Antiplatelet therapy versus observation in low-risk essential thrombocythemia with CALR mutation

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 low-risk essential thrombocythemia patients (CALR-mutated n=271, JAK2V617F-mutated n=162) who were on antiplatelet therapy or observation only. After a 2215 person-years follow-up 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 vs. 1.8 x1000 patient-years, p=0.03). In JAK2V617F-mutated patients, low-dose aspirin was associated with a reduced incidence of venous thrombosis with no effect on the risk of bleeding. Coexistence of JAK2V617F-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 than in JAK2V617F-mutated essential thrombocythemia (median time 5 years and 9.8 years, respectively; p=0.0002) usually 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.

Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case–control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. Methods: As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist’s diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Results: Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘blood condition’,23.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘cancer’ and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an ‘other medical condition’. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a ‘blood condition’. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all.Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. Conclusions: The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.