Treatment comparison of hydroxyurea versus ruxolitinib in essential thrombocythaemia: A matched-cohort analysis.

Hydroxyurea is the preferred first-line cytoreductive treatment for high-risk essential thrombocythaemia (ET), but many patients are intolerant or refractory to hydroxyurea. Ruxolitinib has been shown to improve symptoms in patients with ET. This post hoc analysis compared the clinical outcomes of patients with ET who received hydroxyurea only with those who switched from hydroxyurea to ruxolitinib due to intolerance/resistance to hydroxyurea. Patients with ET refractory/intolerant to hydroxyurea treated with ruxolitinib in a completed phase 2 study (HU-RUX) were propensity score matched with patients who received hydroxyurea only in an observational study (HU). Changes in leukocyte and platelet counts were reported at 6-month intervals during the 48-month follow-up. Following propensity score matching, 37 patients were included for analysis in each cohort. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) leukocyte and platelet counts at index were higher for HU-RUX versus HU (leukocyte: 9.3 [5.1] vs. 6.8 [3.1] × 109/L; platelet: 1027.4 [497.8] vs. 513.9 [154.7] × 109/L), both of which decreased significantly from index to 6 months through to 48 months in HU-RUX (mean [SD] change from index at 6 months-leukocyte: -1.8 [4.6] × 109/L; platelet: -391.7 [472.9] × 109/L; at 48 months-leukocyte: -3.8 [5.3] × 109/L; platelet: -539.0 [521.8] × 109/L), but remained relatively stable in HU (mean [SD] change from index at 6 months-leukocyte: 0 [1.8] × 109/L; platelet: -5.7 [175.3] × 109/L; at 48 months-leukocyte: -0.1 [2.7] × 109/L; platelet: -6.9 [105.1] × 109/L). In conclusion, these results demonstrate that switching from hydroxyurea to ruxolitinib in patients with ET who are intolerant or refractory to hydroxyurea could improve abnormal haematologic values similar to those who receive first-line hydroxyurea.

The impact of thrombosis on probabilities of death and disease progression in polycythemia vera: a multistate transition analysis of 1,545 patients.

We applied a parametric Markov five-state model, on a well-characterized international cohort of 1,545 patients with polycythemia vera (PV; median age 61 years; females 51%), in order to examine the impact of incident thrombosis on the trajectory of death or disease progression. At a median follow-up of 6.9 years, 347 (23%) deaths, 50 (3%) blast phase (BP), and 138 (9%) fibrotic (post-PV MF) transformations were recorded. Incident thrombosis occurred at a rate of 2.62% pt/yr (arterial 1.59% and venous 1.05%). The probability of death, in the first 10 years, for 280 (18%) patients who developed thrombosis during follow-up was 40%, which was two-fold higher than that seen in the absence of thrombosis or any other transition state (20%; p < 0.01); the adverse impact from thrombosis was more apparent for arterial (HR 1.74; p < 0.01) vs venous thrombosis (p=NS) and was independent of other fixed (i.e., age, prior venous thrombosis, leukocytosis) or time-dependent (i.e., progression to BP or MF) risk variables. The transition probability to post-PV MF increased over time, in a linear fashion, with a rate of 5% capped at 5 and 10 years, in patients with or without incident thrombosis, respectively. The impact of thrombosis on transition probability to death or post-PV MF tapered off beyond 10 years and appeared to reverse direction of impact on MF evolution at the 12-year time point. These observations suggest thrombosis in PV to be a marker of aggressive disease biology or a disease-associated inflammatory state that is consequential to both thrombosis and disease progression.

Ropeginterferon versus Standard Therapy for Low-Risk Patients with Polycythemia Vera.

BACKGROUND: Whether phlebotomy alone can adequately maintain target hematocrit in patients with low-risk polycythemia vera (PV) remains elusive. METHODS: In a phase 2 open-label randomized trial, we compared ropeginterferon alfa-2b (ropeg; 100 µg every 2 weeks) with phlebotomy only regarding maintenance of a median hematocrit level (≤45%) over 12 months in the absence of progressive disease (primary end point). In follow-up, crossover to the alternative treatment group was allowed if the primary end point was not met. RESULTS: In total, 127 patients were enrolled (ropeg: n=64; standard group: n=63). The primary end point was met in 81% and 51% in the ropeg and standard groups, respectively. Responders continued the assigned treatment until month 24 and maintained response in 83% and 59%, respectively (P=0.02). Ropeg responders less frequently experienced moderate/severe symptoms (33% vs. 67% in the standard group) and palpable splenomegaly (14% vs. 37%) and showed normalization of ferritin levels and blood counts. Nonresponders at 12 months crossed over to the standard (n=9) or ropeg (n=23) group; in patients switched to ropeg only, 7 of 23 met the response criteria in 12 months, and phlebotomy need was high (4.7 per patient per year). Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in seven patients treated with ropeg. CONCLUSIONS: In this 24-month trial, ropeg was superior to phlebotomy alone in maintaining hematocrit on target. No dose-limiting side effects or toxicities were noted; 9.2% of patients on ropeg and no patients on standard treatment developed neutropenia. (Funded by AOP Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03003325.)