%0 Journal Article
%T Anemia-related response end points in myelofibrosis clinical trials: current trends and need for renewed consensus.
%A Klencke BJ
%A Donahue R
%A Gorsh B
%A Ellis C
%A Kawashima J
%A Strouse B
%J Future Oncol
%V 20
%N 11
%D 2024 Apr 6
%M 38318719
%F 3.674
%R 10.2217/fon-2023-0964
%X JAK inhibitors are the current standard of care in myelofibrosis, but many do not address and may worsen anemia; thus, anemia-related responses have traditionally been overlooked as efficacy end points in pivotal clinical trials, leading to a lack of consistency and analytic detail in their reporting. Here we apply our experiences in the phase III trials of momelotinib, a JAK1/JAK2/ACVR1 inhibitor and the first therapy indicated by the US FDA for myelofibrosis patients with anemia, to highlight how application of different criteria impacts the anemia-related benefits reported for any potential treatment in myelofibrosis. We advocate for a convention of a new expert consensus panel to bring consistency and transparency to the definition of anemia-related response in myelofibrosis.<BR>What is this Perspective about? Anemia (too few healthy red blood cells) is common in patients with myelofibrosis. While it is becoming more common to measure the anemia benefits associated with potential treatments for myelofibrosis in clinical trials, different definitions of anemia benefit are available. This Perspective reviews these definitions, the differences between them, and why consistency and clarity in measuring anemia benefit matter. The definitions used in clinical trials of momelotinib, a treatment for patients with myelofibrosis and anemia, are also explained to show how the anemia benefit observed in these trials could have changed if different definitions were used. What does this Perspective show? Definitions of anemia benefit may include the number of red blood cell transfusions a patient receives, the amount of hemoglobin (a red blood cell protein) in their blood, or a combination thereof. Considerations such as timing, the types of patients included, and other factors are not consistent across definitions and not always clearly reported. Results when different definitions of anemia benefit were followed in the momelotinib clinical trials show that the amount of benefit observed with treatments changes depending on which definition is used. What conclusions can be drawn from this Perspective? More consistency and clarity in the definitions of anemia benefit in myelofibrosis clinical trials are needed, suggesting that a new panel of experts should come together to discuss this topic.