Leahy, Michael F.

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm that typically manifests with debilitating symptoms that progressively worsen, negatively impacting patients’ quality of life. Fatigue is a multifactorial and burdensome MF-related symptom due to its severity, persistence, and prevalence, with anemia a contributing factor and major unmet need. Clinical trials of the Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2/activin A receptor type 1 inhibitor momelotinib have shown consistent anemia benefits, in addition to improvements in MF-related symptoms. The phase 3 MOMENTUM trial in symptomatic and anemic patients met its primary end point, with a greater proportion having a Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) Total Symptom Score (TSS) reduction ≥50% at week 24 with momelotinib versus danazol. To support the positive primary end point result, we conducted longitudinal, responder, and time-to-event analyses of patient-reported outcomes from MOMENTUM, as measured by the MFSAF, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments. These analyses demonstrated rapid and durable response benefits with momelotinib, with achievement of first TSS response by day 29 and continued improvement over time. Improvements favored momelotinib versus danazol for each MFSAF individual item, and greater improvements were observed for disease- and cancer-related fatigue and physical functioning at week 24, with significant results for multiple items/domains across the 3 assessments. These findings are consistent in demonstrating that momelotinib provides substantial symptom benefit.

AbstractBackgroundMyelofibrosis (MF)‐associated constitutional symptoms can severely impact health‐related quality of life. Clinical trials in MF traditionally measure symptom response to treatment as a landmark endpoint of total symptom score (TSS) reduction ≥50% from baseline. However, this dichotomous assessment provides a limited view of clinically relevant symptomatic changes. Herein we evaluated longitudinal change from baseline in TSS over the continuous 24‐week period and individual symptom scores to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of symptom benefits experienced by patients with MF receiving therapy.MethodsLongitudinal symptom change was evaluated using mixed‐effect model repeated measure (MMRM) methodology with individual item‐level analyses to complement the interpretation of the landmark symptom results in the completed phase III SIMPLIFY studies of momelotinib in MF. MMRM compared mean change in TSS from baseline with Week 24 using data from all patient visits. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate item‐level odds ratios using multiple predictive imputations for missing data.ResultsMomelotinib and ruxolitinib groups reported similar overall symptom improvements, with a TSS difference of <1.5 points between groups for each post‐baseline visit in SIMPLIFY‐1. In SIMPLIFY‐2, the improvement in TSS observed in momelotinib‐treated patients was consistent with that observed in SIMPLIFY‐1, whereas progressive TSS deterioration was observed with control. Item‐level scores were heterogeneous in both studies. A similar and greater proportion of momelotinib‐treated patients were categorized as “improved” or “stable” compared with control in SIMPLIFY‐1 and SIMPLIFY‐2, respectively. Odds ratios for between‐group comparison ranged from 0.75 to 1.21 in SIMPLIFY‐1, demonstrating similarity in likelihood of symptom improvement. In SIMPLIFY‐2, the likelihood of symptom improvement in each item was higher in the momelotinib arm.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that momelotinib provides clinically relevant symptom benefits in the JAK inhibitor‐naïve and JAK inhibitor‐exposed settings.

e19040 Background: Clinical trials investigating JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors for myelofibrosis (MF) subjects have measured symptom improvement as a minimum 50% reduction in total symptom score (TSS) at the end of a 24-week treatment period. This landmark analysis is based on post-baseline score changes from Weeks 21 (W21) to 24 and requires vastly different absolute TSS improvements for patients with very high or low baseline (BL) TSS to reach responder status. A phase 3 clinical study, SIMPLIFY-1, randomized 432 intermediate and high risk JAK inhibitor (JAKi) naive MF patients 1:1 to momelotinib (MMB) or ruxolitinib (RUX). Non-inferiority on the MPN-SAF TSS response rate endpoint at W24 was not met (MMB: 28% vs RUX: 42%); however, improvement in each of the 7 TSS items was similar for MMB vs RUX. To understand the discrepancy, we applied item analysis and mixed effect models for repeated measures (MMRM) to SIMPLIFY-1. Methods: Analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in a symptomatic subset (selected as subjects with BL TSS ≥ 10). The distributions of TSS items were examined at BL and shift in scores at W24 (health state shifts) were assessed. GEE models were used to estimate item-level odds ratios using multiple predictive imputations for missing data. MMRM compared mean change in TSS from BL to W24 using data from all visits. The meaningful change threshold (MCT) was determined using Patient Global Impression of Change. Results: BL scores across items were heterogenous in the MMB and RUX groups; the proportion of subjects with no or mild symptoms (0–3 on a 0-10 point scale) ranged from 44% (tiredness) to 81% (itching). Distributions of BL scores were different across arms with 6 out of 7 items in the MMB arm reporting more severe or very severe symptoms (scores of 7-10) at BL. Despite the imbalance in BL scores, item-level health state shifts showed similar improvements for MMB and RUX. Categorical responder analysis showed no significant differences on any items. Odds ratios for each between-group comparison ranged from 0.74 to 1.20. MMRM mean TSS change at W24 was 6.35 (MMB) vs 7.87 (RUX) in the ITT and 8.80 (MMB) vs 10.46 (RUX) in the symptomatic subset. Mean TSS were near the within-subject MCT of 8 points in the ITT and exceeded the MCT in the symptomatic subset. The between-group difference was 1.52 (95% CI: (0.196, 2.847)) in the ITT and 1.67 (95% CI: -0.134, 3.468) in the symptomatic subset. Conclusions: Comparable item health state shifts at W24 and similar improvements in mean TSS as shown by MMRM, with a minimal between-group difference of 1.52 on the 70 point scale in context of an 8-point MCT suggest MMB provides clinically relevant and comparable symptom improvements to RUX; these analyses require further validation in independent data sets. Imbalance in BL symptom scores in MMB subjects may have contributed to the inability to demonstrate non-inferiority in TSS response rate at W24. Clinical trial information: NCT01969838.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a pandemic. Global health care now faces unprecedented challenges with widespread and rapid human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and high morbidity and mortality with COVID-19 worldwide. Across the world, medical care is hampered by a critical shortage of not only hand sanitizers, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and hospital beds, but also impediments to the blood supply. Blood donation centers in many areas around the globe have mostly closed. Donors, practicing social distancing, some either with illness or undergoing self-quarantine, are quickly diminishing. Drastic public health initiatives have focused on containment and “flattening the curve” while invaluable resources are being depleted. In some countries, the point has been reached at which the demand for such resources, including donor blood, outstrips the supply. Questions as to the safety of blood persist. Although it does not appear very likely that the virus can be transmitted through allogeneic blood transfusion, this still remains to be fully determined. As options dwindle, we must enact regional and national shortage plans worldwide and more vitally disseminate the knowledge of and immediately implement patient blood management (PBM). PBM is an evidence-based bundle of care to optimize medical and surgical patient outcomes by clinically managing and preserving a patient’s own blood. This multinational and diverse group of authors issue this “Call to Action” underscoring “The Essential Role of Patient Blood Management in the Management of Pandemics” and urging all stakeholders and providers to implement the practical and commonsense principles of PBM and its multiprofessional and multimodality approaches.