Efficacy, Safety, and Survival Findings after Long-Term Follow-up from ZGJAK002, a Phase 2 Study Comparing Jaktinib 100 Mg Twice Daily with 200 Mg Once Daily for Myelofibrosis (MF)

Yi Zhang,Hu Zhou,Zhongxing Jiang,Dengshu Wu,Junling Zhuang,Wei Li,Qian Jiang,Xiuli Wang,Jinwen Huang,Huanling Zhu,Linhua Yang,Xin Du,Fei Li,Ruixiang Xia,Feng Zhang,Jianda Hu,Yan Li,Yu Hu,Jing Liu,Chenghao Jin,Kai Sun,Zeping Zhou,Shanshan Suo,Wenjuan Yu,Jie Jin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-179043
IF: 13.265
2024-01-01
American Journal of Hematology
Abstract:Jaktinib, a novel JAK and ACVR1 inhibitor, has exhibited promising results in treating patients with myelofibrosis (MF). ZGJAK002 is a Phase 2 trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of jaktinib 100 mg BID (N = 66) and 200 mg QD (N = 52) in JAK inhibitor-naive patients with intermediate- or high-risk MF. We herein present the long-term data with a median follow-up of 30.7 months. At data cutoff, 30.3% of patients in 100 mg BID and 28.8% in 200 mg QD were still continuing their treatment. The 100 mg BID group displayed a numerically higher best spleen response compared with the 200 mg QD group (69.7% vs. 46.2%), with 50.4% from the BID and 51.2% from the QD group maintaining spleen responses over 120 weeks. The 36-month survival rates were 78.2% in BID and 73.6% in QD group. The tolerability of jaktinib remained well, and common grade ≥3 adverse drug reactions included anemia (15.2% vs. 21.2%), thrombocytopenia (15.2% vs. 11.5%), and infectious pneumonia (10.6% vs. 1.9%) in BID and QD groups, respectively. By comparing the two groups, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) were similar, except for drug-related serious AEs (24.2% vs. 9.6%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (15.2% vs. 7.7%), which were higher in BID group. The percentages of AEs resulting in death were comparable, with 6.1% in BID and 5.8% in QD group. These analyses further support the long-term durable efficacy and acceptable safety of jaktinib at 100 mg BID and 200 mg QD doses for treating MF.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?