Yi Zhang, Hu Zhou, Shanshan Suo, Junling Zhuang, Linhua Yang, Aili He, Qingchi Liu, Xin Du, Sujun Gao, Yarong Li, Yan Li, Yuqing Chen, Wen Wu, Huanling Zhu, Guangsheng He, Mei Hong, Qian Jiang, Zhongxing Jiang, Hongmei Jing, Jishi Wang, Na Xu, Lingling Yue, Cuiping Zheng, Zeping Zhou, Chenghao Jin, Xin Li, Lin Liu, Yajing Xu, Dengshu Wu, Feng Zhang, Jin Zhang, Liqing Wu, Hewen Yin, Binhua Lv, Zhijian Xiao, Jie Jin
{"title":"对中-2级或高风险骨髓纤维化患者使用吉卡替尼与羟基脲的评估:随机3期研究的最终分析结果","authors":"Yi Zhang, Hu Zhou, Shanshan Suo, Junling Zhuang, Linhua Yang, Aili He, Qingchi Liu, Xin Du, Sujun Gao, Yarong Li, Yan Li, Yuqing Chen, Wen Wu, Huanling Zhu, Guangsheng He, Mei Hong, Qian Jiang, Zhongxing Jiang, Hongmei Jing, Jishi Wang, Na Xu, Lingling Yue, Cuiping Zheng, Zeping Zhou, Chenghao Jin, Xin Li, Lin Liu, Yajing Xu, Dengshu Wu, Feng Zhang, Jin Zhang, Liqing Wu, Hewen Yin, Binhua Lv, Zhijian Xiao, Jie Jin","doi":"10.1038/s41408-024-01202-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To compare the efficacy and safety of gecacitinib (also known as jaktinib) with hydroxyurea (HU) in treating myelofibrosis (MF) patients. In this multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial (ZGJAK016), intermediate- or high-risk primarily JAK inhibitor naïve MF patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either gecacitinib (100 mg twice a day, BID) or HU (500 mg BID). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SVR35) from baseline at week 24. Secondary endpoints included the best spleen response rate, the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS50), anemia improvement, and safety profile. At 24 weeks, the SVR35 was reached by 64.8% of patients on gecacitinib (46/71), compared to 26.5% on HU (9/34), <i>P</i> = 0.0002. The best spleen response rates were also superior for gecacitinib at 81.7%, vs 32.4% for HU, <i>P</i> < 0.0001. The TSS50 rates were 62.0% for gecacitinib- and 50% for HU-treated patients. Among non-transfusion-dependent patients with baseline hemoglobin (HGB) ≤ 100 g/L, 31.0% (13/42) in the gecacitinib group showed a ≥20 g/L increase in HGB, compared to 15.0% (3/20) in HU group. The common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including anemia (26.8% vs 44.1%), thrombocytopenia (15.5% vs 32.4%), leukopenia (2.8% vs 20.6%), and neutropenia (1.4% vs 20.6%), were less frequent with gecacitinib than HU. Treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs was lower in gecacitinib (7.0%) compared to HU (11.8%). Gecacitinib demonstrates superior efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared to HU, making it a promising treatment option for managing MF, particularly in patients with anemia (This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT04617028)).</p>","PeriodicalId":8989,"journal":{"name":"Blood Cancer Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of gecacitinib vs hydroxyurea in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis: final analysis results from a randomized phase 3 study\",\"authors\":\"Yi Zhang, Hu Zhou, Shanshan Suo, Junling Zhuang, Linhua Yang, Aili He, Qingchi Liu, Xin Du, Sujun Gao, Yarong Li, Yan Li, Yuqing Chen, Wen Wu, Huanling Zhu, Guangsheng He, Mei Hong, Qian Jiang, Zhongxing Jiang, Hongmei Jing, Jishi Wang, Na Xu, Lingling Yue, Cuiping Zheng, Zeping Zhou, Chenghao Jin, Xin Li, Lin Liu, Yajing Xu, Dengshu Wu, Feng Zhang, Jin Zhang, Liqing Wu, Hewen Yin, Binhua Lv, Zhijian Xiao, Jie Jin\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41408-024-01202-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>To compare the efficacy and safety of gecacitinib (also known as jaktinib) with hydroxyurea (HU) in treating myelofibrosis (MF) patients. In this multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial (ZGJAK016), intermediate- or high-risk primarily JAK inhibitor naïve MF patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either gecacitinib (100 mg twice a day, BID) or HU (500 mg BID). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SVR35) from baseline at week 24. Secondary endpoints included the best spleen response rate, the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS50), anemia improvement, and safety profile. At 24 weeks, the SVR35 was reached by 64.8% of patients on gecacitinib (46/71), compared to 26.5% on HU (9/34), <i>P</i> = 0.0002. The best spleen response rates were also superior for gecacitinib at 81.7%, vs 32.4% for HU, <i>P</i> < 0.0001. The TSS50 rates were 62.0% for gecacitinib- and 50% for HU-treated patients. Among non-transfusion-dependent patients with baseline hemoglobin (HGB) ≤ 100 g/L, 31.0% (13/42) in the gecacitinib group showed a ≥20 g/L increase in HGB, compared to 15.0% (3/20) in HU group. The common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including anemia (26.8% vs 44.1%), thrombocytopenia (15.5% vs 32.4%), leukopenia (2.8% vs 20.6%), and neutropenia (1.4% vs 20.6%), were less frequent with gecacitinib than HU. Treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs was lower in gecacitinib (7.0%) compared to HU (11.8%). Gecacitinib demonstrates superior efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared to HU, making it a promising treatment option for managing MF, particularly in patients with anemia (This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT04617028)).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Blood Cancer Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Blood Cancer Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-024-01202-8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Cancer Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-024-01202-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
比较吉卡西替尼(也称为jaktinib)与羟基脲(HU)治疗骨髓纤维化(MF)患者的疗效和安全性。在这项多中心、随机的3期试验(ZGJAK016)中,中高风险主要JAK抑制剂naïve MF患者以2:1的比例被分配接受geacacitinib (100mg,每日两次,BID)或HU (500mg BID)。主要终点是在第24周脾脏体积(SVR35)比基线减少≥35%的患者比例。次要终点包括最佳脾缓解率、总症状评分(TSS50)降低≥50%的患者比例、贫血改善和安全性。在24周时,gecacitinib组64.8%的患者达到SVR35(46/71),而HU组为26.5% (9/34),P = 0.0002。吉卡替尼的最佳脾脏缓解率为81.7%,而胡替尼为32.4%,P < 0.0001。gecacitinib组TSS50率为62.0%,hu组为50%。在基线血红蛋白(HGB)≤100 g/L的非输血依赖患者中,吉卡西替尼组31.0%(13/42)患者HGB升高≥20 g/L,而HU组为15.0%(3/20)。常见的≥3级治疗不良事件(teae),包括贫血(26.8% vs 44.1%)、血小板减少(15.5% vs 32.4%)、白细胞减少(2.8% vs 20.6%)和中性粒细胞减少(1.4% vs 20.6%),在吉卡西替尼组的发生率低于HU组。吉卡西替尼组因teae导致的停药率(7.0%)低于HU组(11.8%)。与HU相比,Gecacitinib显示出更优越的疗效和更有利的安全性,使其成为治疗MF的有希望的治疗选择,特别是贫血患者(该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,(NCT04617028))。
Evaluation of gecacitinib vs hydroxyurea in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis: final analysis results from a randomized phase 3 study
To compare the efficacy and safety of gecacitinib (also known as jaktinib) with hydroxyurea (HU) in treating myelofibrosis (MF) patients. In this multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial (ZGJAK016), intermediate- or high-risk primarily JAK inhibitor naïve MF patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either gecacitinib (100 mg twice a day, BID) or HU (500 mg BID). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SVR35) from baseline at week 24. Secondary endpoints included the best spleen response rate, the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS50), anemia improvement, and safety profile. At 24 weeks, the SVR35 was reached by 64.8% of patients on gecacitinib (46/71), compared to 26.5% on HU (9/34), P = 0.0002. The best spleen response rates were also superior for gecacitinib at 81.7%, vs 32.4% for HU, P < 0.0001. The TSS50 rates were 62.0% for gecacitinib- and 50% for HU-treated patients. Among non-transfusion-dependent patients with baseline hemoglobin (HGB) ≤ 100 g/L, 31.0% (13/42) in the gecacitinib group showed a ≥20 g/L increase in HGB, compared to 15.0% (3/20) in HU group. The common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including anemia (26.8% vs 44.1%), thrombocytopenia (15.5% vs 32.4%), leukopenia (2.8% vs 20.6%), and neutropenia (1.4% vs 20.6%), were less frequent with gecacitinib than HU. Treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs was lower in gecacitinib (7.0%) compared to HU (11.8%). Gecacitinib demonstrates superior efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared to HU, making it a promising treatment option for managing MF, particularly in patients with anemia (This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT04617028)).
期刊介绍:
Blood Cancer Journal is dedicated to publishing high-quality articles related to hematologic malignancies and related disorders. The journal welcomes submissions of original research, reviews, guidelines, and letters that are deemed to have a significant impact in the field. While the journal covers a wide range of topics, it particularly focuses on areas such as:
Preclinical studies of new compounds, especially those that provide mechanistic insights
Clinical trials and observations
Reviews related to new drugs and current management of hematologic malignancies
Novel observations related to new mutations, molecular pathways, and tumor genomics
Blood Cancer Journal offers a forum for expedited publication of novel observations regarding new mutations or altered pathways.