Mead, Adam J.

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.

Abstract The goal of therapy for patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV) is to reduce thrombotic events by normalizing blood counts. Hydroxyurea (HU) and interferon-α (IFN-α) are the most frequently used cytoreductive options for patients with ET and PV at high risk for vascular complications. Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium 112 was an investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial comparing HU to pegylated IFN-α (PEG) in treatment-naïve, high-risk patients with ET/PV. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate at 12 months. A total of 168 patients were treated for a median of 81.0 weeks. CR for HU was 37% and 35% for PEG (P = .80) at 12 months. At 24 to 36 months, CR was 20% to 17% for HU and 29% to 33% for PEG. PEG led to a greater reduction in JAK2V617F at 24 months, but histopathologic responses were more frequent with HU. Thrombotic events and disease progression were infrequent in both arms, whereas grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with PEG (46% vs 28%). At 12 months of treatment, there was no significant difference in CR rates between HU and PEG. This study indicates that PEG and HU are both effective treatments for PV and ET. With longer treatment, PEG was more effective in normalizing blood counts and reducing driver mutation burden, whereas HU produced more histopathologic responses. Despite these differences, both agents did not differ in limiting thrombotic events and disease progression in high-risk patients with ET/PV. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01259856.

Abstract MAJIC is a phase II trial of Ruxolitinib (RUX) vs Best Available Therapy (BAT) in polycythemia vera (PV) patients with resistance/intolerance to Hydroxycarbamide (HC). This analysis involved a primary comparison between the RUX and BAT arms for quality of life (QOL) durability over 60 months, with secondary comparisons of best QOL response within first year in complete hematologic responders (CR) vs a group of partial or no response (NR/PR). This is a unique analysis due to cross-over nature of prior studies. Patients were stratified by treatment arm with either RUX or BAT. QOL was assessed over 0-60 months using the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF). MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) was computed as the average of all completed items multiplied by 10 (scale 0-100, higher score represents higher symptom burden). Estimates of change from baseline and between arm differences in change by timepoint were made using a linear mixed model with compound symmetry covariance structure, which included covariates for categorical time point, treatment arm, and the interaction between time point and treatment arm. The difference between arms in proportion of patients with best post-baseline TSS response of 50% or greater was testing using a Chi-square test. In this study, 147 of the 190 trial patients had started treatment and completed at least their baseline assessment and were included in the analysis with 39 patients completing through 60 months. Groups were comprised of 76 patients in the RUX group (31 females, 45 males, mean age 64.2 [SD 11.4]) and 71 patients in the BAT group (29 females, 42 males, mean age 64.6 [SD 11.5]). Symptom scores at baseline were similar between arms, with MPN-SAF weight loss the only statistically significant difference (BAT 0.7 [SD 1.71] vs RUX 1.7 [SD 2.83], p=0.02). Significant, durable improvements in TSS were noted in RUX patients with symptom improvements lasting a mean of 52 months. BAT patients experienced a worsening of their symptom burden with improvements back to baseline notable at 56 months (Figure 1). MPN-SAF TSS there were significant differences between treatment arms in change from baseline to months 2-32, 44, and 48 (all p&lt;0.05). In all months the trend was in the direction of larger improvement in the RUX arm, with the point estimate for difference ranging from 2.1 (at month 56) to 11.3 (at month 4) with most prominent changes occurring between months 2 and 32. Of the 80 patients with MPN-SAF TSS scores at baseline and at least one post-baseline timepoint, 13/41 (31.7%) BAT and 24/39 (61.5%) RUX patients had TSS reduction of 50% or greater in at least one time point, which was statistically significant (p=0.008). In regard to specific symptoms, there was a statistically significant between arm difference seen in over 5 timepoints for fatigue, early satiety, night-sweats, itching, bone pain, and weight loss. Comparing MPN-SAF TSS in Complete Response (CR n=51) vs Non-Responder/Partial Responders (NR/PR) (n=96) there was no difference at baseline in any of the measures at any time point. A possible limitation of this study is the potential for bias in which the patients who were lost to follow up could be different then the patients who remained in the study through all 60 months which would affect generalization, particularly at time points at the later years. The novel findings of this investigation demonstrate that Ruxolitinib ameliorates the PV symptom burden in patients resistant or intolerant to HC in a robust durable manner over at least four years, while patients receiving BAT have worsening of their symptom burden over this same time period. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yap: Celgene: Honoraria; Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: Novartis: 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; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: 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; BMS: 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; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Galacteo: 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; Roche: 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; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: 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; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) polycythaemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythaemia (ET) are associated with significant symptom burden with impaired quality of life (QoL). In the MAJIC study patients refractory/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC), were randomised to treatment with ruxolitinib (Rux) or best available therapy (BAT). In this unique and comprehensive analysis we explore quality of life (QoL) outcomes in the MAJIC study using the MPN10 Self-Assessment Form (SAF) in particular using this unique dataset to explore for the first time differences between JAK2 ET vs PV, and JAK2 ET vs CALR ET at baseline and 12 months of therapy with Rux or BAT. Methods 306 patients were randomised, (190, PV and 116 ET arm) and followed for 5 years, no cross over was permitted. MPN10 SAF was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 8 and 12 months in both arms. Equal variance two sample t-tests were used to test differences between diagnosis groups (JAK2 ET vs PV & JAK2 ET vs CALR ET) in baseline scores and 12-month change from baseline scores, here negative change from baseline indicates improvement. QoL data was also collected using MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI) and 5 level EQ5D at the same time points as the MPN10 SAF. Results JAK2 ET vs PV 110 participants with JAK2 mutation were included in the analysis for JAK2 ET vs PV. 81 (74%) had PV and 29 (26%) had JAK2 ET; 44 patients (54.3%) with PV and 18 (62.1%) patients with ET were randomised to Rux, and 37 (45.6%) patients with PV and 11 (37.9%) with ET to BAT. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9. SD 18.4 and PV: 23.7, SD 17.81 (p=0.27). Mean for pruritus was 1.9 (SD 2.47) in JAK2 ET and 3.5 (SD 2.99) in PV (p=0.03). Other baseline scores were comparable: mean scores for fatigue was 3.3 (SD 3.07) for JAK2 ET vs 4.7 (SD 2.68) for PV, for early satiety was 2.6 (SD 2.78) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.40) for PV, for abdominal discomfort 3.0 (SD 3.34) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.78) for PV, for inactivity was 2.4 (SD 2.86) for JAK2 ET vs 3.2 (SD 2.72) for PV; for concentration problems was 2.2 (SD 2.51) for JAK2 ET vs 2.9 (SD 3.11) for PV, for night sweats was 1.6 (SD 2.20) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.66) for PV, for bone pain was 1.8 (SD 2.97) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.86) for PV, for fever was 0.5 (SD 1.46) for JAK2 ET vs 0.5 (SD 1.70) for PV and for weight loss was 0.3 (SD 0.73) for JAK2 ET vs 1.0 (SD 2.15) for PV (p&gt;0.05 for all). Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET (n=21) vs -0.8 (SD 13.32) for PV (n=66) (P=0.93). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P&gt;0.05 for all parameters). (Fig 1, top panels). CALR vs JAK2 ET Exploring symptoms for CALR vs JAK2 ET: 45 patients were included; 9/16 (56.3%) CALR and 18/29 (62.1%) JAK2 patients were assigned to Rux (p=0.70). 10/16 (62.5%) CALR ET and 19/29 (65.5%) JAK2 ET. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9, SD 18.4 and CALR ET: 18.8, SD 16.99 (p=0. 0.98). All other baseline scores were comparable in this intolerant/ refractory population (p&gt;0.05 for all. Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET vs -2.8 (SD 9.96) for CALR ET (P=0.56). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P&gt;0.05 for all parameters); the mean change in night sweats approached but did not reach significance similar (JAK2 ET: 0.2 (SD 1.89) and CALR ET: 1.8 (SD 3.07) (p=0. 0.06). (Fig 1, lower panels). Preliminary analysis of the MDASI and EQ5D-5L data at baseline and at 12 months shows similar results and will be presented. Conclusion This first analysis of its kind compared the symptom burden and other parameters of QoL of patients with PV and ET, resistant/intolerant to HC shows that with the exception of pruritus at baseline there were no substantial differences between JAK2 ET or PV. Equally changes in symptom burden across 12 months did not substantially differ between JAK2 ET or PV. A second analysis of JAK2 vs CALR ET also failed to show substantial differences. This data should be expanded in a larger cohort but supports a symptom continuum of JAK2 ET and PV and also JAK2 vs CALR ET. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yap: Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. McMullin: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: 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: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Promedior: 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; Gilead Sciences: 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; BMS: 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; Janssen: 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; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

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.

Myelofibrosis (MF) is characterized by progressive bone marrow (BM) fibrosis resulting from aberrant megakaryopoeisis and expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines. These two processes, heavily influenced by bromodomain and extraterminal domain (BET)-mediated gene regulation, lead to myeloproliferation and cytopenias. CPI-0610 is a potent, selective and unique BET inhibitor under investigation in MF patients as monotherapy or in combination with ruxolitinib in the MANIFEST trial (NCT02158858). In ruxolitinib naïve and experienced MF patients, treatment with CPI-0610 monotherapy or in combination with ruxolitinib not only reduced spleen volume and symptoms, but also improved hemoglobin levels and overcame transfusion dependency in a subset of patients. To evaluate the effects of CPI-0610 on BM biology, correlative analyses were conducted using patient samples collected from the MANIFEST trial. Pre-treatment and post-treatment BM biopsy samples were available from 78 evaluable patients, with reticulin staining conducted and evaluated by local pathologists available for 34 pre-treatment and 24-week post-treatment pairs of BM biopsy samples. Improvement in reticulin staining of at least one grade was observed in 32% (11/34) of patients. Central pathology review of reticulin staining is ongoing and will be presented. Additional bone marrow biopsy pairs collected pre-treatment and 24-week post-treatment for exploratory histopathological assessments were available from a total of 23 unselected MANIFEST patients at the time of the abstract submission. To assess changes in erythroid and megakaryocytic lineages, H&E and immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining of CD71 and CD61 were conducted centrally. Semi-quantitative analysis revealed an overt increase in erythroid lineage formation in 61% (14/23) of patients. Patients with CD71 improvement in BM IHC generally showed a greater increase in median hemoglobin levels than those without improvement. Tight clusters of megakaryocytes (MK), characteristic in MF BM, were observed at baseline in all cases and were decreased/absent after treatment in 52% (12/23) patients. In addition, decreased MK number to &lt;5/high powered field was also observed in 39% (9/23) of patients. Overall improvement in MK histotopography was observed in 65% of patients (15/23). Central histopathology review with IHC staining, including reticulin staining, will be conducted on additional samples and will be available for presentation at the conference. To further dissect the underlying mechanism of these relative improvements in bone marrow composition and histotopography induced by CPI-0610, CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells were isolated from peripheral blood collected from multiple MF patients at baseline to evaluate the impact of CPI-0610 on MK and erythroid differentiation in vitro. When CD34+ cells from MF patients were treated with CPI-0610 in erythroid differentiation conditions in the presence of SCF, IL3 and EPO, a dose-dependent increase in more mature erythroid cell populations was observed. However, under the same conditions, ruxolitinib suppressed erythroid differentiation, which is consistent with ruxolitinib inhibition of EPO signaling and the anemia caused by ruxolitinib treatment in MF patients. Suppressive effects of ruxolitinib on erythroid differentiation were partially rescued by CPI-0610 in a dose-dependent manner. CPI-0610 treatment of CD34+ cells from MF patients in MK differentiating conditions in the presence of SCF, IL6, IL9 and TPO resulted in a dose-dependent decrease in proliferation of CD34+ cells and an increase in the ratio of late MK (CD34-/CD41a+/CD42b+) and early MK (CD34+/CD41a+/CD42b+). This CPI-0610-induced dose-dependent maturation of aberrant immature MK cells may play a role in reducing MF disease manifestations. Molecular studies to further our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of CPI-0610 treatment are ongoing. Taken together, these paired BM biopsy and in vitro myeloid maturation results demonstrated an effect of CPI-0610 in promoting erythroid and MK differentiation. These results may partially explain CPI-0610's clinical effects in MF patients, including rising hemoglobin, reduced transfusion dependency and reduction in spleen volume and symptoms. Disclosures Mertz: Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Keller:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Meyer:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zavidij:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cui:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Verstovsek:Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Gupta:Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Talpaz:IMAGO: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding. Harrison:Promedior: Honoraria; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma Corp: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria. Mead:CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Mesa:Novartis: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Senderowicz:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Puma Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Colak:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shao:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Luptakova:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Humphrey:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Trojer:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Introduction: MF is a clonal stem cell disorder characterized by progressive bone marrow failure, extramedullary hematopoiesis, and debilitating constitutional symptoms. Approximately 60% of pts develop anemia within a year of diagnosis; pts who are transfusion dependent have worse survival and quality-of-life outcomes (Tefferi A, et al. Mayo Clin Proc 2012;87:25-33). Treatment for MF-associated anemia remains critically unaddressed, with no approved therapies available. Luspatercept is a first-in-class erythroid maturation agent that has been shown to increase hemoglobin and reduce transfusion burden in pts with myelodysplastic syndromes (Fenaux P, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;382:140-51) and β-thalassemia (Cappellini MD, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1219-31). Pts have also achieved multiple response episodes with luspatercept (Fenaux P, et al. Blood 2019;134:841). We previously reported findings from the ongoing open-label, phase 2 ACE-536-MF-001 trial evaluating luspatercept in pts with MF-associated anemia (Gerds AT, et al. Blood 2019;134:557). Here we report updated study results, focusing on response in pts requiring RBC transfusions. Methods: 79 pts with MF and anemia were enrolled (Figure). Of these, 43 were requiring RBC transfusions, defined as 6-12 U/84 d prior to treatment, or 4-12 U/84 d for the 3 expansion cohort pts. Pts in Cohort 3B received a stable ruxolitinib (RUX) dose for ≥ 16 wks (40 wks for expansion cohort pts), whereas Cohort 2 pts did not (Figure). Pts in Cohort 3B received a median RUX dose of 20 mg/d (range 5-40) for a median of 73 wks (range 29-359) prior to treatment. Pts received luspatercept every 21 d at a starting dose of 1.0 mg/kg (1.33 mg/kg for 3 expansion cohort pts in Cohort 3B), with doses escalating up to 1.75 mg/kg; 81% and 50% of pts in Cohorts 2 and 3B escalated to 1.75 mg/kg. Primary endpoint for pts receiving transfusions was RBC transfusion-independence (RBC-TI) for ≥ 12 consecutive wks within the first 24 wks on study. However, as responses were observed that did not fall within the 24-wk response window, additional assessments were conducted for the entire treatment duration for RBC-TI and ≥ 50% decrease in RBC transfusions (minimum 4 RBC U decrease) from baseline. Intent-to-treat data were analyzed as of March 29, 2020. Results: Pts in Cohorts 2 and 3B received a median of 8 cycles of luspatercept (range 1-39), for a median (mean) duration of 24 (31) and 23 (39) wks, respectively. Pts in Cohorts 2 and 3B received a median of 2.7 RBC U/28 d (range 1-5) and 2.7 RBC U/28 d (range 2-4), respectively. For the primary endpoint, 2/21 (10%) and 6/22 (27%) pts receiving transfusions in Cohorts 2 and 3B achieved RBC-TI over any consecutive 12 wks during the first 24 wks. Median time to start of first RBC-TI response period in Cohorts 2 and 3B was 1.5 days and 37 days; median duration of response was 49 wks (range 16-82) and 42 wks (range 12-111), respectively. When assessing the entire treatment period, 4/21 (19%) and 8/22 (36%) pts in Cohorts 2 and 3B achieved RBC-TI ≥ 12 wks, respectively. 25% of the RBC-TI responders in both cohorts experienced 2 separate episodes of RBC-TI ≥ 12 wks. Median cumulative duration of all individual ≥ 12-wk response episodes of RBC-TI was 59 wks (range 24-82) in Cohort 2 and 55 wks (range 12-116) in Cohort 3B. 8/21 (38%) and 10/22 (46%) pts in Cohorts 2 and 3B achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in RBC transfusion burden (minimum ≥ 4 U reduction) over 12 wks; of these, 38% and 20% of responders in Cohorts 2 and 3B experienced 2 separate ≥ 12-wk response episodes, and 1 pt (13%) in Cohort 2 experienced 3 separate responses. 4/15 (27%) and 8/14 (57%) pts in Cohorts 2 and 3B who reached 24 wks of treatment achieved clinical benefit and therefore continued luspatercept on an ongoing basis. Safety is reported for all 79 pts on study. 5 (6%) pts had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs); these AEs were diarrhea (n = 2), dehydration (n = 1), and hypertension (n = 3). There were no treatment-related deaths. Treatment-related AEs (any grade) occurring in ≥ 5% of pts were hypertension (13%), bone pain (9%), and diarrhea (5%). 8 (10%) pts had ≥ 1 AE leading to discontinuation. 16 (20%) pts remain on treatment. Conclusions: These longer-term findings suggest durable activity of luspatercept in pts with MF-associated anemia. In addition, a quarter of pts receiving transfusions achieved more than one ≥ 12-wk episode of RBC-TI response with luspatercept. The incidence of grade 3-4 AEs with luspatercept was low. Disclosures Gerds: Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Blueprint: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Passamonti:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Kremyanskaya:Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Gotlib:CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. McCaul:BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Ribrag:argenX: Research Funding; pharmamar: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; servier: Consultancy; nanostring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AZD: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Infinity: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; gustave roussy comprehensive cancer center: Current Employment; EPZ: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; epizyme (EPZ): Research Funding. Mead:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Harrison:Roche: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma Corp: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria. Mesa:Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding. Kiladjian:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Barosi:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Gerike:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shetty:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Pariseau:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Miranda:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Schwickart:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Giuseppi:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhang:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Backstrom:Acceleron Pharma: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; BMS: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Verstovsek:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding.

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.