Updated results from MOMENTUM: Momelotinib vs. Danazol in JAK inhibitor-experienced, symptomatic, and anaemic myelofibrosis patients

The phase 3 MOMENTUM study (NCT04173494) of the ACVR1/JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor momelotinib (MMB) vs. danazol (DAN) in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) previously treated with a JAK inhibitor (JAKi) met the primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints at week 24 (W24). We provide updated results from week 48 assessments. Eligible patients had primary or post-ET/ PV MF;DIPSS high, Int-2, or Int-1 risk;Total Symptom Score (TSS) >=10;haemoglobin (Hb) <10 g/dL;platelets >=25 x 109/L;prior JAKi for >=90 days (>=28 days if red blood cell [RBC] transfusions >=4 units in 8 weeks or grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia/anaemia/ hematoma);and palpable spleen >=5 cm. Randomisation was 2:1 to MMB 200 mg/day or DAN 600 mg/day for 24 weeks, followed by open-label (OL) MMB. Week 48 endpoints included durations of response (TSS, transfusion independence [TI], splenic) and overall and leukaemia-free survival (OS, LFS). As of 17 May 2022, 93/130 (72%) MMB -> MMB and 41/65 (63%) DAN -> MMB patients received OL MMB;mean MMB durations were 48 weeks and 24 weeks, respectively. Analyses for W24 responders showed the following: of TSS responders, 31/32 (97%) MMB -> MMB and 6/6 DAN -> MMB patients had TSS < baseline;of TI responders, 36/40 (90%) and 10/13 (77%) had no RBC transfusions or Hb <8 g/dL;and of spleen responders, all patients had splenic volume < baseline. In the OL phase, the most common grade >=3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were thrombocytopenia (MMB -> MMB, 9%;DAN -> MMB, 15%) and anaemia (MMB -> MMB, 9%;DAN -> MMB, 2%). Grade >=3 infections occurred in 19% of MMB -> MMB and 10% of DAN -> MMB patients, including grade >=3 (nonfatal) COVID-19. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) occurred in 2% of patients in each arm, and none discontinued MMB due to PN. TEAEs led to MMB discontinuation in 18% (MMB -> MMB) vs. 10% (DAN -> MMB). A trend towards improved OS up to W24 was previously observed with MMB vs. DAN (hazard ratio [HR], 0.506;p = 0.0719);after all patients crossed over to OL MMB, OS and LFS curves for both arms converged (HR, 0.945, 95% CI, 0.528-1.693;HR, 0.830, 95% CI, 0.473-1.4555). Sixty of 81 (74%) MMB -> MMB and 29 of 43 (67%) DAN -> MMB patients with baseline platelets <=150 x 109/L entered the OL phase. Efficacy and safety results in thrombocytopenic subgroups in the OL period were consistent with the intent-to- treat (ITT) population. OL MMB maintained symptom, TI, and spleen responses with continued good survival and safety in the ITT and low platelet populations. MMB may address an unmet need in anaemic patients with MF.

Second versus first wave of covid-19 in patients with mpn

Introduction. MPN-COVID is a European LeukemiaNet cohort study, launched in March 2020 in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) with COVID-19. The first cohort of 175 cases was analyzed at the end of first wave (July 2020) and results provided estimates and risk factors of overall mortality (Barbui T. Leukemia, 2021), thrombosis incidence (Barbui T. Blood Cancer J, 2021), and post-COVID outcomes (Barbui T. Blood Cancer J, 2021). In the second wave of pandemic (June 2020 to June 2021), case-fatality risk in the general population has been found variable across different countries, and no information is available in MPN patients with COVID-19 diagnosed during the second wave in comparison with those of the first wave. Methods. In an electronic case report form, we registered a total of 479 cases of ET (n=161, 34%), PV (n=135, 28%), pre-PMF (n=49, 10%) and overt MF (n=134, 28%), from 39 European hematology units (Italy, Spain, Germany, France, UK, Poland, Croatia). Of these, 304 were diagnosed COVID-19 during the second wave. Results. Patients in the second wave were significantly different from those in the first wave, including parameters such as age (median: 63 vs. 71 years, p<.001), sex (females: 52% vs. 42%, p=0.037), MPN category (MF 24% vs. 34%, p=0.020), comorbidity (at least one comorbidity 63% vs. 74%, p=0.012), disposition (home: 68% vs. 23%, regular ward: 29% vs. 66%, ICU: 3% vs. 11%, p<.001), need of respiratory support (28% vs. 59%, p<.001) and degree of systemic inflammation (C-Reactive Protein: 51% vs. 74%, p=0.008;Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio: 4.1 vs. 5.4, p=0.038). In regard to COVID-19-directed therapy, in the second wave steroids were more frequently prescribed (28% vs. 40%, p=0.007), while the use of antibiotics, antivirals, hydroxychloroquine and experimental therapies was significantly less frequent (p<.001 for all the differences). Interestingly, only 4 out of 46 patients (8.7%) discontinued Ruxolitinib during second-wave acute COVID (all MF admitted to regular ward). In the two waves, distribution probability of COVID-19 incidence by Kernel method showed a substantially similar shape, whereas the two incidence peaks were associated with very different mortality, as reported in Fig. 1A. The difference between the probability of death was highly significant during the first (n=175) vs. second (n=304): 31% vs. 9% at 60 days from COVID-19 diagnosis, respectively (p<.001) (Fig. 1B). Of note, among 26 deaths, 4 (15%) occurred at home, 19 (73%) on regular wards and 3 (12%) in the ICU, and death more frequently afflicted patients with (n=17, 65%) than ET (n=5, 19%) and PV (n=4. 15%) (p<.001). Independent risk factors for death in a multivariate Cox regression model fitted on the whole cohort and adjusted for the wave to which patients belonged, were age over 70 years (HR=5.2, 95% CI 1.8-15.1, p=0.002), male sex (HR=1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.1, p=0.016), COVID-19 severity revealed by the need for respiratory support (HR=4.5, 95% CI 1.9-10.7, p=0.001), and Ruxolitinib discontinuation (HR=3.0, 95% CI 1.3-6.9, p=0.011). Conversely, in patients who continued this drug, no risk was documented (HR=1.21, p=0.566). Taking into account death as competing event, the second outcome of interest was the incidence of thrombosis, wich occurred in a significantly lower proportion of patients in the second wave compared to the first one (n=5 [1.6%] vs. n=14 [8.0%] at +60 days, respectively, SHR=0.20, p=0.002) (Fig. 1C). All the events, but one (n=4/5) were venous and were reported in patients with ET (SHR=4.4, 95% CI 1.8-10.7, p=0.001). Conclusions. This is the largest series of MPN patients who incurred COVID-19 from June 2020 onward, namely during the 'second COVID-19 wave'. Compared to the first wave, the second one recorded a lower overall COVID-19 severity, but Ruxolitinib discontinuation still remained a risk factor for a dismal outcome. Greater vulnerability of ET than PV in developing venous thrombosis was confirmed also during the second wave. This finding suggests that ET warrants a specific antithrombo ic prophylaxis in addition to heparin.

Managing hematological cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ESMO-EHA Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for the clinical management of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), raising questions about the optimal care of this patient group. METHODS: This consensus manuscript aims at discussing clinical evidence and providing expert advice on statements related to the management of HMs in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, an international consortium was established including a steering committee, which prepared six working packages addressing significant clinical questions from the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and mitigation strategies to specific HMs management in the pandemic. During a virtual consensus meeting, including global experts and lead by the European Society for Medical Oncology and the European Hematology Association, statements were discussed and voted upon. When a consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements to develop consensual clinical guidance. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The expert panel agreed on 33 statements, reflecting a consensus, which will guide clinical decision making for patients with hematological neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Long-term follow-up of recovered mpn patients with covid-19

To our knowledge, there is no information on long-term follow-up of recovered patients with chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) with COVID-19. It can be hypothesized that cytokine storm of the acute phase and the post-COVID persistence of a residual inflammatory state may contribute to elicit hematopoietic stem cell insults and continuous vascular endothelial damage, leading to MPN disease progression and persistent high risk of thrombosis. Aims: To describe sequelae of COVID-19 in surviving patients with MPN following COVID-19. Methods: MPN-COVID study involved 38 European blood centers, and accrued 180 patients with MPN diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb to Jun 2020, assessing mortality and incidence of thrombosis and bleeding during the acute phase of the pandemic [Barbui T et al. Leukemia. 2021;35(2):485-493. Barbui T et al. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11(2):21]. One-hundred-twenty-five (69%) of these patients survived and were followed up for at least 6 months. Centers were asked to update symptoms, treatments, hematological changes, major outcomes (i.e., thrombosis, disease evolution and death). Results: Among the 125 surviving patients, all eligible for the follow-up update, with a median age 70 years (IQR: 58-79), the following phenotypes were registered: PV (n=38, 30%), ET (n=37, 30%), early PMF (n=14, 11%) and MF (n=36, 29%). During the acute phase of infection, 38 (30%) were managed at home, 80 (64%) in a regular ward and 7 (6%) in ICU. Symptoms (i)The 3 prevalent symptoms during the acute phase of the disease were fever (79%), cough (56%) and dyspnea (53%), while gastrointestinal, neurological, musculoskeletal symptoms, as well as fatigue and anosmia/ dysgeusia, were present in a minor proportion, ranging from 1.6% to 17%. (ii) In the post-acute COVID-19 phase, 36 of 125 patients (32%) declared the persistence of some of these symptoms, fatigue being the most frequent (19%), while none presented persistence of fever and only 10% of dyspnea. Major outcomes (i) Major thrombosis was documented in 5 patients and involved 3 patients with MF (one fatal intestinal ischemia, two non-fatal events: splenic infarction and peripheral artery thrombosis), one case in PV (acute myocardial infarction) and one with ET (DVT of the legs with pulmonary embolism). Age varied from 61 to 80 years. The first event occurred five months after COVID-19 recovery and the Kaplan Meier thrombosis-free survival probability after 9 months was 82%. (ii) Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) was ascertained in 3 patients (1 in MF, 1 in early-PMF, 1 in ET);one was fatal and occurred in a 49-yearold patient, the other 2 in 78- and 82-year-old patients, respectively. One non-Hodgkin′s lymphoma (in ET) and one progression of a previous parotid carcinoma (in MF) were seen in two patients aged 60 and 77 years, respectively. (iii) Deaths were reported in 8 patients (6.4%), due to AML (n=1), thrombosis (n=1), progression to prior carcinoma (n=2, 1 suspected), multi organ failure (n=1) and heart failure (n=2);the cause was unknown in a single patient. Five deaths (63%) occurred in MF patients. (iv) Overall, the event-free survival pooling together thrombosis, disease evolution and death reached 66% after 9 months from COVID- 19 recovery, indicating that, during this time of observation, 1 out of 3 patients died or have experienced at least one of the other two severe events. Summary/Conclusion: These results indicate that MPN patients who have survived SARS-CoV-2 infection continue to experience severe events suggesting an increased vigilance in the post-COVID period.