Pelabresib plus ruxolitinib for JAK inhibitor-naive myelofibrosis: a randomized phase 3 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors provide limited depth and durability of response in myelofibrosis. We evaluated pelabresib-a bromodomain and extraterminal domain (BET) inhibitor-plus ruxolitinib (a JAK inhibitor) compared with placebo plus ruxolitinib as first-line therapy. In this phase 3 study (MANIFEST-2), JAK inhibitor-naive patients with myelofibrosis were randomized 1:1 to pelabresib 125 mg once daily (QD; 50-175 mg QD permitted) for 14 days followed by a 7-day break (21-day cycle), or to placebo in combination with ruxolitinib 10 or 15 mg twice daily (BID; 5 mg QD-25 mg BID permitted). Primary endpoint was reduction in spleen volume of ≥35% from baseline at week 24. Key secondary endpoints were absolute change in total symptom score (TSS) and TSS50 response (≥50% reduction in TSS from baseline at week 24). The primary endpoint was met in 65.9% of patients randomized to pelabresib-ruxolitinib (n = 214) versus 35.2% to placebo-ruxolitinib (n = 216) (difference, 30.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 21.6, 39.3; P < 0.001). Absolute change in TSS was -15.99 versus -14.05 (difference, -1.94; 95% CI, -3.92, 0.04; P = 0.0545) and TSS50 was achieved in 52.3% versus 46.3% (difference, 6.0%; 95 CI, -3.5, 15.5) with pelabresib-ruxolitinib versus placebo-ruxolitinib. Exploratory analyses of proinflammatory cytokine amounts and bone marrow morphology showed greater improvement with the combination. Thrombocytopenia and anemia were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, occurring in 52.8% (13.2% grade ≥3) versus 37.4% (6.1% grade ≥3) and 44.8% (23.1% grade ≥3) versus 55.1% (36.5% grade ≥3), respectively. Pelabresib in combination with ruxolitinib is well tolerated, improves signs of underlying myelofibrosis pathobiology and provides substantial clinical benefit over standard-of-care JAK inhibitor monotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04603495 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".