Table 4.

Effect of concomitant azoles on ruxolitinib treatment patterns (safety analysis set)

Patients with SR-aGVHD (REACH2; n = 152)Patients with SR-cGVHD (REACH3; n = 165)
With azoles (n = 117)Without azoles (n = 35)With azoles (n = 116)Without azoles (n = 49)
Ruxolitinib dose intensity up to day 28 (REACH2) or week 24 (REACH3), mg/d     
Mean (standard deviation) 18.1 (3.0) 18.6 (2.7) 17.0 (4.0) 18.5 (2.9) 
Median (range) 20.0 (9.0-21.0) 20.0 (8.4-20.0) 19.4 (4.8-20.5) 19.9 (5.5-20.0) 
Ruxolitinib dose modifications, n (%) 97 (82.9) 21 (60.0) 83 (71.6) 31 (63.3) 
Ruxolitinib discontinuations, n (%) 108 (92.3) 33 (94.3) 62 (53.4) 23 (46.9) 
Reasons for ruxolitinib discontinuation, n (%)     
Completed study treatment 29 (24.8) 4 (11.4) 1 (0.9) 
AE 24 (20.5) 5 (14.3) 25 (21.6) 5 (10.2) 
Lack of efficacy 19 (16.2) 11 (31.4) 13 (11.2) 9 (18.4) 
Death 15 (12.8) 6 (17.1) 5 (4.3) 
Other  21 (17.9) 7 (20.0) 18 (15.5) 9 (18.4) 
Patients with SR-aGVHD (REACH2; n = 152)Patients with SR-cGVHD (REACH3; n = 165)
With azoles (n = 117)Without azoles (n = 35)With azoles (n = 116)Without azoles (n = 49)
Ruxolitinib dose intensity up to day 28 (REACH2) or week 24 (REACH3), mg/d     
Mean (standard deviation) 18.1 (3.0) 18.6 (2.7) 17.0 (4.0) 18.5 (2.9) 
Median (range) 20.0 (9.0-21.0) 20.0 (8.4-20.0) 19.4 (4.8-20.5) 19.9 (5.5-20.0) 
Ruxolitinib dose modifications, n (%) 97 (82.9) 21 (60.0) 83 (71.6) 31 (63.3) 
Ruxolitinib discontinuations, n (%) 108 (92.3) 33 (94.3) 62 (53.4) 23 (46.9) 
Reasons for ruxolitinib discontinuation, n (%)     
Completed study treatment 29 (24.8) 4 (11.4) 1 (0.9) 
AE 24 (20.5) 5 (14.3) 25 (21.6) 5 (10.2) 
Lack of efficacy 19 (16.2) 11 (31.4) 13 (11.2) 9 (18.4) 
Death 15 (12.8) 6 (17.1) 5 (4.3) 
Other  21 (17.9) 7 (20.0) 18 (15.5) 9 (18.4) 

Includes failure to meet protocol continuation, disease relapse, physician decision, graft loss, patient decision, and protocol deviation.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal