All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the MPN Advocates Network.
Myelofibrosis (MF) is a heterogeneous disease with limited treatment options, which may cause treatment challenges when patients no longer respond to one therapy. Donal P. McLornan and Claire N. Harrison recently published a paper providing guidance on changing therapy choice in myelofibrosis in Blood. This article provides a summary of the current guidance for treating patients with MF who require therapy switching from a JAK inhibitor to another JAK inhibitor or to a different treatment, or who are considered for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).1
The characterization of the JAK2 driver mutation and the description of JAK signaling cascade in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) led to therapeutic advances, such as the identification of the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, ruxolitinib, which was approved by both the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency for the treatment of MF. Recently, another JAK inhibitor, fedratinib, was FDA approved for MF, both in the frontline and second-line setting for patients with intermediate-2 and high-risk MF. As newer therapies are being explored, questions arise of where they fit into the treatment landscape, with the focus on agents second-in-line to ruxolitinib treatment to overcome challenges such as ruxolitinib resistance or intolerance.
There are concerns of systemic deterioration and proinflammation that result from a substantial reduction in dosage or a complete stop of ruxolitinib. However, it is unknown whether these withdrawal reactions occur with fedratinib treatment as well. As both are viable treatment options, questions are likely to arise, such as when the best time to switch between the two treatments is. Also, regimen schedules should translate from clinical trials to clinical practice effectively, for example patients in clinical practice are more likely to switch between the two drugs without a washing-out period from the first drug. Overall, patients with MF have a poor prognosis when discontinuing ruxolitinib, and it is unclear if this also happens when frontline fedratinib fails. Moreover, the optimal time for patients to receive allo-SCT with JAK inhibitors is debatable, as some practices switch patients from frontline JAK inhibitor treatment directly to allo-SCT, whereas others gradually reduce treatments before allo-SCT. Another unaddressed question is whether a change of treatment to the other JAK inhibitor agent during the lead-in time to allo-SCT could improve patient outcome.
When administering frontline treatment, physicians should provide sufficient time for patients to respond to treatment and monitor if dose optimization has occurred, whilst balancing dosage against side effects.
Recognition of ruxolitinib or fedratinib failure or intolerance and assessment of disease dynamic to monitor for clonal evolution is important. Physicians should also consider if the patient is suitable for a switch of treatment, e.g. from ruxolitinib to fedratinib or vice versa, or allo-HSCT, or enrolment into a clinical trial.
Monitoring that encapsulates patient symptoms, such as the MPN Symptom Assessment Form or MPN10, and accurate spleen size measurements should be mandated, and possible confounding factors that affect JAK inhibitors, such as such as depression, drug–drug interactions, and guidelines for managing anemia or thrombocytopenia should be regularly reviewed.
Recommendations encourage that patients should be weaned off JAK inhibitors before starting a second-line agent or overlap two JAK inhibitor treatment, and possibly using, steroid cover. Sufficient time for adequate exposure and optimal dosing needs to be ensured before assessing response to second-line agent.
A study by Palandri et al., examining the outcome of patients with MF after ruxolitinib treatment on 442 patients, at a median follow-up of 30.5 months, reported 20% of patients died while receiving ruxolitinib and 48% had discontinued. The median survival of patients who had discontinued ruxolitinib (n = 171) was 22.6 months. Patients who received another JAK inhibitor or investigational agent after discontinuation because of intolerance or resistance had a better survival rates compared with patients who received subsequent therapies with drugs such as danazol or hydroxycarbamide, indicating the importance of appropriate treatment sequence. Similar observations were made in the 5-year analyses of COMFORT-1 and COMFORT-2 studies, which showed 72% and 73% of patients randomized to ruxolitinib had discontinued, respectively.
A phase I/II study examining 107 patients with MF found 86 patients had discontinued ruxolitinib after a median follow-up of 79 months and median survival after discontinuation was 14 months. This study found patients with clonal evolution or thrombocytopenia (platelets < 100 × 109/L) at discontinuation had a poor prognosis.
Definitions of JAK inhibitor failure fluctuates across clinical trials, therefore establishing practical criteria, that factors in dose optimization, is crucial to enhance patient-individualized response.
Definitions are based on JAKARTA-2 reanalyses
Comparisons across different clinical trials regarding the management of treatment-emergent adverse events remain difficult as treatment strategies differ. The balance between acceptable low platelet count and sufficient clinical response is also yet to be defined as both ruxolitinib and fedratinib are associated with hematological toxicities, particularly anemia and thrombocytopenia. The two landmark JAKARTA studies analyses indicate that fedratinib may confer greater suitability to patients with baseline platelet counts of < 100 × 109/L and splenic volume reduction were similar in patients with platelets < or > 100 × 109/L. Also, discontinuation or dose alteration because of Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia were uncommon.
It is yet to be elucidated if the enhanced JAK2 specificity of fedratinib will impact rates of non-melanoma skin cancers and infectious complications seen with ruxolitinib treatment. However, it is currently known that fedratinib is associated with low-grade gastrointestinal toxicity and has a black-box warning for thiamine deficiency and encephalopathy; these factors may influence physician choice of frontline treatment and the timing of therapeutic switch.
Although the approval of the two JAK inhibitors in MF is fortunate, there is a need to establish practice guidelines and summaries of product characteristics. Recommendations should be able to translate into clinical practice and be personalized to the patient’s clinical status, line of therapy, and comorbidities.
Reviewing the safety of JAK inhibitors for the treatment of myelofibrosis
Over the past decade, seminal studies have led to the identification of specific driver mutations in the pathogenesis of myelofibrosis (MF) and related myeloproliferative...
Dysregulation of the bone marrow niche contributes to the pathogenesis of myeloproliferative neoplasms
The bone marrow niche is the local tissue microenvironment that maintains and regulates stem cells for hematopoiesis. It is comprised of many...
Subscribe to get the best content related to MPN delivered to your inbox