Volume 7, Issue S3 e7077553
Oral Session
Open Access

S212: A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND PHASE 3 STUDY OF JAKTINIB VERSUS HYDROXYUREA IN PATIENTS WITH INTERMEDIATE-2 OR HIGH RISK MYELOFIBROSIS

Yi Zhang

Yi Zhang

The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Department of Hematology, Hangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Hu Zhou

Hu Zhou

The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Department of Hematology, Zhengzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Junling Zhuang

Junling Zhuang

Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Department of Hematology, Beijing, China

Search for more papers by this author
Aili He

Aili He

The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Department of Hematology, Xi’an, China

Search for more papers by this author
Yarong LI

Yarong LI

The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Changchun, China

Search for more papers by this author
Linhua Yang

Linhua Yang

The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Department of Hematology, Taiyuan, China

Search for more papers by this author
Xin Du

Xin Du

Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Department of Hematology, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Sujun Gao

Sujun Gao

The First Hospital of Jilin University, Department of Hematology, Changchun, China

Search for more papers by this author
Guangsheng He

Guangsheng He

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Key Laboratory of Hematology of Nanjing Medical University, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalize, Department of Hematology, Nanjing, China

Search for more papers by this author
Mei Hong

Mei Hong

Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Department of Hematology, Wuhan, China

Search for more papers by this author
Qian Jiang

Qian Jiang

Peking University People’s Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, China

Search for more papers by this author
Zhongxing Jiang

Zhongxing Jiang

The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Department of Hematology, Zhengzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Sun Kai

Sun Kai

Henan Provincial People’s Hospital, Department of Hematology, Zhengzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Lingling Yue

Lingling Yue

Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Lanzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Cuiping Zheng

Cuiping Zheng

Wenzhou Central Hospital, Second Department of Oncology, Wenzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Zeping Zhou

Zeping Zhou

The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Department of Hematology, Kunming, China

Search for more papers by this author
Chenghao Jin

Chenghao Jin

Jiangxi Provincial People’s Hospital, Department of Hematology, Nanchang, China

Search for more papers by this author
Hongmei Jing

Hongmei Jing

Peking University Third Hospital, Department of Hematology, Beijing, China

Search for more papers by this author
Lin Liu

Lin Liu

The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Department of Hematology, Chongqing, China

Search for more papers by this author
Qingchi Liu

Qingchi Liu

The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Department of Hematology, Shijiazhuang, China

Search for more papers by this author
Jishi Wang

Jishi Wang

Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Department of Hematology, Guiyang, China

Search for more papers by this author
Wen Wu

Wen Wu

Shanghai Institute of Hematology, State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, National Research Center for Translational Medicine at Shanghai, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Department of Hematology, Shanghai, China

Search for more papers by this author
Yajing Xu

Yajing Xu

Xiangya hospital, Central South University, Department of Hematology, Changsha, China

Search for more papers by this author
Dengshu Wu

Dengshu Wu

Xiangya hospital, Central South University, Department of Hematology, Changsha, China

Search for more papers by this author
Na Xu

Na Xu

Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Department of Hematology, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Feng Zhang

Feng Zhang

The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Department of Hematology, Bengbu, China

Search for more papers by this author
Jin Zhang

Jin Zhang

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Department of Hematology, Hangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
Huanling Zhu

Huanling Zhu

West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Department of Hematology, Chengdu, China

Search for more papers by this author
Zhijian Xiao

Zhijian Xiao

Institute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Tianjin, China

Search for more papers by this author
Jie Jin

Jie Jin

The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Department of Hematology, Hangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 08 August 2023
Citations: 3

Background: Ruxolitinib and hydroxyurea are recommended by Chinese myelofibrosis guideline for splenomegaly. There is an unmet need for new treatments. Jaktinib, a novel JAK and AVCR1 inhibitor, showed promising activity on splenomegaly, anemia, and myelofibrosis symptoms in a phase 2 study (NCT03886415).

Aims: This randomized double-blind phase 3 study was aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of jaktinib compared to hydroxyurea in patients with intermediate-2 or high risk myelofibrosis.

Methods: Patients aged ≥18 with primary, post-polycythemia vera or post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis, dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS) Int-2 or high risk, and no prior or ≤10 days’ treatment with a JAK inhibitor were enrolled and randomly assigned (2:1) to receive jaktinib 100 mg bid plus hydroxyurea placebo or hydroxyurea 0.5 g bid plus jaktinib placebo, stratified by DIPSS risk status (Int-2 or high risk). One interim analysis was pre-specified to be conducted when the 70 patients completed the 24-week treatment or met the criteria for the treatment termination before week 24. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a spleen volume reduction of ≥35% from baseline (SVR35) at week 24, measured by MRI/CT images and assessed by Independent Review Committee. Secondary endpoints included the best spleen response rate (defined as achieving SVR35 at any time), the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in Total Symptom Score (TSS50), improvement of anemia, safety, etc.

Results: This interim analysis (data cut-off: April 8, 2022) included 47 patients receiving jaktinib and 23 receiving hydroxyurea. 66.0% (jaktinib) and 69.6% (hydroxyurea) had a baseline hemoglobin <100 g/L. 59.6% (jaktinib) and 69.6% (hydroxyurea) were JAK2V617F positive. Patient baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms (Table 1).

The SVR35 rates at week 24 were 72.3% for jaktinib vs. 17.4% for hydroxyurea (p≤0.0001). Jaktinib showed a consistent spleen response benefit over hydroxyurea across all subgroups analyzed (Figure 1). The best spleen response rates were 80.9% of jaktinib-treat patients vs. 26.1% of hydroxyurea-treated patients (p≤0.0001). The median maximum percentage change from baseline in spleen volume were -46.59% vs. -18.50%.

The TSS50 rates at week 24 were 63.8% for jaktinib vs. 43.5% for hydroxyurea (p=0.1163). 5 of 7 jaktinib-treated and two of 5 hydroxyurea-treated patients who required red blood cell transfusion at baseline achieved a ≥50% decrease in red blood cell transfusion by week 24. One of four jaktinib-treated and 0 of three hydroxyurea-treated patients who were transfusion-dependent at baseline changed to transfusion-independent. In transfusion-independent patients with baseline hemoglobin ≤100 g/L, 39.3% for jaktinib and 15.4% for hydroxyurea had a ≥20 g/L hemoglobin increase.

The most common grade ≥3 hematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were anemia (25.5% [jaktinib] vs. 43.5% [hydroxyurea]), thrombocytopenia (17.0% vs. 39.1%), leukopenia (2.1% vs. 21.7%), neutropenia (2.1% vs. 21.7%) and decreased lymphocyte count (2.1% vs. 13.0%). Most common non-hematological TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infection (21.3% vs. 21.7%), elevated bilirubin (12.8% vs. 26.1%), fever (12.8% vs. 21.7%) and diarrhea (10.6% vs. 21.7%), predominantly of grade 1 or 2. TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 8.5% of jaktinib and 17.4% of hydroxyurea.

Summary/Conclusion: Jaktinib demonstrated significant clinical benefits over hydroxyurea in myelofibrosis patients for spleen response with improved symptom response and less cytopenias. Jaktinib may be a new treatment option for myelofibrosis patients, especially for those with anemia.

Keywords: Myeloproliferative disorder, Myelofibrosis, Janus Kinase inhibitor, Phase III

    The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.