Martino, Bruno

Abstract Background and purpose of the study: Several reports have documented that histone deacetylase inhibitors induce neoplastic cells to undergo growth arrest, differentiation and/or apoptotic cell death. Among these agents, Givinostat inhibits proliferation of cells bearing the JAK2V617F mutation and has shown clinical significant activity with good tolerability in patients with chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms, including polycythemia vera (PV). In two phase II studies [Rambaldi et al. Br J Haematol 2010;150:446, Finazzi et al. Br J Haematol 2013;161:688] the maximum administered dose (150 mg/day) was generally well tolerated. Assuming a linear relationship between dose and efficacy, greater clinical efficacy could be expected with increased doses of Givinostat. Methods: This is a two-part, multicenter, open label, non-randomized, phase Ib/II study to assess the safety and tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and preliminary efficacy of Givinostat in patients with JAK2V617F positive PV. Part A (i.e. phase Ib) is the dose escalation portion of the study, while Part B assesses the preliminary clinical efficacy of Givinostat at the MTD defined in Part A. Eligible patients for this study include JAK2V617F positive PV patients, who have active and/or uncontrolled disease, defined as: (i) Hematocrit (HCT) ≥ 45% or HCT <45% normalized by phlebotomy, and (ii) PLT > 400 x109/L, and (iii) WBC > 10 x109/L. Study therapy is administered in 28 day cycles (cycle is defined as 4 weeks of treatment). Disease response has been evaluated according to the clinico-haematological European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria [Barosi et al. Blood 2009;113:4829] at Cycles 3 and 6. Disease-related symptoms have been reported directly by the patients who completed the MPN-SAF QoL form. The study lasts up to a maximum of 24 weeks of treatment. However, after completion of the trial, all patients achieving clinical benefit are allowed to continue treatment with Givinostat in a long-term study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01761968). In Part A, the Cycle 1 has been used to define the MTD of Givinostat. Only dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) experienced during Cycle 1 were considered for dose escalation decisions. Part B is the cohort expansion part of the study to assess the preliminary clinical efficacy of Givinostat at the MTD in evaluable patients Results: In Part A, 12 patients with active and/or uncontrolled disease, were treated with Givinostat, 6 patients at DL1 (100 mg b.i.d.), 3 patient at DL6 (150 mg/die) and 3 patients at DL0 (50 mg b.i.d.). Only one DLT .(grade 3 dyspepsia) was observed in the 6 patients treated at DL1 during the Cycle 1. Givinostat treatment was generally well tolerated: one patient developed grade 4 and two patients grade 3 thrombocytopenias at DL1 after the Cycle 1. Complete/partial response was observed in 100% of evaluable patients at Cycle 3 (Figure). At that time, an important reduction of WBC and PLT count (about 50% in both cases), an HCT control without phlebotomy, a net decrease of MPN-SAF total score and JAK2V617F allele burden (about 50% and 30%, respectively) have been noted and generally maintained at Cycle 6. One out of 3 (33%) patients with splenomegaly at baseline normalized the spleen at Cycle 6. PK/PD evaluations are currently under analysis. Part B started on December 2015 and is currently recruiting patients. At the time of ASH Meeting, a presentation of the preliminary results of the interim analysis (IA) is planned. The objective of this IA is to evaluate the response rate of the first 12 treated and evaluable patients. Conclusions: Taking into account the continuous schedule of the drug as prescribed in this current study, the daily dosage of 200 mg has been identified as the MTD of Givinostat in PV patients. Givinostat treatment is generally well tolerated and shows preliminary clinical efficacy in PV patients with an active/uncontrolled disease. Response rate of patients in Part A C3D28 = Cycle 3 Day 28, or three months of treatment. C6D28 = Cycle 6 Day 28, or six months of treatment. Two patients dropped-out the study Part A, due to Informed Consent Form withdrawal, while 1 patient left the study for AE (i.e. grade 3 dyspepsia, DLT). At C3D28, 1 Complete Response (CR) and 8 Partial Response (PR) have been observed. At C6D28, 1 Complete Response (CR), 7 Partial Response (PR) and 1 No Response (NR) have been observed Figure Figure. Disclosures McMullin: Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Mesa:Ariad: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Tibes:Italfarmaco S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bettica:Italfarmaco S.p.A.: Employment. DI Tollo:Italfarmaco S.p.A.: Employment.

Abstract Background: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by erythrocytosis, thrombocytosis, and/or leukocytosis and a broad range of disease-related symptoms. In high-risk patients, the most common first-line treatment is hydroxyurea (HU). The open-label RESPONSE trial demonstrated that ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, provided superior efficacy compared with best available therapy in patients with PV who were resistant to or intolerant of HU according to modified European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria. This study (RELIEF) was conducted in patients receiving a stable dose of HU and who were generally well controlled but reporting disease-associated symptoms, comparing the change in PV-related symptom burden in patients continuing their HU therapy with those switching to RUX treatment. Methods: RELIEF was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3b study of patients with PV aged ≥18 years on a stable dose of HU monotherapy and reporting PV-related symptoms. Patients were required to be receiving HU for ≥12 weeks prior to enrollment and on the same dose level for the last 4 weeks, and have a score ≥8 on the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) cytokine total symptom score (TSS-C). The TSS-C comprised symptoms of itching, tiredness, muscle ache, night sweats, and sweats while awake; each symptom was rated on a scale of 0=absent to 10=worst imaginable, with a maximum TSS-C score of 50. Patients also had to meet one of the following: ≤1 phlebotomy in the previous 6 months or no palpable splenomegaly. Those eligible were randomized 1:1 to receive RUX 10 mg BID and HU-placebo, or HU at the same dose/schedule and RUX-placebo. Dose adjustments were permitted for safety and efficacy. After Week 16, patients could receive open-label RUX until Week 48. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in TSS-C at Week 16; secondary endpoints included proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in individual TSS-C symptoms and safety. Results: Overall, 54 and 56 patients were randomized to RUX and HU, respectively; 87.0% and 89.3% remained on treatment through Week 16. At baseline, the median age (range) was 64 (36-87) in the RUX group and 66 (19-85) in the HU group; 44% and 61% were men. The majority of patients in the RUX and HU groups did not have baseline platelet counts or WBC above ELN thresholds: platelets >400 and ≤600 x 109/L (RUX 31.5%, HU 28.6%), >600 x 109/L (3.7%, 8.9%); WBC >10 and ≤15 x 109/L (16.7%, 16.1%), >15 x 109/L (11.1%, 14.3%). In the RUX and HU groups, the mean TSS-C at screening (22.4, 23.1) was higher than that at baseline (16.7, 18.0); the ratio of screening to baseline TSS-C was 1.7 and 1.6. The proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction from baseline in TSS-C at Week 16 (primary endpoint) was 43.4% in the RUX group and 29.6% in the HU group (P=0.139; OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.82-4.04). The proportions of patients in the RUX vs HU groups achieving a ≥50% reduction in scores for itching and tiredness at Week 16 were 40.0% vs 26.4% and 54.2% vs 32.0%, respectively. Median percentage changes in individual TSS-C symptoms are shown in Table 1. Additional analyses found no correlation between individual changes in HU dose from baseline to Weeks 13-16 and percentage change in TSS-C in the HU arm (r2=0.030). Even patients maintaining the same HU dose from prior to study entry through Week 16 reported symptom improvement: 12/35 (34.3%) with no dose change, 4/12 (33.3%) with a dose increase, and 0/9 (0%) with a dose decrease had a ≥50% reduction in TSS-C. The most common nonhematologic adverse events in the RUX arm on randomized treatment were fatigue (20.4% RUX vs 10.7% HU), headache (16.7% vs 5.4%), and dizziness (13.0% vs 8.9%). The most common adverse events on HU were diarrhea (9.3% RUX vs 19.6% HU) and constipation (7.4% vs 12.5%); most events were grade 1 or 2. Grade 3 or 4 anemia or thrombocytopenia (lab values) were not reported in the RUX group; two patients in the RUX group had grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Conclusion: In generally well controlled PV patients receiving a stable dose of HU, there was a positive trend in symptom improvement for patients switched to RUX therapy versus those continuing on HU therapy, although this was not statistically significant. The 34% response rate among patients who continued to receive a stable HU dose suggests a placebo effect that led to an underpowered study. Further analyses are required to better interpret these findings. Disclosures Off Label Use: Ruxolitinib is a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yacoub:Alexion Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Koschmieder:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Byrne:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Hunter:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jones:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Morozov:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership.

SummaryThe randomized, double‐blind, double‐dummy, phase 3b RELIEF trial evaluated polycythaemia vera (PV)‐related symptoms in patients who were well controlled with a stable dose of hydroxycarbamide (also termed hydroxyurea) but reported PV‐related symptoms. Patients were randomized 1:1 to ruxolitinib 10 mg BID (n = 54) or hydroxycarbamide (prerandomization dose/schedule; n = 56); crossover to ruxolitinib was permitted after Week 16. The primary endpoint, ≥50% improvement from baseline in myeloproliferative neoplasm ‐symptom assessment form total symptom score cytokine symptom cluster (TSS‐C; sum of tiredness, itching, muscle aches, night sweats, and sweats while awake) at Week 16, was achieved by 43·4% vs. 29·6% of ruxolitinib‐ and hydroxycarbamide‐treated patients, respectively (odds ratio, 1·82; 95% confidence interval, 0·82–4·04; P = 0·139). The primary endpoint was achieved by 34% of a subgroup who maintained their hydroxycarbamide dose from baseline to Weeks 13–16. In a post hoc analysis, the primary endpoint was achieved by more patients with stable screening‐to‐baseline TSS‐C scores (ratio ≤ 2) receiving ruxolitinib than hydroxycarbamide (47·4% vs. 25·0%; P = 0·0346). Ruxolitinib treatment after unblinding was associated with continued symptom score improvements. Adverse events were primarily grades 1/2 with no unexpected safety signals. Ruxolitinib was associated with a nonsignificant trend towards improved PV‐related symptoms versus hydroxycarbamide, although an unexpectedly large proportion of patients who maintained their hydroxycarbamide dose reported symptom improvement.