Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34224180›Full record

Trial reportHematological oncology2021

Comparing the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System low-, intermediate-1-, intermediate-2-, and high-risk myelofibrosis in JUMP, a Phase 3b, expanded-access study.

Francesco Passamonti, Vikas Gupta, Bruno Martino, Lynda Foltz, Andrey Zaritskey, Haifa Kathrin Al-Ali, Renato Tavares, Margherita Maffioli, Pia Raanani, Pilar Giraldo and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in Hematological oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 15 institutions in 11 countries.

Francesco PassamontiUniversity of Insubria, Varese, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8068-5289
Vikas GuptaPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bruno MartinoAzienda Ospedaliera Bianchi-Melacrino-Morelli, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Lynda FoltzSt Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Andrey ZaritskeyFederal Almazov Medical Research Center of the Russian Ministry of Health, St Petersburg, Russia.
Haifa Kathrin Al-AliUniversity Hospital of Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Renato TavaresUniversidade Federal de Goiania, Goiânia, Brazil.
Margherita MaffioliOspedale di Circolo, ASST Sette Laghi, Varese, Italy.
Pia RaananiRabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Pilar GiraldoMiguel Servet University Hospital and Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER), Zaragoza, Spain.
Martin GriesshammerJohannes Wesling Clinic, University of Bochum, Minden, Germany.
Paola GuglielmelliCRIMM, Center for Research and Innovation of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, AOU Careggi, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1809-284X
Catherine BouardNovartis Pharma, Rueil-Malmaison, France.
Carole PaleyNovartis Pharma, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA.
Ranjan TiwariNovartis Healthcare Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Alessandro M VannucchiCRIMM, Center for Research and Innovation of Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, AOU Careggi, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITAzienda ospedaliera "Bianchi-Melacrino-Morelli" · ITCentre for Biomedical Network Research on Rare Diseases · ESFederal Almazov North-West Medical Research Centre · RUJohannes Wesling Klinikum Minden · DENovartis (France) · FRNovartis (India) · INNovartis (Switzerland) · CHOspedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi · ITPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CATel Aviv University · ILUniversidade Federal de Goiás · BRUniversity Hospital in Halle · DEUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Insubria · IT

Funding

CelgeneNovartis Pharma
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ruxolitinib, a potent Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, has demonstrated durable improvements in patients with myelofibrosis. In this analysis of the Phase 3b JUMP study, which included patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of primary or secondary myelofibrosis, we assessed the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients stratified by Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) risk categories. Baseline characteristic data were available to assess DIPSS status for 1844 of the 2233 enrolled patients; 60, 835, 755, and 194 in the low-, intermediate (Int)-1-, Int-2-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Ruxolitinib was generally well tolerated across all risk groups, with an adverse-event (AE) profile consistent with previous reports. The most common hematologic AEs were thrombocytopenia and anemia, with highest rates of Grade ≥3 events in high-risk patients. Approximately, 73% of patients experienced ≥50% reductions in palpable spleen length at any point in the ≤24-month treatment period, with highest rates in lower-risk categories (low, 82.1%; Int-1, 79.3%; Int-2, 67.1%; high risk, 61.6%). Median time to spleen length reduction was 5.1 weeks and was shortest in lower-risk patients. Across measures, 40%-57% of patients showed clinically meaningful symptom improvements, which were observed from 4 weeks after treatment initiation and maintained throughout the study. Overall survival (OS) was 92% at Week 72 and 75% at Week 240 (4.6 years). Median OS was longer for Int-2-risk than high-risk patients (253.6 vs. 147.3 weeks), but not evaluable in low-/Int-1-risk patients. By Week 240, progression-free survival (PFS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) rates were higher in lower-risk patients (PFS: low, 90%; Int-1, 82%; Int-2, 46%; high risk, 15%; LFS: low, 92%; Int-1, 86%; Int-2, 58%; high risk, 19%). Clinical benefit was seen across risk groups, with more rapid improvements in lower risk patients. Overall, this analysis indicates that ruxolitinib benefits lower-risk DIPSS patients in addition to higher risk.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleHumansJanus KinasesMaleMiddle AgedNitrilesPrimary MyelofibrosisPyrazolesPyrimidinesJanus KinasesNitrilesPyrazolesPyrimidinesruxolitinibDynamic International Prognostic Scoring Systemefficacyruxolitinibsafety

Identifiers

PMID34224180
PMCPMC8518822
OpenAlexW3178904653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.