How I Treat Low-risk Polycythemia Vera Patients who Require Cytoreduction.

Polycythemia vera (PV) was first described by Vaquez in 1892. This is a chronic hematological malignancy which affects both older and young patients. Perhaps due to lack of a curative treatment and the perceived toxicities of prior therapies our focus in the past was to intensify treatment only for patients at higher risk of thrombosis. Recent triggers to challenge this approach include: a recognition that low-risk PV is not "no-risk", our ability to better recognize patients who would benefit from more intensive therapy from the perspective of thrombosis, and data showing that some treatments may reduce risk of transformation to myelofibrosis. Furthermore, there is emergent evidence that molecular monitoring may identify an improvement in disease state translating to improved overall survival. Here we describe clinical situations that would trigger the use of cytoreductive treatment for low-risk PV patients as well as our approach to choosing a specific cytoreductive agent and how to effectively monitor treatment.

Essential thrombocythemia: challenges in clinical practice and future prospects.

Essential thrombocythemia (ET) was first described in 1934, and subsequently, progress has been made in better understanding the molecular pathogenesis and which patients may have greatest risk of progression or vascular events. However, it has been more than a decade since a new therapy has been approved for ET. We are beginning to understand more comprehensively both the heterogeneity of this disease, which is largely driven by driver mutation status, as well as the effect of disease-related symptoms, such as fatigue, on patients. In this review we provide a practical overview of diagnosis and management of ET with focus on challenging patient scenarios and some consideration of what comprehensive care might entail. Finally, we also discuss newer therapies and how these might be assessed.

Myelofibrosis: Current unmet needs, emerging treatments, and future perspectives.

The current standard-of-care for treatment of myelofibrosis (MF) comprises inhibitors of the Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators (STAT) pathway; however, despite their ability to alleviate symptoms, they do not appear to modify underlying disease and have not demonstrated substantial survival benefit. Allogeneic-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remains the only curative option for patients with MF but is limited to a subset of high-risk and fit patients. Early disease modification could positively affect disease trajectory for lower risk patients with MF as well as those with conditions that can precede MF, such as polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Here, the authors discuss critical unmet needs in the MF treatment paradigm, including: the need for safe, impactful therapies for lower risk patients, thus allowing intervention when success is most likely; better development of first-line therapies (likely highly novel or combination strategies) for intermediate-risk/higher risk patients; and approved drugs to manage cytopenia. Finally, a consensus definition of disease modification is needed that informs trial design, allowing the development of clinical end points that enable understanding of therapies and responses and that facilitate the development of therapies that work according to this definition. Through close collaboration between clinicians, patients, and the pharmaceutical industry, better efforts to define benefit and identify patients most likely to benefit from a particular combination or treatment strategy should enable the development of more effective and safe treatments to extend and improve quality of life for patients with MF.

Clinical utility of investigations in triple-negative thrombocytosis: A real-world, multicentre evaluation of UK practice.

Diagnosis of essential thrombocythaemia (ET) is challenging in patients lacking JAK2/CALR/MPL mutations. In a retrospective evaluation of 320 patients with 'triple-negative thrombocytosis', we assessed utility of bone marrow histology (90.9% of patients) and myeloid gene panel (MGP, 55.6%). Supportive histology ('myeloproliferative neoplasm-definite/probable', 36.8%) was associated with higher platelet counts and varied between centres. 14.6% MGP revealed significant variants: 3.4% JAK2/CALR/MPL and 11.2% other myeloid genes. Final clinical diagnosis was strongly predicted by histology, not MGP. 23.7% received cytoreduction (17.6% under 60 years). Real-world 'triple-negative' ET diagnosis currently depends heavily on histology; we advocate caution in MGP-negative cases and that specific guidelines are needed.

Momelotinib versus danazol in symptomatic patients with anaemia and myelofibrosis (MOMENTUM): results from an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors approved for myelofibrosis provide spleen and symptom improvements but do not meaningfully improve anaemia. Momelotinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of activin A receptor type 1 as well as JAK1 and JAK2, has shown symptom, spleen, and anaemia benefits in myelofibrosis. We aimed to confirm the differentiated clinical benefits of momelotinib versus the active comparator danazol in JAK-inhibitor-exposed, symptomatic patients with anaemia and intermediate-risk or high-risk myelofibrosis. METHODS: MOMENTUM is an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 107 sites across 21 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis or post-polycythaemia vera or post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive momelotinib (200 mg orally once per day) plus danazol placebo (ie, the momelotinib group) or danazol (300 mg orally twice per day) plus momelotinib placebo (ie, the danazol group), stratified by total symptom score (TSS; <22 vs ≥22), spleen size (<12 cm vs ≥12 cm), red blood cell or whole blood units transfused in the 8 weeks before randomisation (0 units vs 1-4 units vs ≥5 units), and study site. The primary endpoint was the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) TSS response rate at week 24 (defined as ≥50% reduction in mean MFSAF TSS over the 28 days immediately before the end of week 24 compared with baseline). MOMENTUM is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04173494, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: 195 patients were randomly assigned to either the momelotinib group (130 [67%]) or danazol group (65 [33%]) and received study treatment in the 24-week randomised treatment period between April 24, 2020, and Dec 3, 2021. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the momelotinib group reported a 50% or more reduction in TSS than in the danazol group (32 [25%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65; proportion difference 16% [95% CI 6-26], p=0·0095). The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were haematological abnormalities by laboratory values: anaemia (79 [61%] of 130 vs 49 [75%] of 65) and thrombocytopenia (36 [28%] vs 17 [26%]). The most frequent non-haematological grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were acute kidney injury (four [3%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65) and pneumonia (three [2%] vs six [9%]). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with momelotinib, compared with danazol, resulted in clinically significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms, anaemia measures, and spleen response, with favourable safety. These findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in patients with myelofibrosis, especially in those with anaemia. FUNDING: Sierra Oncology.

A randomized phase 3 trial of interferon-α vs hydroxyurea in polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia.

The goal of therapy for patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) is to reduce thrombotic events by normalizing blood counts. Hydroxyurea (HU) and interferon-α (IFN-α) are the most frequently used cytoreductive options for patients with ET and PV at high risk for vascular complications. Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium 112 was an investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial comparing HU to pegylated IFN-α (PEG) in treatment-naïve, high-risk patients with ET/PV. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate at 12 months. A total of 168 patients were treated for a median of 81.0 weeks. CR for HU was 37% and 35% for PEG (P = .80) at 12 months. At 24 to 36 months, CR was 20% to 17% for HU and 29% to 33% for PEG. PEG led to a greater reduction in JAK2V617F at 24 months, but histopathologic responses were more frequent with HU. Thrombotic events and disease progression were infrequent in both arms, whereas grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with PEG (46% vs 28%). At 12 months of treatment, there was no significant difference in CR rates between HU and PEG. This study indicates that PEG and HU are both effective treatments for PV and ET. With longer treatment, PEG was more effective in normalizing blood counts and reducing driver mutation burden, whereas HU produced more histopathologic responses. Despite these differences, both agents did not differ in limiting thrombotic events and disease progression in high-risk patients with ET/PV. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01259856.

Meaningful Symptomatic Change in Patients With Myelofibrosis From the SIMPLIFY Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with myelofibrosis develop symptoms due to bone marrow fibrosis, systemic inflammation, and/or organomegaly. Alleviating symptoms improves overall quality of life. Clinical trials have historically defined symptom response as a reduction of at least 50% in Total Symptom Score at week 24 compared with baseline. Whether 50% constitutes a meaningful benefit has not been established. This study determined the meaningful change threshold (MCT) for 2 momelotinib phase III trials, SIMPLIFY-1 and SIMPLIFY-2. METHODS: The absolute and percentage MCT was determined using anchor-based methods applied to the modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form v2.0 and Patient Global Impression of Change. MCTs were applied retrospectively to determine responder rates. Generalized estimating equations estimated the treatment-related difference in likelihood of improvement. RESULTS: In SIMPLIFY-1, a Janus kinase inhibitor-naive population, the MCT was 8 points. In SIMPLIFY-2, a previously Janus kinase inhibitor-treated population, the MCT was 6 points. A 32% MCT was determined in both studies, showing that the historic 50% reduction threshold may be a conservative choice. In SIMPLIFY-1, a similar proportion of patients achieved responder status with 24 weeks of momelotinib or ruxolitinib therapy based on the absolute MCT (39% vs 41%, respectively). In SIMPLIFY-2, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with momelotinib achieved responder states compared with best available therapy based on absolute and percent change MCTs. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that momelotinib provided clinically meaningful symptom benefit for patients with myelofibrosis and provides insight into the appropriateness of the symptom change threshold used in historical studies.

How I manage myeloproliferative neoplasm-unclassifiable: Practical approaches for 2022 and beyond.

Myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN)-unclassifiable (MPN-U) or not otherwise specified represents a rare, poorly defined and heterogeneous group of MPNs. Disease incidence is difficult to define but likely represents close to 5% of all MPNs when strict World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria are applied. Dynamic review over time is required to assess if the disease can be re-classified into another MPN entity. A diagnosis of MPN-U leads to many challenges for both the patient and physician alike including lack of agreed monitoring and therapeutic guidelines, validated prognostic markers and licenced therapies coupled with exclusion from clinical trials. MPN-U has an inherent risk of an aggressive clinical course and transformation in some but who, and when to treat in the chronic phase, including identifying who may require more aggressive therapy at an earlier stage, remains elusive. Moreover, despite the significant thrombotic risk, there is no agreement on systematic primary thromboprophylaxis. We hereby provide a contemporary overview of MPN-U in addition to four illustrative cases providing our collective suggested approaches to clinical challenges.

Safety and efficacy of fedratinib, a selective oral inhibitor of Janus kinase-2 (JAK2), in patients with myelofibrosis and low pretreatment platelet counts.

Fedratinib, an oral Janus kinase-2 (JAK2) inhibitor, is approved for patients with myelofibrosis (MF) and platelet counts ≥50 × 109 /l, based on outcomes from the phase 3, placebo-controlled JAKARTA trial in JAK-inhibitor-naïve MF, and the phase 2, single-arm JAKARTA2 trial in patients previously treated with ruxolitinib. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fedratinib 400 mg/day in patients with baseline platelet counts 50 to <100 × 109 /l ("Low-Platelets" cohorts), including 14/96 patients (15%) in JAKARTA and 33/97 (34%) in JAKARTA2. At 24 weeks, spleen response rates were not significantly different between the Low-Platelets cohort and patients with baseline platelet counts ≥100 × 109 /l ("High-Platelets" cohort), in JAKARTA (36% vs. 49%, respectively; p = 0.37) or JAKARTA2 (36% vs. 28%; p = 0.41). Symptom response rates were also not statistically different between the Low- and High-Platelets cohorts. Fedratinib was generally well-tolerated in both platelet-count cohorts. New or worsening thrombocytopaenia was more frequent in the Low-Platelets (44%) versus the High-Platelets (9%) cohort, but no serious thrombocytopaenia events occurred. Thrombocytopaenia was typically managed with dose modifications; only 3/48 Low-Platelets patients discontinued fedratinib due to thrombocytopaenia. These data indicate that fedratinib 400 mg/day is safe and effective in patients with MF and low pretreatment platelet counts, and no initial fedratinib dose adjustment is required for these patients.

Current and future status of JAK inhibitors.

An enhanced understanding of the importance of Janus kinase (JAK) and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signalling in multiple disease states has led to an increasing applicability of therapeutic intervention with JAK inhibitors. These agents have revolutionised treatments for a heterogeneous group of disorders, such as myeloproliferative neoplasms, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple immune-driven dermatological diseases, exemplifying rapid bench-to-bedside translation. In this Therapeutics paper, we summarise the currently available data concerning the successes and safety of an array of JAK inhibitors and hypothesise on how these fields could develop.

Retrospective analysis of pacritinib in patients with myelofibrosis and severe thrombocytopenia.

Thrombocytopenia is common in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) and is a well-established adverse prognostic factor. Both of the approved Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, ruxolitinib and fedratinib, can worsen thrombocytopenia and have not been evaluated in patients with severe thrombocytopenia (platelet counts <50×109/L). Pacritinib, a novel JAK2/interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 1 inhibitor, has been studied in two phase III trials (PERSIST-1 and PERSIST- 2), both of which enrolled patients with MF and severe thrombocytopenia. In order to better characterize treatment outcomes for this population with advanced disease, we present a retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety data in the 189 patients with severe thrombocytopenia treated in the PERSIST studies. The proportion of patients in the pacritinib group meeting efficacy endpoints was greater than in the BAT group for ≥35% spleen volume reduction (23% vs. 2%, P=0.0007), ≥50% modified Total Symptom Score reduction (25% vs. 8%, P=0.044), and self-reported symptom benefit ("much" or "very much" improved; 25% vs. 8%, P=0.016) at the primary analysis time point (week 24). The adverse event profile of pacritinib was manageable, and dose modification was rarely required. There was no excess in bleeding or death in pacritinib-treated patients. These results indicate that pacritinib is a promising treatment for patients with MF who lack safe and effective therapeutic options due to severe thrombocytopenia.

Imetelstat in intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis refractory to JAK inhibitor: IMpactMF phase III study design.

Imetelstat, a first-in-class telomerase inhibitor, demonstrated meaningful clinical benefit including a robust symptom response rate and potential overall survival benefit in IMbark, a phase II study in intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis (MF) patients who have relapsed after or are refractory to JAK inhibitors. We describe the rationale and design for the phase III trial, IMpactMF (NCT04576156), an open-label evaluation of imetelstat versus best available therapy, excluding JAK inhibitors, in MF patients refractory to JAK inhibitor. Imetelstat 9.4 mg/kg is administered as an intravenous infusion every 21 days. Primary objective is to assess overall survival. Secondary objectives include symptom and spleen responses, progression-free survival, clinical response assessment, bone marrow fibrosis reduction, safety and pharmacokinetics. Biomarker, cytogenetics and mutation analyses will be performed.

Imetelstat is a new type of treatment being studied in patients with myelofibrosis (MF). Encouraging clinical benefits were seen in a phase II clinical trial of imetelstat in higher risk MF. This article discusses the ongoing phase III trial, called IMpactMF. IMpactMF is comparing imetelstat to best available therapy (BAT) in MF patients not responding to a specific type of treatment, a JAK inhibitor. Imetelstat is an intravenous infusion, given every 21 days. This study will determine if patients who receive imetelstat live longer than patients who are given BAT. It will also collect information on additional outcomes, including safety. Trial Registration Number: NCT04576156 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Phase III MANIFEST-2: pelabresib + ruxolitinib vs placebo + ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor treatment-naive myelofibrosis.

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm, typically associated with disease-related symptoms, splenomegaly, cytopenias and bone marrow fibrosis. Patients experience a significant symptom burden and a reduced life expectancy. Patients with MF receive ruxolitinib as the current standard of care, but the depth and durability of responses and the percentage of patients achieving clinical outcome measures are limited; thus, a significant unmet medical need exists. Pelabresib is an investigational small-molecule bromodomain and extraterminal domain inhibitor currently in clinical development for MF. The aim of this article is to describe the design of the ongoing, global, phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled MANIFEST-2 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pelabresib and ruxolitinib versus placebo and ruxolitinib in patients with JAKi treatment-naive MF. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04603495 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a rare type of blood cancer that interferes with the process of blood cell production by the bone marrow. In patients with MF, the bone marrow becomes overactive, leading to scarring and subsequently a lack of healthy blood cells being produced. The main symptoms of MF include anemia, fatigue, weakness and pain or discomfort in the abdomen. MF is associated with a shortened life expectancy. The current go-to treatment for MF is ruxolitinib. However, ruxolitinib has shown limited efficacy in improving clinical symptoms long term; so, new safe and effective treatments are needed. Pelabresib is a novel drug currently in clinical development for treating MF. The aim of this article is to describe the design of the ongoing, global phase III MANIFEST-2 study. MANIFEST-2 is evaluating the efficacy and safety of pelabresib and ruxolitinib versus placebo and ruxolitinib in patients with MF.

Altered immune response to the annual influenza A vaccine in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms.

The seasonal influenza A vaccine is recommended for patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). We hypothesised that immune deregulation associated with MPNs may affect the immune response gained following vaccinations when compared to healthy controls. Using deep immunophenotyping with high-dimensional single-cell analysis and mass cytometry we could demonstrate an altered immune response in MPN patients following vaccination. We found that prior to vaccination, MPN patients had reduced numbers of naive CD4 T cells. Furthermore, at 3-weeks and 3-months post-vaccination there was evidence of both delayed and impaired B- and T-memory cells responses. Thus, although, the immune systems of MPN patients can 'recognise' the Influenza A vaccine, the response appears inferior compared to healthy controls.

Clinicopathological characterisation of myeloproliferative neoplasm-unclassifiable (MPN-U): a retrospective analysis from a large UK tertiary referral centre.

Myeloproliferative neoplasm-unclassifiable (MPN-U) presents an MPN-type phenotype that fails to meet diagnostic criteria for other MPN variants. Variability in the clinicopathological phenotypes presents many challenges. Amongst a registry cohort of 1512 patients with MPN, 82 with MPN-U were included, with a median (range) age of 49·7 (13-79) years. Albeit heterogeneous, common presentation features included raised lactate dehydrogenase, thrombocytosis and clustered/pleomorphic megakaryocytes on trephine biopsy. Thrombosis was common (21%), necessitating vigilance. The median event-free survival was 11·25 years (95% confidence interval 9·3-not reached), significantly shortened in cases with lower platelet counts (<500 × 109 /l) and a leucocytosis (≥12 × 109 /l) at presentation. Generation of potential MPN-U prognostic scores is required.

Classification and Personalized Prognosis in Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Myeloproliferative neoplasms, such as polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and myelofibrosis, are chronic hematologic cancers with varied progression rates. The genomic characterization of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms offers the potential for personalized diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. METHODS: We sequenced coding exons from 69 myeloid cancer genes in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms, comprehensively annotating driver mutations and copy-number changes. We developed a genomic classification for myeloproliferative neoplasms and multistage prognostic models for predicting outcomes in individual patients. Classification and prognostic models were validated in an external cohort. RESULTS: A total of 2035 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 33 genes had driver mutations in at least 5 patients, with mutations in JAK2, CALR, or MPL being the sole abnormality in 45% of the patients. The numbers of driver mutations increased with age and advanced disease. Driver mutations, germline polymorphisms, and demographic variables independently predicted whether patients received a diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia as compared with polycythemia vera or a diagnosis of chronic-phase disease as compared with myelofibrosis. We defined eight genomic subgroups that showed distinct clinical phenotypes, including blood counts, risk of leukemic transformation, and event-free survival. Integrating 63 clinical and genomic variables, we created prognostic models capable of generating personally tailored predictions of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic-phase myeloproliferative neoplasms and myelofibrosis. The predicted and observed outcomes correlated well in internal cross-validation of a training cohort and in an independent external cohort. Even within individual categories of existing prognostic schemas, our models substantially improved predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive genomic characterization identified distinct genetic subgroups and provided a classification of myeloproliferative neoplasms on the basis of causal biologic mechanisms. Integration of genomic data with clinical variables enabled the personalized predictions of patients' outcomes and may support the treatment of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms. (Funded by the Wellcome Trust and others.).

Forging ahead or moving back: dilemmas and disappointments of novel agents for myeloproliferative neoplasms.

The common 'Philadelphia chromosome'-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) comprise essential thrombocythaemia, polycythaemia vera and myelofibrosis. These are clinically diverse disorders and present many challenges during their course, ranging from the management of very indolent, chronic-phase disease through to very aggressive stages frequently associated with poor quality of life, heavy symptom burdens and potentially life expectancies of <18 months. Their management also requires expertise in thrombosis and haemostasis in addition to marrow failure, debilitating symptom control and balancing the 'pros and cons' of intensive therapy such as allogeneic stem cell transplant versus novel and established therapies. In the past 15 years this field has seen rapid advances following an understanding of the pivotal importance of constitutive Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK/STAT) signalling, the interplay of the wider genomic landscape and the development of updated diagnostic criteria, prognostic scores and targeted therapies. In this article, we review the successes and failures of novel agents and approaches to MPN management.

How we manage Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms in pregnancy.

The combined incidence of classical Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) is 6-9/100 000 with a peak frequency between 50 and 70 years. MPN is less frequent in women of reproductive age. However, for essential thrombocythaemia (ET) in particular there is a second peak in women of reproductive age and 15% of polycythaemia vera (PV) patients are less than 40 years of age at the time of diagnosis. Thus these diseases are encountered in women of reproductive potential and may be diagnosed in pregnancy or in women being investigated for recurrent pregnancy loss. The incidence of MPN pregnancies is 3·2/100 000 maternities per year in the UK. The majority of data regarding Philadelphia-negative MPNs relates to patients with ET, for which the literature suggests significant maternal morbidity and poor fetal outcome; specifically maternal thrombosis and haemorrhage, miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), stillbirth and premature delivery as summarised in the recent systematic review and meta-analysis in Blood, 2018, 132, 3046. The literature for PV is more sparse but increasing and is concordant with ET pregnancy outcomes. The literature regarding primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is even more scarce. Treatment options include aspirin, venesection, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and cytoreductive therapy. Data and management recommendations are often extrapolated from other pro-thrombotic conditions or from ET to PV and PMF. Women of reproductive age with a diagnosis of MPN should receive information and assurance regarding management and outcome of future pregnancies. From pre-conceptual planning to the post-partum period, women should have access to joint care from an obstetrician with experience of high-risk pregnancies and a haematologist in a multidisciplinary setting. This paper provides an update with regards to Philadelphia-negative MPN in pregnancy, details local practise in an internationally recognised centre for patients with MPN and outlines a future research strategy.

Management of myelofibrosis after ruxolitinib failure.

Myelofibrosis is a BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by anemia, progressive splenomegaly, extramedullary hematopoiesis, bone marrow fibrosis, constitutional symptoms, leukemic progression, and shortened survival. Constitutive activation of the Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway, and other cellular pathways downstream, leads to myeloproliferation, proinflammatory cytokine expression, and bone marrow remodeling. Transplant is the only curative option for myelofibrosis, but high rates of morbidity and mortality limit eligibility. Several prognostic models have been developed to facilitate treatment decisions. Until the recent approval of fedratinib, a JAK2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib was the only available JAK inhibitor for treatment of intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib reduces splenomegaly to some degree in almost all treated patients; however, many patients cannot tolerate ruxolitinib due to dose-dependent drug-related cytopenias, and even patients with a good initial response often develop resistance to ruxolitinib after 2-3 years of therapy. Currently, there is no consensus definition of ruxolitinib failure. Until fedratinib approval, strategies to overcome ruxolitinib resistance or intolerance were mainly different approaches to continued ruxolitinib therapy, including dosing modifications and ruxolitinib rechallenge. Fedratinib and two other JAK2 inhibitors in later stages of clinical development, pacritinib and momelotinib, have been shown to induce clinical responses and improve symptoms in patients previously treated with ruxolitinib. Fedratinib induces robust spleen responses, and pacritinib and momelotinib may have preferential activity in patients with severe cytopenias. Reviewed here are strategies to ameliorate ruxolitinib resistance or intolerance, and outcomes of clinical trials in patients with myelofibrosis receiving second-line JAK inhibitors after ruxolitinib treatment.

Fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib: An updated analysis of the JAKARTA2 study using stringent criteria for ruxolitinib failure.

Fedratinib is an oral, selective Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitor. The phase II JAKARTA2 study assessed fedratinib in patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis (MF) who were resistant or intolerant to prior ruxolitinib per investigator assessment. Patients received fedratinib 400 mg/day in 28-day cycles. The JAKARTA2 outcomes were initially reported using a last-observation-carried forward (LOCF) analysis in a "Per Protocol" population. This updated analysis of JAKARTA2 employs intention-to-treat analysis principles without LOCF for all treated patients (ITT Population; N = 97), and for a patient subgroup who met more stringent definitions of prior ruxolitinib failure (Stringent Criteria Cohort; n = 79). Median duration of prior ruxolitinib exposure was 10.7 months. The primary endpoint was spleen volume response rate (SVRR; ≥35% spleen volume decrease from baseline to end of cycle 6 [EOC6]). The SVRR was 31% in the ITT Population and 30% in the Stringent Criteria Cohort. Median duration of spleen volume response was not reached. Symptom response rate (≥50% reduction from baseline to EOC6 in total symptom score [TSS] on the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form [MFSAF]) was 27%. Grade 3-4 anemia and thrombocytopenia rates were 38% and 22%, respectively. Patients with advanced MF substantially pretreated with ruxolitinib attained robust spleen responses and reduced symptom burden with fedratinib.