The mpn Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mpn Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mpn and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The MPN Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by AOP Health and GSK, and supported through an educational grant from Bristol Myers Squibb. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mpn content recommended for you
Momelotinib vs BAT for patients with MF previously treated with ruxolitinib: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison
|
A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis compared OS in patients with MF who were previously treated with ruxolitinib and received momelotinib in a phase III trial (SIMPLIFY-1; NCT01969838; N = 432, SIMPLIFY-2; NCT02101268; N = 156, or MOMENTUM; NCT04173494; N = 195) or BAT from the retrospective RUX-MF study (n = 267).1 This analysis included two models, with model 2 having fewer matched characteristics to increase the ESS.1 Results were presented at the 66th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition by Palandri.1 |
| Key learnings |
| In the matched analysis, OS was improved with momelotinib vs BAT in model 1 (ESS = 89; HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.358–0.732; p < 0.001) and in model 2 (ESS = 117; HR, 0.484; 95% CI, 0.347–0.675; p < 0.001). |
| In the sensitivity analyses excluding ruxolitinib-randomized patients in SIMPLIFY-1 and momelotinib-randomized patients in MOMENTUM, respectively, the OS benefit of momelotinib vs BAT remained significant for both models. |
| In the matched analysis for the anemic subgroup, OS favored momelotinib vs BAT (n = 174) in model 1 (ESS = 98; HR, 0.542; 95% CI, 0.387–0.759; p <0.001) and model 2 (ESS = 146; HR, 0.487; 95% CI, 0.360–0.660; p <0.001). |
| Results from this analysis suggest that momelotinib improves OS vs BAT in patients with MF who were previously treated with ruxolitinib, both overall and in patients with anemia. |
Abbreviations: ASH, American Society of Hematology; BAT, best available therapy; CI, confidence interval; ESS, effective sample size; HR, hazard ratio; MF, myelofibrosis; OS, overall survival.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content
