Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695117›Full record

Trial reportBlood cancer journal2024

Evaluation of gecacitinib vs hydroxyurea in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis: final analysis results from a randomized phase 3 study.

Yi Zhang, Hu Zhou, Shanshan Suo, Junling Zhuang, Linhua Yang, Aili He, Qingchi Liu, Xin Du, Sujun Gao, Yarong Li and 26 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Blood cancer journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04617028 phase3completednot on this map

A Randomized, Double-blind, Double-simulated, Parallel-controlled, Multicenter Phase III Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Jaktinib Versus Hydroxycarbamide in Patients With Intermediate-2 or High-risk Myelofibrosis

TypeinterventionalSponsorSuzhou Zelgen Biopharmaceuticals Co.,LtdRan2021 to 2023Enrolled105ConditionsMyelofibrosisArmsJaktinib, Placebo to match Hydroxycarbamide, Hydroxycarbamide Tablets, Placebo to match Jaktinib
NCT07342712 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Phase ⅢB Clinical Trial Evaluating the Long-term Effects of Gecacitinib Treatment on Myelofibrosis and Gene Mutation Levels in Patients Previously Enrolled in Clinical Trails of Gecacitinib for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis

TypeobservationalSponsorFirst Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsMyelofibrosis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

36 authors.

Yi Zhang *Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China.
Hu Zhou *Department of Hematology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, PR China.
Shanshan Suo *Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China.
Junling Zhuang *Department of Hematology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China.
Linhua YangDepartment of Hematology, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, PR China.
Aili HeDepartment of Hematology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, PR China.ORCID 0000-0003-2521-3806
Qingchi LiuThe First Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, PR China.
Xin DuDepartment of Hematology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, PR China.
Sujun GaoDepartment of Hematology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, PR China.
Yarong LiDepartment of Hematology, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, PR China.
Yan LiDepartment of Hematopathology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, PR China.
Yuqing ChenDepartment of Hematology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, PR China.
Wen WuShanghai Institute of Hematology, State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, National Research Center for Translational Medicine at Shanghai, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, PR China.
Huanling ZhuDepartment of Hematology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR China.
Guangsheng HeDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Key Laboratory of Hematology of Nanjing Medical University, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Personalize, Nanjing, PR China.
Mei HongDepartment of Hematology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, PR China.
Qian JiangDepartment of Hematology, Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, PR China.ORCID 0000-0001-7131-0522
Zhongxing JiangDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, PR China.
Hongmei JingDepartment of Hematology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, PR China.
Jishi WangDepartment of Hematology, Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, PR China.
Na XuDepartment of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, PR China.
Lingling YueDepartment of Hematology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, PR China.
Cuiping ZhengDepartment of Hematology, Wenzhou Central Hospital, Wenzhou, PR China.
Zeping ZhouDepartment of Hematology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, PR China.
Chenghao JinDepartment of Hematology, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, Nanchang, PR China.
Xin LiDepartment of Hematology, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, PR China.
Lin LiuDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, PR China.
Yajing XuDepartment of Hematology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, PR China.
Dengshu WuDepartment of Hematology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, PR China.
Feng ZhangDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical University, Bengbu, PR China.
Jin ZhangDepartment of Hematology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, PR Hangzhou, PR China.
Liqing WuSuzhou Zelgen Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Suzhou, PR China.
Hewen YinSuzhou Zelgen Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Suzhou, PR China.
Binhua LvSuzhou Zelgen Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Suzhou, PR China.ORCID 0000-0002-2006-2554
Zhijian XiaoInstitute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Tianjin, PR China.ORCID 0000-0002-1099-4489
Jie JinDepartment of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, PR China. jiej0503@zju.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-8166-9915

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 82100159
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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)).

Indexed as

HydroxyureaPrimary MyelofibrosisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPyrimidinesTreatment OutcomeHydroxyureaPyrimidines

Identifiers

PMID39695117
PMCPMC11655548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.