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.
The MPN Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your MPN Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe 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 Hub 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.
Momelotinib vs BAT for patients with MF previously treated with ruxolitinib: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison
Bookmark this article
|
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.
- Palandri F. Overall survival with momelotinib vs best available therapy in patients with ruxolitinib-experienced myelofibrosis: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Poster abstract #3187. Presented at: 66th ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition; Dec 7–10, 2024; San Diego, US.
Your opinion matters
26 votes - 21 days left ...
Related articles
Newsletter
Subscribe to get the best content related to MPN delivered to your inbox