Criteria of response and definition of resistance and intolerance to hydroxyurea (HU) in polycythemia vera (PV) were proposed by the European LeukemiaNet (ELN). Such criteria were evaluated in 261 PV patients (median follow-up, 7.2 years) treated with HU for a median of 4.4 years. Complete response, partial response, and no response were observed in 24%, 66%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Achieving ELN response (complete or partial) or hematocrit response did not result in better survival or less thrombosis and bleeding. On the contrary, having no response in leukocyte count was associated with higher risk of death (HR, 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-5.4%; P = .007), whereas lack of response in platelet count involved a higher risk of thrombosis and bleeding. Resistance and intolerance to HU was registered in 11% and 13% of patients, respectively. Resistance to HU was associated with higher risk of death (HR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.7%-11.9%; P < .001) and transformation (HR, 6.8; 95% CI, 3.0%-15.4%; P < .001). In summary, fulfilling the ELN definition for response to HU was not associated with a benefit in the clinical outcome in PV, whereas response in platelet and white blood cell counts were predictive of less thrombohemorrhagic complications and better prognosis, respectively. Resistance to HU was an adverse prognostic factor.

The effectiveness of antiplatelet therapy as primary prophylaxis for thrombosis in low-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) is not proven. In this study, the incidence rates of arterial and venous thrombosis were retrospectively analyzed in 300 low-risk patients with ET treated with antiplatelet drugs as monotherapy (n = 198) or followed with careful observation (n = 102). Follow-up was 802 and 848 person-years for antiplatelet therapy and observation, respectively. Rates of thrombotic events were 21.2 and 17.7 per 1000 person-years for antiplatelet therapy and observation, respectively (P = .6). JAK2 V617F–positive patients not receiving antiplatelet medication showed an increased risk of venous thrombosis (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 4.0; 95% CI: 1.2-12.9; P = .02). Patients with cardiovascular risk factors had increased rates of arterial thrombosis while on observation (IRR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.02-6.1; P = .047). An increased risk of major bleeding was observed in patients with platelet count greater than 1000 × 109/L under antiplatelet therapy (IRR: 5.4; 95% CI: 1.7-17.2; P = .004). In conclusion, antiplatelet therapy reduces the incidence of venous thrombosis in patients with JAK2-positive ET and the rate of arterial thrombosis in patients with associated cardiovascular risk factors. In the remaining low-risk patients, this therapy is not effective as primary prophylaxis of thrombosis, and observation may be an adequate option.

The role of antiplatelet therapy as primary prophylaxis of thrombosis in low-risk essential thrombocythemia has not been studied in randomized clinical trials. We assessed the benefit/risk of low-dose aspirin in 433 patients with low-risk essential thrombocythemia (271 with a CALR mutation, 162 with a JAK2^V617F mutation) who were on antiplatelet therapy or observation only. After a follow up of 2215 person-years free from cytoreduction, 25 thrombotic and 17 bleeding episodes were recorded. In CALR-mutated patients, antiplatelet therapy did not affect the risk of thrombosis but was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding (12.9 versus 1.8 episodes per 1000 patient-years, P=0.03). In JAK2^V617F-mutated patients, low-dose aspirin was associated with a reduced incidence of venous thrombosis with no effect on the risk of bleeding. Coexistence of JAK2^V617F-mutation and cardiovascular risk factors increased the risk of thrombosis, even after adjusting for treatment with low-dose aspirin (incidence rate ratio: 9.8; 95% confidence interval: 2.3–42.3; P=0.02). Time free from cytoreduction was significantly shorter in CALR-mutated patients with essential thrombocythemia than in JAK2^V617F-mutated ones (median time 5 years and 9.8 years, respectively; P=0.0002) and cytoreduction was usually necessary to control extreme thrombocytosis. In conclusion, in patients with low-risk, CALR-mutated essential thrombocythemia, low-dose aspirin does not reduce the risk of thrombosis and may increase the risk of bleeding.

Hematocrit control below 45% is associated with a lower rate of thrombosis in polycythemia vera. In patients receiving hydroxyurea, this target can be achieved with hydroxyurea alone or with the combination of hydroxyurea plus phlebotomies. However, the clinical implications of phlebotomy requirement under hydroxyurea therapy are unknown. For such purpose, need of additional phlebotomies during the first 5 years of hydroxyurea therapy was evaluated in 533 patients with polycythemia vera. Patients requiring 3 or more phlebotomies per year (n=85, 16%) showed a worse hematocrit control than those requiring 2 or less phlebotomies per year (n=448, 84%). There were no significant differences among the two study groups regarding leukocyte and platelet counts. Patients requiring 3 or more phlebotomies per year received significantly higher doses of hydroxyurea than the remainder. A significant higher rate of thrombosis was found in patients treated with hydroxyurea plus 3 or more phlebotomies per year compared to hydroxyurea with 0-2 phlebotomies per year (20.5% versus 5.3% at 3 years, p<0.0001). In multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for thrombosis were phlebotomy dependency (HR: 3.3, 95%CI: 1.5-6.9, p=0.002) and thrombosis at diagnosis (HR: 4.7, 95%CI: 2.3-9.8, p<0.0001). The proportion of patients fulfilling the European Leukemia Net criteria of resistance/intolerance to hydroxyurea was significantly higher in the group requiring 3 or more phlebotomies per year (18.7% versus 7.1%, p=0.001) mainly due to extrahematological toxicity. In conclusion, phlebotomy requirement under hydroxyurea therapy identifies a subset of patients with increased proliferation of polycythemia vera and higher risk of thrombosis.