Active clinical trials for "Primary Myelofibrosis"

The purpose of this Phase 3 study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Luspatercept compared with placebo in subjects with myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN)-associated Myelofibrosis (MF) and anemia on concomitant Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitor therapy and who require red blood cell count (RBC) transfusions. The study is divided into Screening Period, a Treatment Phase (consisting of a Blinded Core Treatment Period, a Day 169 Response Assessment, a Blinded Extension Treatment Period, and an Open-label Extension Treatment Period), and a Posttreatment Follow-up Period. Following the Day 169 Response Assessment, subjects who did not show clinical benefit will have the option to unblind. Subjects who were on placebo during the Blinded Core Treatment Period will have the opportunity to crossover into the Open-Label Extension Treatment Period and receive Luspatercept.

This study is to determine the efficacy of Jaktinib versus Hydroxycarbamid in participants with Intermediate-2 or High-risk myelofibrosis

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the overall survival of participants treated with imetelstat compared to best available therapy with intermediate-2 or high-risk Myelofibrosis (MF) who are relapsed/refractory to Janus Kinase (JAK)-Inhibitor treatment.

This is a multi-centre phase 2 open-label prospective study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ropeg patients with pre-fibrotic primary myelofibrosis or DIPSS low/intermediate-1 risk myelofibrosis after 24 months of treatment.

This Phase 1/2, open-label, dose-finding study is intended to evaluate the safety and tolerability, PK, PD, and efficacy of INCB000928 administered as monotherapy or in combination with ruxolitinib in participants with MF who are transfusion-dependent or presenting with symptomatic anemia. This study will consist of 2 parts: dose escalation and expansion.

The purpose of the study is to identify the recommended Part 2 dose (R2PD) of imetelstat in combination with ruxolitinib in participants with myelofibrosis (MF) in Part 1, and to evaluate the safety and clinical activity of the R2PD of imetelstat in combination with ruxolitinib in participants with MF in Part 2.

This is a treatment guideline for an unrelated umbilical cord blood transplant (UCBT) using a myeloablative preparative regimen for the treatment of hematological diseases, including, but not limited to acute leukemias. The myeloablative preparative regimen will consist of cyclophosphamide (CY), fludarabine (FLU) and fractionated total body irradiation (TBI).

This is a phase 1b/2 study of KRT-232 combined with ruxolitinib in subjects with MF who have a suboptimal response after at least 18 weeks of treatment with ruxolitinib. The primary objective of the study is to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of KRT 232 in combination with ruxolitinib.

Prospective study for the development of a non-invasive score for differentiating prefibrotic myelofibrosis from essential thrombocytosis and overt myelofibrosis.

Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are frequent and chronic myeloid malignancies including Polycythemia Vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), Primary Myelofibrosis (PMF) and Prefibrotic myelofibrosis (PreMF). These MPNs are caused by the acquisition of mutations affecting activation/proliferation pathways in hematopoietic stem cells. The principal mutations are JAK2V617F, calreticulin (CALR exon 9) and MPL W515. ET or MFP/PreMF patients who do not carry one of these three mutations are declared as triple-negative (3NEG) cases even if they are real MPN cases. These diseases are at high risk of thrombo-embolic complications and with high morbidity/mortality. This risk varies from 4 to 30% depending on MPN subtype and mutational status. In terms of therapy, all patients with MPNs should also take daily low-dose aspirin (LDA) as first antithrombotic drug, which is particularly efficient to reduce arterial but not venous events. Despite the association of a cytoreductive drug and LDA, thromboses still occur in 5-8% patients/year. All these situations have been explored in biological or clinical assays. All of them could increase the bleeding risk. We should look at different ways to reduce the thrombotic incidence: Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC)? In the general population, in medical or surgical contexts, DOACs have demonstrated their efficiency to prevent or cure most of the venous or arterial thrombotic events. At the present time, DOAC can be used in cancer populations according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) recommendations, except in patients with cancer at high bleeding risk (gastro-intestinal or genito-urinary cancers). Unfortunately, in trials evaluating DOAC in cancer patients, most patients have solid rather than hematologic cancers (generally less than 10% of the patients, mostly lymphoma or myeloma). In cancer patients, DOAC are also highly efficient to reduce the incidence of thrombosis (-30 to 60%), but patients are exposed to a higher hemorrhagic risk, especially in digestive cancer patients. In the cancer population, pathophysiology of both thrombotic and hemorrhagic events may be quite different between solid cancers and MPN. If MPN patients are also considered to be cancer patients in many countries, the pathophysiology of thrombosis is quite specific (hyperviscosity, platelet abnormalities, clonality, specific cytokines…) and they are exposed to a lower risk of digestive hemorrhages. It is thus difficult to extend findings from the "general cancer population" to MPN patients. Unfortunately, only scarce, retrospective data regarding the use of DOAC in MPNs are available data. We were the first to publish a "real-life" study about the use, the impact, and the risks in this population. In this local retrospective study, 25 patients with MPN were treated with DOAC for a median time of 2.1 years. We observed only one thrombosis (4%) and three major hemorrhages (12%, after trauma or unprepared surgery). Furthermore, we have compared the benefit/risk balance compared to patients treated with LDA without difference. With the increasing evidences of efficacy and tolerance of DOAC in large cohorts of patients including cancer patients, with their proven efficacy on prevention of both arterial and venous thrombotic events and because of the absence of prospective trial using these drugs in MPN patients, we propose to study their potential benefit as primary thrombotic prevention in MPN.