Literature DB >> 25860512

Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors for treating myelofibrosis.

Arturo J Martí-Carvajal1, Vidhu Anand, Ivan Solà.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Myelofibrosis is a bone marrow disorder characterized by excessive production of reticulin and collagen fiber deposition caused by hematological and non-hematological disorders. The prognosis of myelofibrosis is poor and treatment is mainly palliative. Janus kinase inhibitors are a novel strategy to treat people with myelofibrosis.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical benefits and harms of Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors for treating myelofibrosis secondary to hematological or non-hematological conditions. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946 to 13 November 2014), EMBASE (from 1980 to 12 January 2013), and LILACS (from 1982 to 20 November 2014). We searched WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and The metaRegister of Controlled Trials. We also searched for conference proceedings of the American Society of Hematology (from 2009 to October 2013), European Hematology Association (from 2009 to October 2013), American Society of Clinical Oncology (from 2009 to October 2013), and European Society of Medical Oncology (from 2009 to October 2013). We included searches in FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Epistemonikos. We handsearched the references of all identified included trials, and relevant review articles. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials comparing Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors with placebo or other treatments. Both previously treated and treatment naive patients were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for overall survival, progression-free survival and leukemia-free survival, risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for reduction in spleen size and adverse events binary data, and standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous data (health-related quality of life). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. Primary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events. MAIN
RESULTS: We included two trials involving 528 participants, comparing ruxolitinib with placebo or best available therapy (BAT). As the two included trials had different comparators we did not pool the data. The confidence in the results estimates of these trials was low due to the bias in their design, and their limited sample sizes that resulted in imprecise results.There is low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib on survival when compared with placebo at 51 weeks of follow-up (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98) and compared with BAT at 48 weeks of follow-up (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.47). Similarly there was very low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib on progression free survival compared with BAT (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.39).There is low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib in terms of quality of life. Compared with placebo, the drug achieved a greater proportion of patients with a significant reduction of symptom scores (RR 8.82, 95% CI 4.40 to 17.69), and treated patients with ruxolitinib obtained greater MFSAF scores at the end of follow-up (MD -87.90, 95% CI -139.58 to -36.22). An additional trial showed significant differences in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores when compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (MD 7.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 14.85).The effect of ruxolitinib on reduction in the spleen size of participants compared with placebo or BAT was uncertain (versus placebo: RR 64.58, 95% CI 9.08 to 459.56, low quality evidence; versus BAT: RR 41.78, 95% CI 2.61 to 669.75, low quality evidence).There is low quality evidence for the effect of the drug compared with placebo on anemia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41), neutropenia (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.55) and thrombocytopenia (RR 9.74, 95% CI 2.32 to 40.96). Ruxolitinib did not result in differences versus BAT in the risk of anemia (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.99, low quality evidence) or thrombocytopenia (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.28, low quality evidence). The risk of non-hematologic grade 3 or 4 adverse events (including fatigue, arthralgia, nausea, diarrhea, extremity pain and pyrexia) was similar when ruxolitinib was compared with placebo or BAT. The rate of neutropenia comparing ruxolitinib with standard medical treatment was not reported by the trial. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is insufficient evidence to allow any conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib for treating myelofibrosis. The findings of this Cochrane review should be interpreted with caution as they are based on trials sponsored by industry, and include a small number of patients. Unless powered randomized clinical trials provide strong evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, clinicians should be cautious when administering ruxolitinib for treating patients with myelofibrosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25860512     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010298.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  17 in total

Review 1.  Setting Appropriate Goals for the Next Generation of Clinical Trials in Myelofibrosis.

Authors:  Giovanni Barosi
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.952

2.  Ruxolitinib for the management of myelofibrosis: Results of an international physician survey.

Authors:  Martin H Ellis; Maya Koren-Michowitz; Noa Lavi; Alessandro M Vannucchi; Ruben Mesa; Claire N Harrison
Journal:  Leuk Res       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 3.156

Review 3.  Philadelphia chromosome-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: revised management recommendations from European LeukemiaNet.

Authors:  Tiziano Barbui; Ayalew Tefferi; Alessandro M Vannucchi; Francesco Passamonti; Richard T Silver; Ronald Hoffman; Srdan Verstovsek; Ruben Mesa; Jean-Jacques Kiladjian; Rȕdiger Hehlmann; Andreas Reiter; Francisco Cervantes; Claire Harrison; Mary Frances Mc Mullin; Hans Carl Hasselbalch; Steffen Koschmieder; Monia Marchetti; Andrea Bacigalupo; Guido Finazzi; Nicolaus Kroeger; Martin Griesshammer; Gunnar Birgegard; Giovanni Barosi
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 11.528

Review 4.  Cancer immune therapy for myeloid malignancies: present and future.

Authors:  Morten Orebo Holmström; Hans Carl Hasselbalch
Journal:  Semin Immunopathol       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 9.623

5.  Fatal ruxolitinib-related JC virus meningitis.

Authors:  Begoña Ballesta; Héctor González; Vicente Martín; Juan J Ballesta
Journal:  J Neurovirol       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.643

6.  Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata.

Authors:  Julian Mackay-Wiggan; Ali Jabbari; Nhan Nguyen; Jane E Cerise; Charlotte Clark; Grace Ulerio; Megan Furniss; Roger Vaughan; Angela M Christiano; Raphael Clynes
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2016-09-22

Review 7.  Evolving Therapeutic Strategies for the Classic Philadelphia-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.

Authors:  Jason B Kaplan; Brady L Stein; Brandon McMahon; Francis J Giles; Leonidas C Platanias
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 8.143

8.  Ruxolitinib in myelofibrosis: to be or not to be an immune disruptor.

Authors:  Palma Manduzio
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 2.423

9.  Primary myelofibrosis: current therapeutic options.

Authors:  Paula de Melo Campos
Journal:  Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter       Date:  2016-04-27

10.  Benefits and pitfalls of pegylated interferon-α2a therapy in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis: a French Intergroup of Myeloproliferative neoplasms (FIM) study.

Authors:  Jean-Christophe Ianotto; Aurélie Chauveau; Françoise Boyer-Perrard; Emmanuel Gyan; Kamel Laribi; Pascale Cony-Makhoul; Jean-Loup Demory; Benoit de Renzis; Christine Dosquet; Jerome Rey; Lydia Roy; Brigitte Dupriez; Laurent Knoops; Laurence Legros; Mohamed Malou; Pascal Hutin; Dana Ranta; Omar Benbrahim; Valérie Ugo; Eric Lippert; Jean-Jacques Kiladjian
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 9.941

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.