Efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib after and versus interferon use in the RESPONSE studies

SOHO State of the Art Update and Next Questions: Novel Therapies for Polycythemia Vera

In the recent years, landmark advancements in the treatment of polycythemia vera (PV) have been achieved. We witnessed the regulatory approval of ropeginterferon and the advanced clinical development of other novel agents that may affect the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease. Agents with the potential of disease modification may soon overtake preceding treatment options that were based on the patient's age and history of thrombosis. Recent studies using ropeginterferon in low-risk PV patients earlier in the disease course challenge the current treatment paradigm and shift the focus on modifying the course of the disease. Hepcidin mimetics offer an excellent alternative to phlebotomy, providing better quality of life, and may lead to improved outcomes in PV by tight hematocrit control. Novel agents, such as histone deacetylase inhibitors, hold promise to complement the therapeutic landscape of PV and might be particularly promising in rationale combinations. Ruxolitinib is well established as an approved second-line treatment for PV. In the frontline setting, the precise role of ruxolitinib, which also represents an appealing agent in combination regimens, will be determined in ongoing research studies. Longer follow-up is necessary to assess whether novel agents/regimens elicit fewer thromboembolic/ hemorrhagic events and halt disease progression to myelofibrosis and acute myeloid leukemia. We aspire that disease-modifying approaches in PV are on the horizon, and that we will be empowered to ultimately change the natural course of the disease and profoundly impact the lives of PV patients in the near future.

Treatment of hydroxyurea-resistant/intolerant polycythemia vera: a discussion of best practices

Polycythemia vera (PV) is a burdensome, chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by activating mutations in Janus kinase 2, erythrocytosis, and bone marrow hypercellularity. The goals of treatment are to achieve hematocrit and blood count control to ultimately reduce the risk of thrombohemorrhagic events and improve PV-related symptoms. Treatment is risk-stratified and typically includes cytoreduction with hydroxyurea or interferon formulations in first line for high-risk disease. However, inadequate response, resistance, or intolerance to first-line cytoreductive therapies may warrant introduction of second-line treatments, such as ruxolitinib. In this review, I detail preferred treatment and patient management approaches following inadequate response to or intolerance of first-line treatment for PV.

Primary Arterial Hypertension and Drug-Induced Hypertension in Philadelphia-Negative Classical Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: A Systematic Review

The impact of primary arterial hypertension (HTN) in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) remains unclear, with scant literature available, mostly focusing on cardiovascular risk factors as a singular entity or on organ-specific HTN. Furthermore, available studies reporting findings on drug-induced HTN in MPNs report varying and contradictory findings. In consideration of the above, this study set out to systematically review the available literature and shed light on the occurrence of HTN in MPNs, its association with thrombosis, as well as the drugs used in MPN management that could increase blood pressure. The literature search yielded 598 potentially relevant records of which 315 remained after the duplicates (n = 283) were removed. After we screened the titles and the abstracts of these publications, we removed irrelevant papers (n = 228) and evaluated the full texts of 87 papers. Furthermore, 13 records did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded from the systematic review. Finally, a total of 74 manuscripts were entered into the qualitative synthesis and included in the present systematic review. Our systematic review highlights that HTN is the most common comorbidity encountered in MPNs, with an impact on both the occurrence of thrombosis and survival. Moreover, drug-induced HTN remains a challenge in the management of MPNs. Further research should investigate the characteristics of patients with MPNs and HTN, as well as clarify the contribution of HTN to the development of thrombotic complications, survival and management in MPNs. In addition, the relationship between clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, HTN, cardiovascular disease and MPNs requires examination in upcoming assessments.

Role of JAK inhibitors in myeloproliferative neoplasms: current point of view and perspectives

Classic Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) include polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and myelofibrosis (MF), classified as primary (PMF), or secondary to PV or ET. All MPN, regardless of the underlying driver mutation in JAK2/CALR/MPL, are invariably associated with dysregulation of JAK/STAT pathway. The discovery of JAK2V617F point mutation prompted the development of small molecules inhibitors of JAK tyrosine kinases (JAK inhibitors-JAKi). To date, among JAKi, ruxolitinib (RUX) and fedratinib (FEDR) are approved for intermediate and high-risk MF, and RUX is also an option for high-risk PV patients inadequately controlled by or intolerant to hydroxyurea. While not yet registered, pacritinib (PAC) and momelotinib (MMB), proved to be effective particularly in thrombocytopenic and anemic MF patients, respectively. In most cases, JAKi are effective in reducing splenomegaly and alleviating disease-related symptoms. However, almost 50% lose response by three years and dose-dependent toxicities may lead to suboptimal dosing or treatment discontinuation. To date, although not being disease-modifying agents, JAKi represent the therapeutic backbone particularly in MF patient. To optimize therapeutic strategies, many trials with drug combinations of JAKi with novel molecules are ongoing. This review critically discusses the role of JAKi in the modern management of patients with MPN.

Stepping out of antiquity: An update on emerging drugs for the treatment of polycythemia vera

Introduction: Polycythemia vera is a chronic hematologic malignancy frequently presented with constitutional symptoms and associated with an increased risk of thrombosis, hemorrhage, and progression to myelofibrosis or acute myeloid leukemia. Current treatment strategies reduce thrombohemorrhagic risk by controlling blood counts and inhibiting platelets, but often fail to address disease-related symptoms or biologically modify the disease.Areas covered: We review the current paradigm for treating polycythemia vera, highlight areas of unmet need, review therapeutic agents in late stage clinical development, and provide an overarching view of how these emerging agent may fit into the future armamentarium of polycythemia vera treatments.Expert opinion: The shift from focusing solely on secondary prevention of thrombohemorrhagic events to a comprehensive treatment strategy that additionally aims to improve quality of life and prevent disease progression has resulted in a rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape that promises to move the treatment of polycythemia vera out of antiquity into the modern age.

Interferon alpha therapy in essential thrombocythemia and polycythemia vera-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Data on the efficacy and safety of interferon (IFN)-α for the treatment of essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) are inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, Scopus, COCHRANE registry of clinical trials, and Web of Science from inception through 03/2019 for studies of pegylated IFN (peg-IFN) and non-pegylated IFN (non-peg-IFN) in PV and ET patients. Random-effects models were used to pool response rates for the primary outcome of overall response rate (ORR) defined as a composite of complete response, partial response, complete hematologic response (CHR) and partial hematologic response. Peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN were compared by meta-regression analyses. In total, 44 studies with 1359 patients (730 ET, 629 PV) were included. ORR were 80.6% (95% confidence interval: 76.6-84.1%, CHR: 59.0% [51.5%-66.1%]) and 76.7% (67.4-84.0%; CHR: 48.5% [37.8-59.4%]) for ET and PV patients, respectively. In meta-regression analyses results did not differ significantly for non-peg-IFN vs. peg-IFN. Annualized rates of thromboembolic complications and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were low at 1.2% and 8.8% for ET and 0.5% and 6.5% for PV patients, respectively. Both peg-IFN and non-peg-IFN can be effective and safe long-term treatments for ET and PV.

Polycythemia Vera (PV): Update on Emerging Treatment Options

Polycythemia Vera (PV) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by exuberant red cell production leading to a broad range of symptoms that compromise quality of life and productivity of patients. PV reduces survival expectation, primarily due to thrombotic events, transformation to blast phase and post-PV myelofibrosis or to development of second cancers, which are associates with poor prognosis. Current therapeutic first line recommendations based on risk adapted classification divided patients into two groups, according to age (< or >60 years) and presence of prior thrombotic events. Low-risk patients (age <60 years and no prior history of thrombosis) should be treated with aspirin (81-100 mg/d) and phlebotomy, to maintain hematocrit <45%. High-risk patients (age >60 years and/or prior history of thrombosis), in addition to aspirin and phlebotomies, should receive cytoreductive therapy in order to reduce thrombotic risk. Nowadays hydroxyurea still remains the cytoreductive agent of first choice, reserving Interferon to young patients or childbearing women. During the last years, ruxolitinib emerged as a new treatment in PV patients, as second line therapy: it appeared especially effective in patients with severe pruritus, symptomatic splenomegaly, or post-PV myelofibrosis symptoms. Currently, in PV treatment, several molecules have been tested or are under investigation. At present, the drug that has shown the most encouraging results is givinostat.

Novel and combination therapies for polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia: the dawn of a new era

INTRODUCTION

Essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) belong to the BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms and are characterized by the clonal proliferation of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. The contribution of aberrant immune regulation within the bone marrow microenvironment to ET and PV pathogenesis as well as the underlying molecular landscape is becoming increasingly understood.

AREAS COVERED

Authors searched PubMed and conference abstracts in August 2020 for preclinical and clinical studies to provide an overview of the immune pathobiology in ET and PV and the rationale for several novel agents. A discussion of recent clinical trials on interferon and ruxolitinib in ET and PV patients is provided followed by an outline of the future challenges in the field particularly for novel therapeutics and an increasingly individualized, molecularly driven approach to treatment selection. Several novel agents are currently being actively evaluated and are reviewed herein as well.

EXPERT OPINION

While hydroxyurea remains the first-line treatment for cytoreduction in most high-risk ET and PV patients, the disease-modifying potential of IFN is promising and could make it a preferred option for selected patients. Advances in molecular testing will enable a more individualized approach to prognostication and treatment selection.

JAK Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence-Based Review on the Emerging Clinical Data

Janus kinase (JAK) Inhibitors are the latest drug class of disease-modifying medication to emerge for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They are a small molecule-targeted treatment and are the first oral option to compare favourably to existing biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Tofacitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib are the first 3 JAK inhibitors to become commercially available in the field and are the core focus of this review. To date, they have demonstrated comparable efficacy to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates and disease activity (DAS28) scores with similar cost to the benchmark adalimumab. This narrative review article aims to synthesise and distil the key available trial data on JAK inhibitor efficacy and safety, along with their place in the ACR and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) guidelines for RA. The novel mechanism of action of the JAK/STAT pathway is highlighted along with the potential effects of modulating each pathway. The rapid onset of action, role in attenuation of central pain processing and effect on structural damage and radiographic progression are also all examined in detail. We also explore the latest meta-analyses and comparative performance of each of the 3 available JAKs in an effort to determine which is most efficacious and which has the most favourable safety profile. Post marketing concerns regarding thromboembolism risk and herpes zoster infection are also discussed. Additionally, we review the cost-benefit analyses of the available JAK inhibitors and address some of the pharmacoeconomic considerations for real-world practice in the UK and US by detailing the raw acquisition cost and the value they provide in comparison to the benchmark biologic adalimumab and the anchor DMARD methotrexate.

Ruxolitinib for the prevention of thrombosis in polycythemia vera: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ruxolitinib is a recommended second-line treatment for the prevention of thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera who become resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea; however, evidence regarding its efficacy in terms of thrombosis reduction is uncertain. We searched Medline, Embase, and archives of abstracts from the European Hematology Association and the American Society of Hematology annual congresses from 2014 onward for randomized controlled trials comparing the treatment vs best available therapy (BAT). Our search retrieved 80 records; after screening of abstracts and full text, the total was reduced to 16. Evidence came from 4 randomized controlled trials, including 663 patients (1057 patients per year). We estimated a thrombosis risk ratio of 0.56 for ruxolitinib BAT, corresponding to an incidence of 3.09% and 5.51% patients per year, respectively. The number of thrombotic events reported with ruxolitinib was consistently lower than that with BAT in our sample, but, globally, the difference did not reach significance (P = .098). Hard evidence in favor of ruxolitinib is lacking; a clinical trial on selected patients at high risk of thrombosis would be warranted, but its feasibility is questionable.

Long-term efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in polycythaemia vera (RESPONSE): 5-year follow up of a phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Polycythaemia vera is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterised by excessive proliferation of erythroid, myeloid, and megakaryocytic components in the bone marrow due to mutations in the Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) gene. Ruxolitinib, a JAK 1 and JAK 2 inhibitor, showed superiority over best available therapy in a phase 2 study in patients with polycythaemia vera who were resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea. We aimed to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib with best available therapy in patients with polycythaemia vera who were resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea.

METHODS

We report the 5-year results for a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study (RESPONSE) that enrolled patients at 109 sites across North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (18 years or older) with polycythaemia vera who were resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either ruxolitinib or best available therapy. Patients randomly assigned to the ruxolitinib group received the drug orally at a starting dose of 10 mg twice a day. Single-agent best available therapy comprised hydroxyurea, interferon or pegylated interferon, pipobroman, anagrelide, approved immunomodulators, or observation without pharmacological treatment. The primary endpoint, composite response (patients who achieved both haematocrit control without phlebotomy and 35% or more reduction from baseline in spleen volume) at 32 weeeks was previously reported. Patients receiving best available therapy could cross over to ruxolitinib after week 32. We assessed the durability of primary composite response, complete haematological remission, overall clinicohaematological response, overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety after 5-years of follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01243944.

FINDINGS

We enrolled patients between Oct 27, 2010, and Feb 13, 2013, and the study concluded on Feb 9, 2018. Of 342 individuals screened for eligibility, 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive ruxolitinib (n=110, 50%) or best available therapy (n=112, 50%). The median time since polycythaemia vera diagnosis was 8·2 years (IQR 3·9-12·3) in the ruxolitinib group and 9·3 years (4·9-13·8) in the best available therapy group. 98 (88%) of 112 patients initially randomly assigned to best available therapy crossed over to receive ruxolitinib and no patient remained on best available therapy after 80 weeks of study. Among 25 primary responders in the ruxolitinib group, six had progressed at the time of final analysis. At 5 years, the probability of maintaining primary composite response was 74% (95% CI 51-88). The probability of maintaining complete haematological remission was 55% (95% CI 32-73) and the probability of maintaining overall clinicohaematological responses was 67% (54-77). In the intention-to-treat analysis not accounting for crossover, the probability of survival at 5 years was 91·9% (84·4-95·9) with ruxolitinib therapy and 91·0% (82·8-95·4) with best available therapy. Anaemia was the most common adverse event in patients receiving ruxolitinib (rates per 100 patient-years of exposure were 8·9 for ruxolitinib and 8·8 for the crossover population), though most anaemia events were mild to moderate in severity (grade 1 or 2 anaemia rates per 100 patient-years of exposure were 8·0 for ruxolitinib and 8·2 for the crossover population). Non-haematological adverse events were generally lower with long-term ruxolitinib treatment than with best available therapy. Thromboembolic events were lower in the ruxolitinib group than the best available therapy group. There were two on-treatment deaths in the ruxolitinib group. One of these deaths was due to gastric adenocarcinoma, which was assessed by the investigator as related to ruxolitinib treatment.

INTERPRETATION

We showed that ruxolitinib is a safe and effective long-term treatment option for patients with polycythaemia vera who are resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea. Taken together, ruxolitinib treatment offers the first widely approved therapeutic alternative for this post-hydroxyurea patient population.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Aggressive Merkel Cell Carcinoma After Janus Kinase Inhibitor Ruxolitinib for Polycythemia Vera

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin. It is highly aggressive and represents the second most common cause of skin cancer-related death. Ruxolitinib is an orally administered selective inhibitor of Janus associated kinases1 and 2, which is used in the management of patients with symptomatic myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera who are non-responders or intolerant to hydroxyurea. Herein, we report the case of a 47-year-old woman with a 14-year history of chronic myeloproliferative syndrome initially treated with hydroxyurea for 4 years. She was then enrolled in the Response trial and treated for 7 years with ruxolitinib subsequently developing an MCC. This report shows the possibility of development of MCC in patients treated with ruxolitinib. Periodic skin examination is indicated in patients who undergo ruxolitinib therapy, especially if they have a history of skin cancer; dermatologists and oncohematologists should be aware of this possibility in order to introduce appropriate preventive strategies.

Updates in the management of polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia

Polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) are both classic, relatively indolent, chronic Philadelphia-chromosome-negative (Ph-) myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) characterized by elevated blood counts, thrombotic as well as hemorrhagic tendencies, a variety of symptoms, cumulative risks of progression to myelofibrosis and transformation to acute myeloid leukemia over time, and long survival. Molecularly, PV is more homogenous, being driven by JAK2 mutations in virtually all cases, while ET can be JAK2-, CALR-, or MPL-mutated, as well as 'triple negative'. Recent targeted next-generation sequencing efforts have identified other, nondriver gene mutations, some with prognostic relevance. Prevention of thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications continues to be the major focus of management, although symptoms are increasingly being recognized as a relatively unmet need, particularly in ET. Thrombotic risk stratification in PV is still based on age and history of thrombosis, while in ET, the additional contribution of JAK2 V617F to thrombotic risk is now well established. The associations of leukocytosis with clotting risk (in both conditions) and mortality (in PV) have drawn increased attention with the availability of ruxolitinib as a second-line treatment in PV. Similarly, there is a renewed interest in interferons with the emergence of ropeginterferon alfa-2b as a potential new frontline treatment option in PV. Drug development is more difficult in ET, the most indolent of the classic Ph- MPNs, but ruxolitinib is being studied. Triggering apoptosis via the p53 pathway through pharmacologic inhibition of human double minute 2 (and synergism with interferon) is a new, promising therapeutic strategy.

JAK inhibitors in 2019, synthetic review in 10 points

JAK inhibitors are recent treatments. Many publications have appeared in recent years, exposing treatment efficiencies in phases 2 and 3 studies, or their tolerance profile in various rheumatological diseases. We propose here a systematic review of JAK inhibitors, from their mechanism of physiological action up to the estimation of their current risk benefit balance, and their possible future applications. In order to better synthesize the data, we organized this review into 10 essential points. 1- What is the role of JAK/Stat pathway? 2- How can a single signaling pathway regulate as many different signals? 3- What are the commercialized JAK inhibitors and their validated indications in humans today? 4- What is the level of efficiency of JAK inhibitors in inflammatory diseases? 5- What is the delay of efficiency of JAK inhibitors? 6- Where is the place of JAK inhibitors in the therapeutic strategy today? 7- What is the infectious tolerance profile of JAK inhibitors? 8- What is the non-infectious safety profile of JAK inhibitors? 9- What is the cost of JAK inhibitors compared to other DMARDs? 10- What future prospects for JAK inhibitors?

The role of JAK2 inhibitors in MPNs 7 years after approval

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) include essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera (PV), and primary myelofibrosis (MF). Phenotype-driver mutations of JAK2, CALR, and MPL genes are present in MPNs and can be variably combined with additional mutations. Driver mutations entail a constitutive activation of the JAK2/STAT pathway, the key signaling cascade in MPNs. Among JAK2 inhibitors (JAKis), ruxolitinib (RUX) has been approved for the treatment of intermediate and high-risk MF and for PV inadequately controlled by or intolerant of hydroxyurea. Other JAKis, such as fedratinib and pacritinib, proved to be useful in MF. The primary end points in MF trials were spleen volume response (SVR) and symptom response, whereas in PV trials they were hematocrit control with or without spleen response. In advanced MF, RUX achieved a long lasting SVR of >35% in ∼60% of patients, establishing a new benchmark for MF treatment. RUX efficacy in early MF is also remarkable and toxicity is mild. In PV, RUX achieved hematocrit control in ∼60% of cases and SVR in 40%. Symptom relief was evident in both conditions. In the long-term, however, many MF patients lose their SVR. Indeed, the definition of RUX failure and the design of new trials in this setting are unmet needs. Decrease of hemoglobin/platelet levels and increased infection rates are the most common side effects of RUX, and nonmelanoma skin tumors need to be monitored while on treatment. In conclusion, the introduction of JAKis raises the bar of treatment goals in MF and PV.