4.6 Article

Primary analysis of JUMP, a phase 3b, expanded-access study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis, including those with low platelet counts

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 189, Issue 5, Pages 888-903

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.16462

Keywords

myelofibrosis; ruxolitinib; safety; splenomegaly; symptoms

Categories

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ruxolitinib is a potent Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of myelofibrosis (MF). Ruxolitinib was assessed in JUMP, a large (N = 2233), phase 3b, expanded-access study in MF in countries without access to ruxolitinib outside a clinical trial, which included patients with low platelet counts (<100 x 10(9)/l) and patients without splenomegaly - populations that have not been extensively studied. The most common adverse events (AEs) were anaemia and thrombocytopenia, but they rarely led to discontinuation (overall, 5 center dot 4%; low-platelet cohort, 12 center dot 3%). As expected, rates of worsening thrombocytopenia were higher in the low-platelet cohort (all grades, 73 center dot 2% vs. 53 center dot 5% overall); rates of anaemia were similar (all grades, 52 center dot 9% vs. 59 center dot 5%). Non-haematologic AEs, including infections, were mainly grade 1/2. Overall, ruxolitinib led to meaningful reductions in spleen length and symptoms, including in patients with low platelet counts, and symptom improvements in patients without splenomegaly. In this trial, the largest study of ruxolitinib in patients with MF to date, the safety profile was consistent with previous reports, with no new safety concerns identified. This study confirms findings from the COMFORT studies and supports the use of ruxolitinib in patients with platelet counts of 50-100 x 10(9)/l. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01493414).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available