Critical appraisal of the role of ruxolitinib in myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis

OncoTargets and Therapy

Volumn 8, Issue , 2015, Pages 1091-1102

  Barosi, Giovanni ^a   Rosti, Vittorio ^a   Gale, Robert Peter ^b  

^a FONDAZIONE IRCCS POLICLINICO SAN MATTEO   (Italy)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Critical appraisal; GRADE; JAK inhibitor; Myelofibrosis; Myeloproliferative neoplasm associated myelofibrosis; Ruxolitinib

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO; RUXOLITINIB;

ABDOMINAL DISCOMFORT; ARTICLE; BONE PAIN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERMEDIATE RISK PATIENT; MORTALITY; MYALGIA; MYELOFIBROSIS; MYELOPROLIFERATIVE NEOPLASM; MYELOPROLIFERATIVE NEOPLASM ASSOCIATED MYELOFIBROSIS; NIGHT SWEAT; PAIN; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRURITUS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SATIETY; SPLENOMEGALY; SURVIVAL RATE; THROMBOCYTE COUNT;

EID: 84929431311     PISSN: 11786930     EISSN: 11786930     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S31916     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Mesa RA, Green A, Barosi G, Verstovsek S, Vardiman J, Gale RP. MPN-associated myelofibrosis (MPN-MF). Leuk Res. 2011;35(1):12–13.
2. Tefferi A. Primary myelofibrosis: 2014 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(9):915–925.
3. Kralovics R, Passamonti F, Buser AS, et al. A gain-of-function mutation of JAK2 in myeloproliferative disorders. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(17):1779–1790.
4. Baxter EJ, Scott LM, Campbell PJ, et al. Acquired mutation of the tyrosine kinase JAK2 in human myeloproliferative disorders. Lancet. 2005;365(9464):1054–1061.
5. James C, Ugo V, Le Couédic JP, et al. A unique clonal JAK2 mutation leading to constitutive signalling causes polycythaemia vera. Nature. 2005;434(7037):1144–1148.
6. Levine RL, Wadleigh M, Cools J, et al. Activating mutation in the tyrosine kinase JAK2 in polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and myeloid metaplasia with myelofibrosis. Cancer Cell. 2005;7(4):387–397.
7. Pikman Y, Lee BH, Mercher T, et al. MPLW515L is a novel somatic activating mutation in myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia. PLoS Med. 2006;3(7):e270.
8. Nangalia J, Massie CE, Baxter EJ, et al. Somatic CALR mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms with nonmutated JAK2. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(25):2391–2405.
9. Klampfl T, Gisslinger H, Harutyunyan AS, et al. Somatic mutations of calreticulin in myeloproliferative neoplasms. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(25):2379–2390.
10. Cervantes F, Dupriez B, Pereira A, et al. New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment. Blood. 2009;113(13):2895–2901.
11. Passamonti F, Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, et al. A dynamic prognostic model to predict survival in primary myelofibrosis: a study by the IWG-MRT (International Working Group for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment). Blood. 2010;115(9):1703–1708.
12. Gangat N, Caramazza D, Vaidya R, et al. DIPSS plus: a refined Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System for primary myelofibrosis that incorporates prognostic information from karyotype, platelet count, and transfusion status. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(4):392–397.
13. Guglielmelli P, Lasho TL, Rotunno G, et al. The number of prognostically detrimental mutations and prognosis in primary myelofibrosis: an international study of 797 patients. Leukemia. 2014;28(9):1804–1810.
14. Tefferi A, Guglielmelli P, Lasho TL, et al. CALR and ASXL1 mutations-based molecular prognostication in primary myelofibrosis: an international study of 570 patients. Leukemia. 2014;28(7):1494–1500.
15. Barbui T, Barosi G, Birgegard G, et al. Philadelphia-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: critical concepts and management recommendations from European LeukemiaNet. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(6):761–770.
16. Tefferi A, Cervantes F, Mesa R, et al. Revised response criteria for myelofibrosis: International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) and European LeukemiaNet (ELN) consensus report. Blood. 2013;122(8):1395–1398.
17. Emanuel RM, Dueck AC, Geyer HL, et al. Myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) symptom assessment form total symptom score: prospective international assessment of an abbreviated symptom burden scoring system among patients with MPNs. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(33):4098–4103.
18. Quintás-Cardama A, Vaddi K, Liu P, et al. Preclinical characterization of the selective JAK1/2 inhibitor INCB018424: therapeutic implications for the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasms. Blood. 2010;115(15):3109–3117.
19. Harrison C, Kiladjian JJ, Al-Ali HK, et al. JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):787–798.
20. Deisseroth A, Kaminskas E, Grillo J, et al. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval: ruxolitinib for the treatment of patients with intermediate and high-risk myelofibrosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(12):3212–3217.
21. Gupta V, Gotlib J, Radich JP, et al. Janus kinase inhibitors and allogeneic stem cell transplantation for myelofibrosis. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(9):1274–1281.
22. Jaekel N, Behre G, Behning A, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelofibrosis in patients pretreated with the JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(2):179–184.
23. Stübig T, Alchalby H, Ditschkowski M, et al. JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib as pretreatment for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in primary or post-ET/PV myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2014;28(8):1736–1738.
24. Pieri L, Paoli C, Arena U, et al. A phase 2 study of ruxolitinib in patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis associated with myeloproliferative neoplasm: a study from the AGIMM group. Blood. 2014; [Abstractn.72125, ASH.
25. Wade R, Rose M, Neilson AR, et al. Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(10):841–852.
26. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–926.
27. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7652):1049–1051.
28. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):799–807.
29. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, et al. Efficacy, safety and survival with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis: results of a median 2-year follow-up of COMFORT-I. Haematologica. 2013;98(12):1865–1871.
30. Cervantes F, Vannucchi AM, Kiladjian JJ, et al. Three-year efficacy, safety, and survival findings from COMFORT-II, a phase 3 study comparing ruxolitinib with best available therapy for myelofibrosis. Blood. 2013;122(25):4047–4053.
31. Guglielmelli P, Biamonte F, Rotunno G, et al. Impact of mutational status on outcomes in myelofibrosis patients treated with ruxolitinib in the COMFORT-II study. Blood. 2014;123(14):2157–2160.
32. Mesa RA, Shields A, Hare T, et al. Progressive burden of myelofibrosis in untreated patients: assessment of patient-reported outcomes in patients randomized to placebo in the COMFORT-I study. Leuk Res. 2013;37(8):911–916.
33. Harrison CN, Mesa RA, Kiladjian JJ, et al. Health-related quality of life and symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy. Br J Haematol. 2013;162(2):229–239.
34. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, et al. The clinical benefit of ruxolitinib across patient subgroups: analysis of a placebo-controlled, Phase III study in patients with myelofibrosis. Br J Haematol. 2013;161(4):508–516.
35. Mesa RA, Gotlib J, Gupta V, et al. Effect of ruxolitinib therapy on myelofibrosis-related symptoms and other patient-reported outcomes in COMFORT-I: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(10):1285–1292.
36. Mesa RA, Kantarjian H, Tefferi A, et al. Evaluating the serial use of the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form for measuring symptomatic improvement: performance in 87 myelofibrosis patients on a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor (INCB018424) clinical trial. Cancer. 2011;117(21):4869–4877.
37. Verstovsek S, Kantarjian H, Mesa RA, et al. Safety and efficacy of INCB018424, a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1117–1127.
38. Talpaz M, Paquette R, Afrin L, et al. Interim analysis of safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis and low platelet counts. J Hematol Oncol. 2013;6(1):81.
39. Higgins J, Altman D, Higgins J, Green S, editors. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.0. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
40. Papaconstantinou C, Krischer JP. An automated patient registration and treatment randomization system. J Med Syst. 1995;19(6):445–456.
41. Kuznetsova OM, Tymofyeyev Y. Expansion of the modified Zelen’s approach randomization and dynamic randomization with partial block supplies at the centers to unequal allocation. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(6):962–972.
42. Boutron I, Guittet L, Estellat C, Moher D, Hróbjartsson A, Ravaud P. Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments. PLoS Med. 2007;4(2):e61.
43. Hróbjartsson A, Forfang E, Haahr MT, Als-Nielsen B, Brorson S. Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding. Internl J Epidemiol. 2007;36(3):654–663.
44. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–605.
45. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In Higgins JPT and Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0). 2011, Retrieved from: www.cochrane-handbook.org
46. Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, et al. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1355–1360.
47. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. Randomized trials analyzed as observational studies. Ann Inten Med. 2013;159(8):500–502.
48. Barosi G, Vannucchi AM, De Stefano V, et al. Identifying and addressing unmet clinical needs in Ph-neg classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: a consensus-based SIE, SIES, GITMO position paper. Leuk Res. 2014;38(2):155–160.
49. Barosi G, Tefferi A, Besses C, et al. Clinical end points for drug treatment trials in BCR-ABL1-negative classic myeloproliferative neoplasms: consensus statements from European LeukemiaNET (ELN) and International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT). Leukemia. 2014;29(1):20–26.
50. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence – imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1283–1293.
51. Reilly JT, McMullin MF, Beer PA, et al. British Committee for Standards in Haematology. Guideline for the diagnosis and management of myelofibrosis. Br J Haematol. 2012;158(4):453–471.
52. Liu Y, Litière S, de Vries EG, et al. The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation: results of a survey in the oncology community. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(2):260–266.
53. Wundt WM. Ethik. Eine Untersuchung der Thatsachen und Gesetze des sittlischen Lebens. Stuttgart, Germany: F. Enke; 1886.
54. Wood AJ. A proposal for radical changes in the drug-approval process. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(6):618–623.
55. De Palma R, Liberati A, Ciccone G, et al. Developing clinical recommendations for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer adjuvant treatments using the GRADE system: a study from the Programma Ricerca e Innovazione Emilia Romagna Oncology Research Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(7):1033–1039.
56. Lee SC, Feenstra J, Georghiou PR. Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonitis complicating ruxolitinib therapy. BMJ Case Rep. 2014;pii: bcr2014204950.
57. Tong LX, Jackson J, Kerstetter J, Worswick SD. Reactivation of herpes simplex virus infection in a patient undergoing ruxolitinib treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70(3):e59–e60.
58. Heine A, Brossart P, Wolf D. Ruxolitinib is a potent immunosuppressive compound: is it time for anti-infective prophylaxis? Blood. 2013;122(23):3843–3844.
59. Shen CH, Hwang CE, Chen YY, Chen CC. Hepatitis B virus reactivation associated with ruxolitinib. Ann Hematol. 2014;93(6):1075–1076.
60. Massa M, Rosti V, Campanelli R, Fois G, Barosi G. Rapid and long-lasting decrease of T-regulatory cells in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib. Leukemia. 2014;28(2):449–451.
61. Goldberg RA, Reichel E, Oshry LJ. Bilateral toxoplasmosis retinitis associated with ruxolitinib. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(7):681–683.
62. Caocci G, Murgia F, Podda L, Solinas A, Atzeni S, La Nasa G. Reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection following ruxolitinib treatment in a patient with myelofibrosis. Leukemia. 2014;28(1):225–227.
63. Wathes R, Moule S, Milojkovic D. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy associated with ruxolitinib. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(2):197–198.
64. Heine A, Held SA, Daecke SN, et al. The JAK-inhibitor ruxolitinib impairs dendritic cell function in vitro and in vivo. Blood. 2013;122(7):1192–1202.
65. Wysham NG, Sullivan DR, Allada G. An opportunistic infection associated with ruxolitinib, a novel janus kinase 1, 2 inhibitor. Chest. 2013;143(5):1478–1479.