Buckley, Sarah

Abstract Background and Significance: Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a clonal hematopoietic malignancy with overlapping dysplastic and proliferative features, a high risk of leukemic transformation, and no disease-modifying therapies. Patients with proliferative CMML often present with symptomatic monocytosis, leukocytosis, splenomegaly, and systemic inflammation, which contribute to shortened survival and impaired quality of life. Hydroxyurea (HU), the standard cytoreductive agent, provides transient control of leukocytosis but has no known disease modifying properties. In the phase 3 DACOTA trial (Itzykson et al., JCO 2022), decitabine modestly delayed leukemic transformation compared to HU but did not improve event-free or overall survival and was associated with increased early mortality. HU achieved a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of approximately 15% (excluding stable disease), highlighting the urgent need for safer and more effective therapies. Pacritinib is a potent and selective multikinase inhibitor with a kinome profile that targets key mediators of clonal proliferation and inflammatory signaling relevant to CMML. It inhibits JAK2 (IC₅₀ = 6 nM) and IRAK1 (IC₅₀ = 13.6 nM)—critical drivers of cytokine-mediated growth and monocytic skewing—while sparing JAK1, potentially reducing myelosuppressive toxicity. Pacritinib also inhibits CSF1R (IC₅₀= 39.5 nM) which is involved in monocytic differentiation. Preclinical models demonstrate that dual inhibition of JAK2 and IRAK1 suppresses CMML colony formation and prolongs survival in xenografts. Furthermore, CSF1R inhibition may reduce monocyte-lineage bias in leukemic clones. Clinically, pacritinib is FDA-approved for intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis with severe thrombocytopenia (platelets <50 × 10⁹/L) based on evidence of significant spleen volume and symptom reduction with limited hematologic toxicity. These mechanistic and clinical data provide a strong rationale for evaluating pacritinib in advanced proliferative CMML, a setting characterized by both cytokine-driven proliferation and treatment-limiting cytopenias. Study Design and Methods PROSPERA (NCT07033598) is a collaborative multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial. Sixty-six patients with WHO-defined CMML-1 or CMML-2 will be enrolled. Eligible patients must have proliferative features (WBC ≥13 × 10⁹/L) and advanced disease as defined by ≥5 cm palpable splenomegaly, symptom burden (Myeloproliferative Neoplasm-Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score MPNSAF-TSS ≥20), or thrombocytopenia (platelets <100 × 10⁹/L). Prior JAK inhibitor therapy is not allowed. The trial will be conducted at approximately six sites across the United States and United Kingdom, with enrollment anticipated to begin by the end of 2025. Participants will be randomized 2:1 to receive either pacritinib (200 mg orally twice daily) or HU (dosed as per investigator discretion) for 48 weeks. Patients in the HU arm may cross over to pacritinib at Week 24 if, in the opinion of the treating physician, they are not deriving clinical benefit (after assessment of the primary endpoint). Randomization will be stratified by prior cytoreductive therapy (none vs. prior HU or hypomethylating agents). The primary endpoint is CBR at Week 24, defined by modified IWG MDS/MPN criteria incorporating hematologic improvement, spleen volume reduction, and symptom response. Secondary endpoints include CBR at any time, duration of response, event-free survival, leukemia-free survival, and overall survival. Correlative studies will assess treatment-related changes in clonal dynamics, cytokine signaling, and hematopoietic composition using longitudinal peripheral blood and bone marrow sampling. Single-cell transcriptomic and immunophenotypic profiling will be employed to characterize pacritinib's impact on both the malignant clone and the surrounding immune microenvironment.

Abstract Objective VEXAS syndrome is a severe systemic haemato-inflammatory disease with heterogeneous clinical presentations. Most patients experience recurrent inflammatory flares despite anti-inflammatory therapy. The lack of accepted definitions of flare in these patients is preventing development of disease activity tools that are essential for conducting clinical trials. We aimed to develop a consensus definition of a VEXAS flare for use in clinical trials. Methods A nine-member international expert advisory committee established a consensus definition of VEXAS flare using modified Delphi methodology. Clinical inflammatory manifestations of VEXAS syndrome were identified through a systematic literature review. Committee members developed a conceptual framework for flare definition, proposed revisions and voted on changes until consensus (≥75% concurrence) was reached. Results Consensus defined VEXAS flare as active inflammatory manifestation(s) of VEXAS syndrome requiring escalation in glucocorticoid therapy. Three flare categories were established: (i) recurrence of a prior documented VEXAS manifestation; (ii) development of a new VEXAS-defining inflammatory manifestation; or (iii) emergence of a new inflammatory manifestation not meeting criteria for A or B. The panel endorsed an independent adjudication committee to assess Category C flares in clinical trials. Conclusions This study proposes a standardized definition of VEXAS flare, providing uniform criteria for identifying VEXAS disease activity. Future research will evaluate its performance in clinical trials.

ABSTRACTSpleen volume reduction (SVR) is a key endpoint in inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor studies. Retrospective analyses have demonstrated an association between SVR and improved overall survival (OS) among patients treated with ruxolitinib with a platelet count > 100 × 109/L. Whether this association occurs in patients with thrombocytopenia is unclear. Pacritinib, a JAK2/IRAK1/ACVR1 inhibitor, demonstrated improved SVR versus best available therapy (BAT [best available therapy]; including ruxolitinib) in patients with myelofibrosis and platelet counts ≤ 100 × 109/L in the PERSIST‐2 study. Patients on study at the start of the 12‐week SVR window on pacritinib 200 mg twice daily or BAT were included. OS was evaluated among SVR responders versus non‐responders using different SVR thresholds (≥ 35%, ≥ 20%, ≥ 10%, and > 0%). Among patients on pacritinib (n = 89), SVR ≥ 10% demonstrated the greatest separation in OS curves between responders and non‐responders (HR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00–0.14; p < 0.01), though SVR ≥ 0% and SVR ≥ 20% were also associated with improved OS. No SVR threshold conferred OS benefit on BAT (n = 84), including ruxolitinib (n = 39). In patients with myelofibrosis and platelets ≤ 100 × 109/L, achieving SVR on pacritinib, but not BAT (including ruxolitinib), was associated with significant OS benefit, suggesting that pacritinib may offer a unique survival advantage in patients with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia who achieve any SVR. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02055781

Background: Pacritinib is a JAK1-sparing inhibitor of JAK2/IRAK1/ACVR1 that demonstrated symptom benefit measured by TSS (v2.0, excluding tiredness) vs best available therapy (BAT) in PERSIST-2, which enrolled cytopenic myelofibrosis patients with platelets ≤100×10 9/L. Recent datashowed that in patients with cytopenic MF, a ≥10% reduction in spleen volume at 12 weeks is associated with improved survival in patients treated with pacritinib ( Ajufo H, et al., J Clin Oncol;2023:14(16):Suppl). Surprisingly, this association was not confirmed in patients treated with BAT (82% of whom were on ruxolitinib). The association between other important measures of clinical benefit such as symptom burden reduction and anemia improvement on survival in patients treated with pacritinib has not previously been described. Methods: Patients randomized to pacritinib 200 mg BID and to BAT on PERSIST-2 were included if they were alive and on study at the start of the week 12 efficacy assessment period. Survival was assessed by Total Symptom Score (TSS; v2.0 excluding tiredness) reduction at various thresholds (≥50%, ≥20%, ≥10%, &gt;0%) and transfusion independence (TI) response. TI was assessed among patients who required red blood cell (RBC) transfusion at baseline (within 90 days) and was defined, for the purposes of a landmark survival analysis, as the absence of RBC transfusions over any 12-week period from first dose through week 14 (allowing for a ±2-week window around week 12). Overall survival (OS) was estimated via the K-M method following the landmark approach; survival in responders vs non-responders was compared using the log-rank test. Results: Of the 59 patients treated with pacritinib who had a reduction of TSS≥10%, the median age was 67 years, 25% had a baseline high-risk DIPSS, median platelet count was 61 x10 9/L, median hemoglobin was 9.7 g/dL, and baseline TSS was 19.1. Reduction of TSS≥10% was associated with improved OS, with 1 death among 59 responders vs 4 deaths among 30 non-responders (hazard ratio [HR]=0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01, 0.79] P=0.021, Fig 1a). Similar to spleen volume reduction, the association between TSS response and OS weakened at more stringent TSS response thresholds (Fig 1c, e), with the BAT arm not showing an association between TSS response and OS at any threshold. (Fig 1b, d, f). In order to assess the relationship of specific TSS domains and survival , a landmark OS analysis was performed based on ≥20% reduction in physical function scores (sum of ‘tiredness’ and 'inactivity'), spleen-related symptom scores (sum of 'abdominal discomfort', ‘early satiety’, and 'left rib pain'), and cytokine-related symptom scores (sum of 'itching', ‘night sweats’, and ‘bone pain‘). For cytokine-related symptoms, the number of deaths in PAC responders was significantly different compared to non-responders, with 0 deaths among 35 responders vs 2 among 15 non-responders ( P=0.0325). Conversely the deaths among responders (2/22) vs non-responders (2/20) were not significantly different in the BAT arm. For the physical function and spleen-related symptom subscales, no significant differences between PAC responders and non-responders was observed (HR=0.60; 95% CI [0.05, 6.74] P=0.679) and (HR=0.26; 95% CI 0.02, 2.93, P=0.2435) respectively. Among 36 patients on PAC who received RBC transfusions at baseline, 7 achieved TI over at least a 12-week period up to the time of the landmark analysis. There were no deaths among TI responders compared to 2 (6.9%) among TI non-responders. There were too few TI responders on BAT (only 2 out of 38) to assess the impact on survival. Conclusion: In cytopenic myelofibrosis patients enrolled in PERSIST-2, having a reduction of TSS≥10% on full-dose PAC was associated with OS benefit - a finding that has not been noted with other JAK inhibitors to date. By contrast, this association was not found with BAT, (82% of these patients received ruxolitinib). Thus, reductions in TSS in patients treated with PAC were associated with an OS benefit. It is possible that pacritinib, with its distinctive mechanism of action, may offer a unique survival advantage for MF patients with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia, and further studies are required to understand the potential mechanisms of these distinct clinical observations. Study funded by CTI BioPharma Corp., a Sobi company.

7018 Background: MF is a life-limiting malignancy characterized by marrow fibrosis, splenomegaly, and progressive cytopenias. JAK2 inhibitors can reduce spleen volume, which is considered a surrogate for disease response. For example, ≥10% SVR on ruxolitinib (RUX) is associated with improved OS among patients with platelet (PLT) counts ≥100×109/L. RUX cannot be administered at full dose in patients with lower PLTs, and it is not known whether the association between SVR and OS persists in such patients. PAC is a JAK1-sparing inhibitor of JAK2/IRAK1/ACVR1 that demonstrated SVR benefit vs BAT (including RUX) in PERSIST-2, which enrolled MF patients with PLTs ≤100×109/L. Here we present a retrospective landmark OS analysis of the relationship between SVR and OS on PERSIST-2. Methods: This analysis includes PERSIST-2 patients who were alive and on study at the start of the 12-week SVR window (study week 10) on PAC 200 mg BID or BAT. Spleen volume was assessed radiographically (MRI or CT). OS was evaluated among SVR responders vs non-responders within each treatment arm using different SVR thresholds (≥35%, ≥20%, ≥10%, > 0%) and a landmark analysis methodology. OS was compared using the log-rank test. Results: Among patients on PAC (n = 89), any SVR ( > 0%) at 12 weeks was significantly associated with improved survival (HR = 0.08 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.51], P = 0.0007). Among all SVR response thresholds, SVR ≥10% demonstrated the greatest separation in OS curves between responders vs. non-responders on PAC, with no deaths on study among 65 responders compared to 5 deaths among 24 non-responders (HR = 0.0 [95% CI: 0.0, 0.14], P < 0.0001). By contrast, SVR did not predict OS benefit on BAT (n = 84), including RUX (n = 39). For example, 11% (3/28) of patients on BAT who achieved SVR ≥10% died compared to a similar number (14%, 8/56) of non-responders (HR = 0.63 [95% CI: 0.17, 2.37], P = 0.49). Of the 28 patients on BAT who achieved SVR ≥10%, 23 (82%) were treated with RUX. Among these 23 patients, most patients were receiving low-dose RUX at the time of the landmark: 78% were on ≤10 mg BID and 43% were on £5 mg BID. By contrast, the median relative dose intensity on PAC was 100% (200 mg BID) through week 12 among both SVR ≥10% responders and non-responders. Conclusions: In MF patients with PLTs ≤100×109/L, achieving SVR on full-dose PAC was associated with significant OS benefit. By contrast, this association was not found with BAT, even though most responders were on RUX, albeit at low doses. As PAC can be given at full dose regardless of PLT count, it is possible that PAC may offer a unique survival advantage for MF patients with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia who achieve spleen reduction. Clinical trial information: NCT02055781 .

Abstract Introduction: Thrombocytopenia, a hallmark of cytopenic myelofibrosis (MF), is associated with poor survival and quality of life impairment. Patients with MF and moderate or severe thrombocytopenia (platelet counts &lt;100x10 9/L, &lt;50x10 9/L) tend to have high symptom burden as measured by the Total Symptom Score (TSS), driven largely by physical functioning symptoms (Mesa R et al, ASH 2021 abstract in submission). Pacritinib, an investigational JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor, was studied in patients with platelet counts ≤100x10 9/L in the PERSIST-2 trial. Unlike the pivotal studies upon which available JAK1/2 inhibitors were approved that relied on a modified TSS version that excluded 'tiredness' from the response analysis, PERSIST-2 included 'tiredness' as part of TSS and found response rates of 25% for pacritinib vs. 14% for best available therapy (BAT), P=0.08. Here, we retrospectively analyzed TSS on PERSIST-2 using the modified scoring system. In addition, we evaluated the impact of pacritinib and BAT, including ruxolitinib, on MF symptoms including 'tiredness' and 'inactivity'. Methods: All PERSIST-2 patients in the intention-to-treat population randomized at least 22 weeks prior to the end of the study were included. PERSIST-2 randomized patients 1:1:1 to pacritinib 200mg BID, pacritinib 400mg daily, or BAT (including ruxolitinib). The modified TSS score was calculated as the sum of individual symptom scores for early satiety, abdominal discomfort, rib pain, night sweats, itching, and bone pain ('tiredness' and 'inactivity' were not included), and response was defined as a ≥50% reduction in score from baseline to week 24. Symptoms were categorized as physical function-related (tiredness, inactivity), spleen-related (satiety, abdominal discomfort, rib pain), or cytokine-related (sweats, itching, bone pain). The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare differences in scores. Results: The analysis included 74 patients randomized to pacritinib 200mg BID and 72 to BAT; an additional 75 were randomized to pacritinib 400mg QD (dose no longer in development). At baseline, 39% had moderate and 46% had severe thrombocytopenia. Ruxolitinib was selected as BAT in 45% of patients with moderate and 38% with severe thrombocytopenia. The co-primary endpoint for the study - TSS response rate in pooled pacritinib arms versus BAT - showed a significant difference using the modified TSS: 30% vs. 14%, P=0.008. Similarly, the modified TSS response rate was higher for patients treated with pacritinib 200mg BID compared to BAT (35% vs. 14%, P=0.004, Figure 1a). Among patients on the BAT arm, modified TSS response rates were modestly higher for patients who received ruxolitinib prior to week 24 (19% [n=6/32]) compared to those who did not (10% [n=4/40]), though both were lower than response rates with pacritinib. Patients on the pacritinib 200mg BID arm experienced greater percentage reductions in individual myelofibrosis symptoms between baseline and week 24 compared to BAT, both in patients with moderate and severe thrombocytopenia (Figure 1b, 1c). For physical function symptoms, severity was reduced more on pacritinib 200mg BID compared to BAT by week 24 (median reduction in tiredness: 30% vs. 13%, P=0.0261; inactivity: 22% vs. 7%, P=0.099). Among patients with severe thrombocytopenia, symptom improvement was minimal on BAT (Figure 1b). Conclusion: The symptom benefit of pacritinib in patients with moderate and severe thrombocytopenia is demonstrated in the PERSIST-2 study. A significant reduction in symptoms was observed in patients treated with pacritinib 200mg BID, the dose being studied in an ongoing Phase 3 trial (PACIFICA), compared to BAT. Furthermore, the modified TSS response rate of 35% in patients treated with pacritinib 200mg BID is comparable to that reported for approved JAK1/2 inhibitors in patients with higher platelet counts, suggesting the potential for pacritinib to address the unmet need of patients with cytopenic myelofibrosis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palmer: CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mesa: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy. Oh: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Constellation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Disc Medicine: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharamaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rampal: Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Stemline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Constellation: Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy; Disc Medicine: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy; Pharmaessentia: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Memorial Sloan Kettering: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy. Buckley: CTI Biopharm: Current Employment. Roman-Torres: CTI Biopharm: Current Employment. Verstovsek: Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy. Mascarenhas: Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merus: Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaEssentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forbius: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prelude: Consultancy; Galecto: Consultancy; CTI Biopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Vannucchi: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kiladjian: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Harrison: Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bose: Novartis: Honoraria; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Astellas: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Craig: CTI BioPharma: Current Employment. Gerds: PharmaEssentia Corporation: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Constellation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract PAC203 is a randomized dose-finding study of pacritinib, an oral JAK2/IRAK1 inhibitor, in patients with advanced myelofibrosis who are intolerant of or resistant to ruxolitinib. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to pacritinib 100 mg once per day, 100 mg twice per day, or 200 mg twice per day. Enhanced eligibility criteria, monitoring, and dose modifications were implemented to mitigate risk of cardiac and hemorrhagic events. Efficacy was based on ≥35% spleen volume response (SVR) and ≥50% reduction in the 7-component total symptom score (TSS) through week 24. Of 161 patients, 73% were intolerant of and 76% had become resistant to ruxolitinib; 50% met criteria for both. Severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count &lt;50 × 103/μL) was present in 44%. SVR rates were highest with 200 mg twice per day (100 mg once per day, 0%; 100 mg twice per day, 1.8%; 200 mg twice per day, 9.3%), particularly among patients with baseline platelet counts &lt;50 × 103/μL (17%; 4 of 24). Although TSS response rate was similar across doses (100 mg once per day, 7.7%; 100 mg twice per day, 7.3%; 200 mg twice per day, 7.4%), median percent reduction in TSS suggested a dose-response relationship (–3%, −16%, and −27%, respectively). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling based on all available data showed greatest SVR and TSS reduction at 200 mg twice per day compared with lower doses. Common adverse events were gastrointestinal events, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. There was no excess of grade ≥3 hemorrhagic or cardiac events at 200 mg twice per day. Pacritinib 200 mg twice per day demonstrated clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile and was selected as the recommended dose for a pivotal phase 3 study in patients with myelofibrosis and severe thrombocytopenia. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03165734.