Summary Paper from Drs, Claire N. Harrison and D... - MPN Voice

MPN Voice

10,886 members15,202 posts

Summary Paper from Drs, Claire N. Harrison and Donal P. McLornan

EPguy profile image
7 Replies

Nice summary I just came across from some of the experts. I've included some outtakes I found notable. Lots more in there on R&D for MF.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...

From chart, HCT control matters. This was discovered ~2011 and is likely a big part of what we've discussed as better modern MPN management. Before this HCT was to be under 50, after this, under 45 (we now know females usually target under 42) <<CYTOPV study confirms target HCT>> From CYTOPV <<Those who had an HCT of 45% to 50% had a risk of death from cardiovascular causes or major thrombosis that was four times that of patients who maintained an HCT of less than 45%>>

--

MAGIC ET study:

<<‘triple-negative’ ET, have the best out-comes amongst this disease

group, potentially suggesting they may be at more risk of iatrogenic

harm and a future prospect for such patients may well be the

de-escalation of therapy>>

<<For ET, demonstrated that response to ruxolitinib was no better than standard therapies>>

<<specific patients with (HC) resistant/intolerant ET have a worse overall trajectory>> (certain mutations are listed, I think this relates to the next gen sequencing)

<<JAK2V617F-mutated ET patients demonstrated better platelet control with ruxolitinib>>

<<Both IFN and ruxolitinib may have the potential to impact on the overall disease trajectory for MPN, in particular for ET and PV.>>

---

HCT matters: <<with the exception of control of the haematocrit to<045, this facet (blood counts) of disease response has not been shown to directly correlate with thrombosis or progression>> See CYTOPV above.

Reducing allele may matter, for Rux: << ≥50% decrease inJAK2V617F allele burden by 1 year correlated with no thrombotic events and improved progression-free survival>> INF is esp good at this.

<<prior studies (before Ropeg's PROUD PV) of IFN therapy in MF have documented better responses for patients with smaller spleens, indicating perhaps the agent (Besremi) may have more utility earlier in the disease state>> Early INF start matches what the various INF experts are saying.

<<studies did demonstrate that ruxolitinib therapy for intermediate-2 or high-risk MF, as defined per International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)risk score, could lead to improved overall survival, indicating for the first time in MPN that a modality other than allogeneic stem cell transplantation could achieve this>>

<<for MF, spleen volume reduction(SVR) and reduction in total symptom score (TSS) are important surrogate markers of longer-term benefit >>

For SCT <<there is preliminary data emerging that JAKi exposure before or during conditioning may in fact reduce the rates of graft-versus-host disease,>>

<<This scoring system (large genetic study) permitted tailored personalised predictions that were more informative than standard scoring systems, or indeed standard disease subtypes ET/PV/MF>>

<<Another drawback of JAK inhibition is that the average response duration to ruxolitinib appears to~168 weeks>>

Written by
EPguy profile image
EPguy
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
7 Replies
Mostew profile image
Mostew

Thanks for nice clear summery .

Manouche profile image
Manouche

<<Another drawback of JAK inhibition is that the average response duration to ruxolitinib appears to~168 weeks>>

This is true for MF only and not for PV. The average response duration of Jakavi for PV is said to last at least 5 to 10 years .

EPguy profile image
EPguy in reply toManouche

Thanks much for the better context. I had a feeling it was not the full picture. My Dr prefers Rux over INF, but says both are good. My main hesitation on Rux is the vax trade off.

Are you aware of any multi year Allele data for PV on Rux? I've seen some but not as coherent as the ContiPV for Ropeg.

For CHR, The ContiPV study for Ropeg seems to show somewhat better at 5 years than the RESPONSE Rux PV study. Very roughly 65% vs 55%. I don't know if they are comparable however.

I just came across Rux cream. Not likely relevant to MPN but interesting.

opzelura.com/

Buggerbear profile image
Buggerbear in reply toManouche

Thank you Manouche for clarifying that....I was already counting the weeks and getting nervous!!

Wyebird profile image
Wyebird

Thank you

MPNBlog profile image
MPNBlog

Hi ET Guy. A nice precis of the article. Many thanks for this. Best wishes

Meatloaf9 profile image
Meatloaf9

Thank you for posting this. We need all the info we can get.

Not what you're looking for?

You may also like...

INF, allele and more

I posted this in a reply thread. Seems of possible general interest. In my opinion based on...
EPguy profile image

MF high risk Mutations

This has been covered in some form before. But I came across this report that summarizes misc info...
EPguy profile image

Polycythemia vera: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management

 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajh.27002 « Survival and Prognosis Median...
Manouche profile image

Current best available information about MPNs: Fast Facts MPNs by Reuben A Mesa and Claire N Harrison

Hi This is a photo of the cover of the brilliant Fast Facts summary paperback for MPNs. Maz trailed...

Intolerant to IFN? Rux/IFN combo might help

Member monarch5000 posted this report in another thread. I figured it's worth a new post with more...
EPguy profile image

Moderation team

Debinha profile image
DebinhaAdministrator
Mazcd profile image
MazcdPartner

Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.

Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.