Pacritinib vs best available therapy, including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis: A randomized clinical trial

John Mascarenhas, Ronald Hoffman, Moshe Talpaz, Aaron T. Gerds, Brady Stein, Vikas Gupta, Anita Szoke, Mark Drummond, Alexander Pristupa, Tanya Granston, Robert Daly, Suliman Al-Fayoumi, Jennifer A. Callahan, Jack W. Singer, Jason Gotlib, Catriona Jamieson, Claire Harrison, Ruben Mesa, Srdan Verstovsek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

79 Scopus citations


IMPORTANCE Myelofibrosis is a hematologic malignancy characterized by splenomegaly and debilitating symptoms. Thrombocytopenia is a poor prognostic feature and limits use of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1)/Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitor ruxolitinib. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of JAK2 inhibitor pacritinib with that of best available therapy (BAT), including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS For this phase 3 randomized international multicenter study—the PERSIST-2 study—of pacritinib vs BAT, 311 patients with myelofibrosis and platelet count 100 × 109/L or less were recruited for analysis. Crossover from BAT was allowed after week 24 or for progression of splenomegaly. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to pacritinib 400 mg once daily, pacritinib 200 mg twice daily, or BAT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Coprimary end points were rates of patients achieving 35% or more spleen volume reduction (SVR) and 50% or more reduction in total symptom score (TSS) at week 24. Efficacy analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat efficacy population, comprising all patients with a randomization date allowing for week 24 data. RESULTS Overall, 311 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.70 [9.08] years; 171 men [55%] and 140 women [45%]) were included in the study; 149 patients (48%) had prior ruxolitinib. The most common BAT was ruxolitinib (44 patients [45%]); 19 patients (19%) received watchful-waiting only. The intention-to-treat efficacy population included 75 patients randomized to pacritinib once daily; 74, pacritinib twice daily, and 72, BAT. Pacritinib (arms combined) was more effective than BAT for 35% or more SVR (27 patients [18%] vs 2 patients [3%]; P = .001) and had a nonsignificantly greater rate of 50% or more reduction in TSS (37 patients [25%] vs 10 patients [14%]; P = .08). Pacritinib twice daily led to significant improvements in both end points over BAT (35% SVR: 16 patients [22%] vs 2 patients [3%]; P = .001; 50% reduction in TSS: 24 patients [32%] vs 10 patients [14%]; P = .01). Clinical improvement in hemoglobin and reduction in transfusion burden were greatest with pacritinib twice daily. For pacritinib once daily, pacritinib twice daily, and BAT, the most common (>10%) grade 3 or 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (32 patients [31%], 34 patients [32%], 18 patients [18%]), and anemia (28 patients [27%], 23 patients [22%], 14 patients [14%]). In the pacritinib once daily, twice daily, and BAT arms, discontinuation owing to adverse events occurred in 15 patients (14%), 10 patients (9%), and 4 patients (4%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients with myelofibrosis and thrombocytopenia, including those with prior anti-JAK therapy, pacritinib twice daily was more effective than BAT, including ruxolitinib, for reducing splenomegaly and symptoms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)652-659
Number of pages8
JournalJAMA Oncology
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research


Dive into the research topics of 'Pacritinib vs best available therapy, including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis: A randomized clinical trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this