Pegylated interferon alfa-2a for polycythemia vera or essential thrombocythemia resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea

Prior studies have reported high response rates with recombinant interferon-a (rIFN-a) therapy in patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV). To further define the role of rIFN-a,we investigated the outcomes of pegylated-rIFN-a2a (PEG) therapy in ET and PV patients previously treated with hydroxyurea (HU). The Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium (MPD-RC)-111 study was an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, phase 2 trial evaluating the ability of PEG therapy to induce complete (CR) and partial (PR) hematologic responses in patients with high-risk ET or PVwho were either refractory or intolerant to HU. The study included 65 patients with ET and 50 patients with PV. The overall response rates (ORRs; CR/PR) at 12 monthswere 69.2%(43.1% and 26.2%) in ET patients and 60% (22% and 38%) in PV patients. CR rates were higher in CALR-mutated ET patients (56.5% vs 28.0%; P 5 .01), compared with those in subjects lacking a CALR mutation. The median absolute reduction in JAK2V617F variant allele fraction was 26% (range, 284%to 47%) in patients achieving a CR vs 14%(range, 218% to 56%) in patients with PR or nonresponse (NR). Therapy was associated with a significant rate of adverse events (AEs); most were manageable, and PEG discontinuation related to AEs occurred in only 13.9% of subjects. We conclude that PEG is an effective therapy for patients with ET or PV who were previously refractory and/or intolerant of HU

Special considerations in the management of adult patients with acute leukaemias and myeloid neoplasms in the COVID-19 era: recommendations from a panel of international experts

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a global public health crisis. Multiple observations indicate poorer post-infection outcomes for patients with cancer than for the general population. Herein, we highlight the challenges in caring for patients with acute leukaemias and myeloid neoplasms amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We summarise key changes related to service allocation, clinical and supportive care, clinical trial participation, and ethical considerations regarding the use of lifesaving measures for these patients. We recognise that these recommendations might be more applicable to high-income countries and might not be generalisable because of regional differences in health-care infrastructure, individual circumstances, and a complex and highly fluid health-care environment. Despite these limitations, we aim to provide a general framework for the care of patients with acute leukaemias and myeloid neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of recommendations from international experts

Supplementary Material for: Exclusion of Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients with Central Nervous System Involvement from Clinical Trials: An Analysis of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry from 2012-2022

Introduction: Central nervous system (CNS) involvement in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) can be successfully treated with intrathecal chemotherapy and carries debatable prognostic impact. However, patients with CNS involvement are commonly excluded from clinical trials at an unknown rate. We systematically evaluated exclusion criteria of AML clinical trials based on CNS involvement and determined associations with clinical trial characteristics. Methods: The National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry was searched for interventional adult AML trials between 2012-2022 that were phase I, II, or III and relevant trial characteristics were extracted. Results: 1270 trials were included in the analysis with 790 trials (62.1%) explicitly excluding CNS involvement. There was no significant change in rates of CNS exclusion over the past decade. CNS exclusion was higher in trials that included the non-transplant population compared to trials exclusive to the transplant population (66.9% vs. 43.8%, p<0.01). Non-transplant trials were also more likely to exclude patients with a history of or ambiguous timing of CNS involvement (p<0.01). Phase III trials were associated with more liberal definitions of CNS exclusion (history or ambiguous timing) as compared to phase I and II trials that had higher rates of excluding patients with only active CNS involvement (P<0.01). Conclusion: A majority of AML clinical trials, particularly in the non-transplant setting, exclude patients with CNS involvement. Many of these trials, most notably phase 3 trials, exclude patients not only with active, but any history of CNS involvement. Further research is needed to determine optimal management of these patients in order to increase representation in large clinical trials