Table 2:

Results from selected studies of JAK inhibitors in ET and PV patients

Author	Reference	Year of publication	Treatment and treatment schedule	Phase	Study population	Outcomes
Vannucchi et al.	[58]	2015	Ruxolitinib vs standard therapy	III	Phlebotomy-dependent PV patients with splenomegaly and resistance or intolerance to HU	Primary endpoint (hematocrit control + ≥35% reduction in spleen size): 21% in ruxolitinib vs 1% in standard therapy (p<0.001)
Passamonti et al.	[59]	2017	Ruxolitinib vs BAT	IIIb	PV patients with resistance or intolerance to HU	Hematocrit control: 62% of ruxolitinib-treated patients vs 19% of BAT-treated patients (odds ratio 7.28 [95% CI 3.43–15.45]; p<0.0001)
Mesa et al.	[61]	2017	Patients on stable dose of HU randomized to continue HU or switch to ruxolitinib	IIIb	Symtpomatic PV patients on stable dose of HU	≥50% reduction in MPN-related symptoms: 43.4% vs. 29.6% of ruxolitinib‐ and HU-treated patients, respectively (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI 0.82–4.04; p = 0.139)
Sorensen et al.	[53]	2019	Ruxolitinib + low-dose peg-IFN-α-2a	II	PV (n=32) and myelofibrosis (n-18) intolerant or refractory to peg-IFN-α-2a	PV patients: 31% remission (9% CR); 85% CHR MF patients: 44% remission (28% CR); 75% MF

BAT – best available therapy; CALR – calreticulin; CHR – complete hematologic response; CR – complete response; ET – essential thrombocythemia; HU – hydroxyurea; JAK2 – janus kinase 2; MF - myelofibrosis; PEG – pegylated; PHR – partial hematologic remission; PV – polycythemia vera