration in the absence of new infection, fluid overload or extra-pulmonary organ dysfunction at a median interquartile range (IQR) duration of 32 (23-35) d after the onset of symptoms. These patients had elevated inflammatory markers, required mechanical ventilation for 13 (IQR 10-23) d, and responded to glucocorticoids and/or intravenous immunoglobulin. One patient died (20%). CONCLUSION: This delayed respiratory worsening with elevated inflammatory markers and clinical response to immunomodulation appears to contrast the well described Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome - Adults by the paucity of extrapulmonary organ involvement. The diagnosis can be considered in patients presenting with delayed respiratory worsening, that is not attributable to cardiac dysfunction, fluid overload or ongoing infections, and associated with an increase in systemic inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein, inteleukin-6 and ferritin. A good response to immunomodulation can be expected. This delayed inflammatory pulmonary syndrome may represent a distinct clinical entity in the spectrum of inflammatory syndromes in COVID-19 infection.

Moving toward disease modification in polycythemia vera.

Polycythemia vera (PV) belongs to the BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms and is characterized by activating mutations in JAK2 and clinically presents with erythrocytosis, variable degrees of systemic and vasomotor symptoms, and an increased risk of both thromboembolic events and progression to myelofibrosis and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Treatment selection is based on a patient's age and a history of thrombosis in patients with low-risk PV treated with therapeutic phlebotomy and aspirin alone, whereas cytoreductive therapy with either hydroxyurea or interferon alfa (IFN-α) is added for high-risk disease. However, other disease features such as significant disease-related symptoms and splenomegaly, concurrent thrombocytosis and leukocytosis, or intolerance of phlebotomy can constitute an indication for cytoreductive therapy in patients with otherwise low-risk disease. Additionally, recent studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy (ie, reduction in phlebotomy requirements and molecular responses) of ropegylated IFN-α2b support its use for patients with low-risk PV. Additionally, emerging data suggest that early treatment is associated with higher rates of molecular responses, which might eventually enable time-limited therapy. Nonetheless, longer follow-up is needed to assess whether molecular responses associate with clinically meaningful outcome measures such as thrombosis and progression to myelofibrosis or AML. In this article, we provide an overview of the current and evolving treatment landscape of PV and outline our vision for a patient-centered, phlebotomy-free, treatment approach using time-limited, disease-modifying treatment modalities early in the disease course, which could ultimately affect the natural history of the disease.

Relevant Clinical Factors in Patients with Myelofibrosis on Ruxolitinib for 5 or More Years.

INTRODUCTION: Median duration of therapy with the first JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) approved for patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis (MF) is about 3 years. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate clinical features, predictive factors, and outcome of patients presenting to our institution who were able to remain on RUX for ≥5 years (RUX ≥5y, n = 73). RESULTS: Comparing baseline demographics of patients who remained on RUX ≥5y (n = 73) with patients who were on RUX for 6 months to 3 years (n = 203), we confirmed that patients on RUX ≥5y lacked advanced clinical features at the start of therapy, such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, higher blasts or monocytes. Predictive independent factors for staying on RUX ≥5y were hemoglobin >10 g/dL, circulating blasts <1%, platelets >150 × 109/L, neutrophils >70%, and having primary MF. Age over 65 years remained significant for outcome in patients on RUX ≥5y. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, we report on the relevance of absence of advanced clinical features for long RUX therapy and confirm the role of age on outcome despite therapy.

Pacritinib is a potent ACVR1 inhibitor with significant anemia benefit in patients with myelofibrosis.

In patients with cytopenic myelofibrosis, treatment with the JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor pacritinib was associated with anemia benefit in the phase 3 PERSIST-2 study. The impact of pacritinib on transfusion independence (TI) has not been previously described, nor has the mechanism by which pacritinib improves anemia been elucidated. Because it has been previously postulated that inhibition of activin A receptor, type 1 (ACVR1)/activin receptor-like kinase-2 improves anemia in patients with myelofibrosis via suppression of hepcidin production, we assessed the relative inhibitory potency of pacritinib compared with other JAK2 inhibitors against ACVR1. Pacritinib inhibited ACVR1 with greater potency (half-maximal inhibitory concentration [IC50] = 16.7 nM; Cmax:IC50 = 12.7) than momelotinib (IC50 = 52.5 nM; Cmax:IC50 = 3.2), fedratinib (IC50 = 273 nM; Cmax:IC50 = 1.0), or ruxolitinib (IC50 > 1000; Cmax:IC50 < 0.01). Pacritinib's inhibitory activity against ACVR1 was corroborated via inhibition of downstream SMAD signaling in conjunction with marked suppression of hepcidin production. Among patients on PERSIST-2 who were not transfusion independent at baseline based on Gale criteria, a significantly greater proportion achieved TI on pacritinib compared with those treated on best available therapy (37% vs 7%, P = .001), and significantly more had a ≥50% reduction in transfusion burden (49% vs 9%, P < .0001). These data indicate that the anemia benefit of the JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor pacritinib may be a function of potent ACVR1 inhibition.

Phase II study of cladribine, idarubicin, and ara-C (CLIA) with or without sorafenib as initial therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

The addition of cladribine, or sorafenib to standard chemotherapy have each demonstrated improved survival in patients with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We studied the combination of cladribine, idarubicin, and intermediate-dose cytarabine (CLIA) in patients ≤65 years of age with newly diagnosed AML, fit to receive intensive therapy. Cladribine (5 mg/m2) IV was administered on days (D)1-5, cytarabine (1 g/m2) on D1-5, and idarubicin (10 mg/m2) on D1-3. Sorafenib was added to the CLIA backbone for patients with FLT3-ITD mutated AML. 80 patients were enrolled: 65 with newly diagnosed AML and 15 with AML arising from previously treated MDS (ts-AML). The median age was 55 years (range, 21-65). CR + CRi was 83% (54/65) and 27% in the untreated and ts-AML cohorts, respectively; 74% and 75% of responding patients, respectively, had undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD). Among patients with FLT3-ITD mutated AML receiving CLIA+sorafenib, the CR + CRi rate was 95%, with 81% negative for MRD. With a median follow-up of 76 months, the 2- and 4-year OS of 57% and 50% compared to 20%, and 13% for ts-AML, respectively. Patients treated with CLIA+sorafenib had 2- and 5-year OS rates of 63% and 59%, respectively. The most common Grade ≥3 adverse events were infection/fever, elevated bilirubin, rash, and nausea. CLIA was safe and effective in young, fit patients with newly diagnosed AML with inferior outcomes among patients with ts-AML. The addition of sorafenib to CLIA in FLT3-ITD mutated AML resulted in high rates of durable remission and excellent long-term survival.

Association of Myelofibrosis Phenotypes with Clinical Manifestations, Molecular Profiles, and Treatments.

Myelofibrosis (MF) presents an array of clinical manifestations and molecular profiles. The two distinct phenotypes- myeloproliferative and myelodepletive or cytopenic- are situated at the two poles of the disease spectrum and are largely defined by different degrees of cytopenias, splenomegaly, and distinct molecular profiles. The myeloproliferative phenotype is characterized by normal/higher peripheral blood counts or mildly decreased hemoglobin, progressive splenomegaly, and constitutional symptoms. The myeloproliferative phenotype is typically associated with secondary MF, higher JAK2 V617F burden, fewer mutations, and superior overall survival (OS). The myelodepletive phenotype is usually associated with primary MF, ≥2 cytopenias, modest splenomegaly, lower JAK2 V617F burden, higher fibrosis, greater genomic complexity, and inferior OS. Cytopenias are associated with mutations in epigenetic regulators/splicing factors, clonal evolution, disease progression, and shorter OS. Clinical variables, in conjunction with the molecular profiles, inform integrated prognostication and disease management. Ruxolitinib/fedratinib and pacritinib/momelotinib may be more suitable to treat patients with the myeloproliferative and myelodepletive phenotypes, respectively. Appreciation of MF heterogeneity and two distinct phenotypes, the different clinical manifestations and molecular profiles associated with each phenotype alongside the growing treatment expertise, the development of non-myelosuppressive JAK inhibitors, and integrated prognostication are leading to a new era in patient management. Physicians can increasingly tailor personalized treatments that will address the unique unmet needs of MF patients, including those presenting with the myelodepletive phenotype, to elicit optimal outcomes and extended OS across the disease spectrum.

A phase 1/2 study of azacitidine, venetoclax and pevonedistat in newly diagnosed secondary AML and in MDS or CMML after failure of hypomethylating agents.

BACKGROUND: Pevonedistat is a first-in-class, small molecular inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme that has clinical activity in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Preclinical data suggest synergy of pevonedistat with azacitidine and venetoclax. METHODS: This single-center, phase 1/2 study evaluated the combination of azacitidine, venetoclax and pevonedistat in older adults with newly diagnosed secondary AML or with MDS or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) after failure of hypomethylating agents. Patients received azacitidine 75 mg/m2 IV on days 1-7, venetoclax at maximum dose of 200-400 mg orally on days 1-21 (AML cohort) or days 1-14 (MDS/CMML cohort) and pevonedistat 20 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 3 and 5 for up to 24 cycles. The primary endpoints for the phase 2 portion of the study were the CR/CRi rate in the AML cohort and the overall response rate (CR + mCR + PR + HI) in the MDS/CMML cohort. FINDINGS: Forty patients were enrolled (32 with AML and 8 with MDS/CMML). In the AML cohort, the median age was 74 years (range 61-86 years), and 27 patients (84%) had at least one adverse risk cyto-molecular feature, including 15 (47%) with a TP53 mutation or MECOM rearrangement; seventeen patients (53%) had received prior therapy for a preceding myeloid disorder. The CR/CRi rate was 66% (CR 50%; CRi 16%), and the median overall survival (OS) was 8.1 months. In the MDS/CMML cohort, 7 patients (87%) were high or very high risk by the IPSS-R. The overall response rate was 75% (CR 13%; mCR with or without HI 50%; HI 13%). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were infection in 16 patients (35%), febrile neutropenia in 10 patients (25%) and hypophosphatemia in 9 patients (23%). In an exploratory analysis, early upregulation of NOXA expression was observed, with subsequent decrease in MCL-1 and FLIP, findings consistent with preclinical mechanistic studies of pevonedistat. Upregulation of CD36 was observed, which may have contributed to therapeutic resistance. CONCLUSIONS: The triplet combination of azacitidine, venetoclax and pevonedistat shows encouraging activity in this very poor-risk population of patients with AML, MDS or CMML. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03862157).

Moving beyond ruxolitinib failure in myelofibrosis: evolving strategies for second line therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Ruxolitinib has been the cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy for myelofibrosis for over a decade. However, the last several years have witnessed the regulatory approval of other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for myelofibrosis, i.e. fedratinib, pacritinib, and US approval of momelotinib is widely anticipated in 2023. AREAS COVERED: Due to the multifaceted clinical presentation of myelofibrosis, a watertight definition of ruxolitinib failure has remained elusive, as "progression" on ruxolitinib can take many forms and management is highly nuanced. Yet, the availability of other JAK inhibitors and potential future availability of non-JAK inhibitor agents for myelofibrosis make a consensus on management of ruxolitinib failure critically important. This consensus paper summarizes a discussion between multiple academic and community physician experts, a pharmacist and an advanced practice provider around the issues to be considered for the optimal care of patients with myelofibrosis whose disease is refractory to or does not respond adequately to ruxolitinib, or who exhibit intolerance to ruxolitinib. EXPERT OPINION: The panel identified several areas of consensus, as well as some areas where more data to inform evidence-based practice are needed. In some situations, maintaining ruxolitinib while adding another agent, e.g. to address anemia, is appropriate, whereas in others, switching to a different drug has merit.

The role of therapy in the outcome of patients with myelofibrosis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with myelofibrosis (MF) has evolved in the past decade, as reflected in an increased use of various therapeutic agents that could potentially impact patient outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the authors evaluated the pattern of therapy and its possible impact on the survival of patients with MF at their institution. Patients (n = 802) with newly diagnosed, chronic, overt MF (MF fibrosis grade ≥2, <10% blasts) seen at their cancer center between 2000 and 2020 were included. RESULTS: Overall, 492 of the included patients (61%) initiated MF-directed therapy during follow-up. The most frequent initial therapy was the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib (44% of treated patients), investigational agents excluding JAK inhibitors (21%), immunomodulatory agents (18%), other investigational JAK inhibitors (10%), and others (7%). Overall survival was superior for patients who received initial ruxolitinib therapy, with a median survival of 72 months versus approximately 50 months for the remaining approaches, excluding the last group. Thirty-two percent of patients required subsequent therapy (n = 159). The longest survival since the start of second-line therapy was observed in patients who initiated salvage ruxolitinib (median, 35 months; 95% CI, 25-45 months). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated improved outcomes of patients with MF who received treatment with the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib.

An update on the efficacy of Venetoclax for chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: The BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax has dramatically changed the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and has introduced the concept of time-limited therapy with targeted agents. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses the mechanism of action of venetoclax, adverse effects, and the clinical data with this agent as identified by a selective search of clinical trials in the PubMed database. Venetoclax is FDA-approved with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies; however, research is ongoing evaluating its efficacy when given in combination with other agents, such as the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitors. EXPERT OPINION: Venetoclax-based therapy is an excellent treatment option for patients interested in time-limited therapy and can be offered in both the front-line and relapsed/refractory settings. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk evaluation, preventative measures, and strict monitoring should be conducted, while these patients ramp up to target dose. Venetoclax-based therapies produce deep and durable responses with patients often achieving undetectable measurable residual disease (uMRD). This has led to a discussion of MRD-driven, finite-duration treatment approaches, although longer term data is still needed. While many patients eventually lose uMRD status, re-treatment with venetoclax remains an area of interest with promising results. Mechanisms of resistance to venetoclax are being elucidated, and research is ongoing.

Venetoclax consolidation in high-risk CLL treated with ibrutinib for ≥1 year achieves a high rate of undetectable MRD.

Patients receiving ibrutinib for CLL rarely achieve undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD), necessitating indefinite therapy, with cumulative risks of treatment discontinuation due to progression or adverse events. This study added venetoclax to ibrutinib for up to 2 years, in patients who had received ibrutinib for ≥12 months (mo) and had ≥1 high risk feature (TP53 mutation and/or deletion, ATM deletion, complex karyotype or persistently elevated ß2-microglobulin). The primary endpoint was U-MRD with 10-4 sensitivity (U-MRD4) in bone marrow (BM) at 12mo. Forty-five patients were treated. On intention-to-treat analysis, 23/42 (55%) patients improved their response to CR (2 pts were in MRD + CR at venetoclax initiation). U-MRD4 at 12mo was 57%. 32/45 (71%) had U-MRD at the completion of venetoclax: 22/32 stopped ibrutinib; 10 continued ibrutinib. At a median of 41 months from venetoclax initiation, 5/45 patients have progressed; none have died from CLL or Richter Transformation. In 32 patients with BM U-MRD4, peripheral blood (PB) MRD4 was analyzed every 6 months; 10/32 have had PB MRD re-emergence at a median of 13 months post-venetoclax. In summary, the addition of venetoclax in patients treated with ≥12mo of ibrutinib achieved high rate of BM U-MRD4 and may achieve durable treatment-free remission.