Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center; Winston-Salem, NC.
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2023 Oct;23(10):714-718. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2023.06.004. Epub 2023 Jun 9.
With multiple Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors approved or in late development for myelofibrosis, there is a logical desire in the field for comparative efficacy and safety data among these agents in order to inform treatment selection. However, due to the highly disparate nature of patient populations enrolled in different JAK inhibitor trials, as well as key differences in study design, any cross-study comparative analyses should be undertaken with a high degree of caution. Here, we show how differences in enrolled populations can impact both efficacy and safety conclusions and why quantitative comparisons of outcomes across studies is prone to spurious conclusions. We conclude by offering guidance on how to approach comparative analyses in the absence of direct head-to-head data based on a thorough understanding of how study design impacts outcomes. Ultimately there is enough room in the myelofibrosis treatment landscape for multiple JAK inhibitors, and sequencing of therapies should depend on how each agent was studied and where it showed the most benefit, both in trials and in real-world practice.
随着多种 Janus 激酶(JAK)抑制剂被批准或处于骨髓纤维化的后期开发阶段,该领域非常希望获得这些药物之间的比较疗效和安全性数据,以便为治疗选择提供信息。然而,由于不同 JAK 抑制剂试验中入组患者人群的高度异质性,以及研究设计的关键差异,任何跨研究的比较分析都应高度谨慎。在这里,我们展示了入组人群的差异如何影响疗效和安全性结论,以及为什么对研究间结果进行定量比较容易得出错误的结论。我们最后提供了一些指导意见,在缺乏直接头对头数据的情况下,如何根据对研究设计如何影响结果的深入了解,进行比较分析。最终,在骨髓纤维化的治疗领域有足够的空间容纳多种 JAK 抑制剂,治疗方案的选择应取决于每个药物的研究方式及其在临床试验和真实世界实践中的最大获益。