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.

(1) Background: Despite the prognostic improvements achieved with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), a minority of patients still fail TKIs. The recent introduction of asciminib may be a promising option in intolerant patients, as it is a first-in-class inhibitor with a more selective mechanism of action different from the ATP-competitive inhibition that occurs with TKIs. Therefore, our goal was to analyze toxicities shown with asciminib as well as to study cross-toxicity with previous TKIs. (2) Methods: An observational, multicenter, retrospective study was performed with data from 77 patients with CML with therapeutic failure to second-generation TKIs who received asciminib through a managed-access program (MAP) (3) Results: With a median follow-up of 13.7 months, 22 patients (28.5%) discontinued treatment: 32% (7/22) due to intolerance and 45% (10/22) due to resistance. Fifty-five percent of the patients reported adverse effects (AEs) with asciminib and eighteen percent grade 3–4. Most frequent AEs were: fatigue (18%), thrombocytopenia (17%), anemia (12%), and arthralgias (12%). None of the patients experienced cardiovascular events or occlusive arterial disease. Further, 26%, 25%, and 9% of patients required dose adjustment, temporary suspension, or definitive discontinuation of treatment, respectively. Toxicities under asciminib seemed lower than with prior TKIs for anemia, cardiovascular events, pleural/pericardial effusion, diarrhea, and edema. Cross-toxicity risk was statistically significant for thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, fatigue, vomiting, and pancreatitis. (4) Conclusion: Asciminib is a molecule with a good safety profile and with a low rate of AEs. However, despite its new mechanism of action, asciminib presents a risk of cross-toxicity with classical TKIs for some AEs.

In a multicenter European retrospective study including 162 patients with COVID-19 occurring in essential thrombocythemia (ET, n = 48), polycythemia vera (PV, n = 42), myelofibrosis (MF, n = 56), and prefibrotic myelofibrosis (pre-PMF, n = 16), 15 major thromboses (3 arterial and 12 venous) were registered in 14 patients, of whom all, but one, were receiving LMW-heparin prophylaxis. After adjustment for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence of arterial and venous thromboembolic events (VTE) reached 8.5% after 60 days follow-up. Of note, 8 of 12 VTE were seen in ET. Interestingly, at COVID-19 diagnosis, MPN patients had significantly lower platelet count (p < 0.0001) than in the pre-COVID last follow-up.This decline was remarkably higher in ET (−23.3%, p < 0.0001) than in PV (−16.4%, p = 0.1730) and was associated with higher mortality rate (p = 0.0010) for pneumonia. The effects of possible predictors of thrombosis, selected from those clinically relevant and statistically significant in univariate analysis, were examined in a multivariate model. Independent risk factors were transfer to ICU (SHR = 3.73, p = 0.029), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (SHR = 1.1, p = 0.001) and ET phenotype (SHR = 4.37, p = 0.006). The enhanced susceptibility to ET-associated VTE and the associated higher mortality for pneumonia may recognize a common biological plausibility and deserve to be delved to tailor new antithrombotic regimens including antiplatelet drugs.