William J. Hogan, MBBCh, MRCPI
Key Points:
- Ruxolitinib plays an important role in the treatment of symptomatic myelofibrosis, but its associated toxicities and adverse withdrawal effects can pose a challenge.
- Myelofibrosis is linked with hepatic dysfunction, and ruxolitinib—despite its associated risks of hepatic transaminitis—may limit inflammation and progressive fibrosis, with liver injury resolution reported after treatment.
- Overall, management of liver injury related to ruxolitinib depends on the cause and severity.
Question: In patients with myelofibrosis, how do you manage liver toxicity from ruxolitinib use beside dose de-escalation?
Answer: Ruxolitinib is a small-molecule JAK1/2 inhibitor that has an established role in the treatment of patients with symptomatic myelofibrosis, hydroxyurea-resistant polycythemia vera, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease. It has a potent anti-inflammatory effect that can provide very useful palliation of constitutional symptoms and splenomegaly in patients with myelofibrosis via inhibition of the JAK 1 and 2 pathways, which are involved in the production of inflammatory cytokines and hematopoietic growth factors.1-3 Common toxicities include myelosuppression, hepatic transaminitis, diarrhea, fatigue, headache, and peripheral edema. In patients with advanced myelofibrosis or florid inflammatory states, sudden withdrawal can lead to a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that can precipitate cardiopulmonary decompensation in frail patients, especially those with tenuous cardiopulmonary function, and corticosteroid prophylaxis or treatment may be required.4
In a mouse model of liver injury using carbon tetrachloride, JAK1/2 expression was implicated in progression of liver fibrosis. Inhibition of JAK1/2 downregulates downstream signaling, reduces progression to fibrosis, and even accelerates fibrosis reversal by inhibiting proliferation, migration, and activation of hepatic stellate cells in vitro.5 Myelofibrosis is associated with hepatic dysfunction by several mechanisms, including infiltration by hematopoietic stem cells (ie, extramedullary hematopoiesis [EMH]), portal vein thrombosis, and obliterative portal venopathy. EMH may respond favorably to ruxolitinib, and liver injury resolution after ruxolitinib treatment has been reported in patients with severe liver compromise related to myelofibrosis.6 These findings suggest that the drug may be able to reduce the consequences of inflammation—limiting progressive fibrosis in some circumstances—and may be of durable benefit in selected patients. A retrospective review of patients with liver injury and underlying myeloproliferative disorders treated with ruxolitinib and evaluated by biopsy demonstrated a variety of etiologies7; however, it is not always easy to determine how much is related to the underlying disease versus drug effects based on the biopsy findings, and this distinction is predominantly a clinical decision.
Liver toxicity typically manifests as mild hepatic transaminitis and can be exacerbated by drug–drug interactions. The incidence of hepatic transaminitis has been reported to be between 25% and 50%. Typically, these elevations are mild and self-limited, with < 1.5% of patients having values > 5 times the upper limit of normal. The drug is metabolized in the liver predominantly via the CYP3A4 pathway, and liver injury may be the result of the production of a toxic intermediate. Drug–drug interactions, such as with azole antifungals, can increase the effective exposure and enhance the potential for toxicity. Because suppression of intracellular signaling impairs immune response, suppression of viral replication may be impaired, increasing the potential for reactivation of quiescent viruses. This has been reported with reactivation of hepatitis B, resulting in clinically meaningful liver injury in patients who are at risk. It appears that the risk of viral reactivation with transaminitis and hyperbilirubinemia is greater in patients with HBsAg positivity, but reactivation has also been reported in those with anti-HBc. Efficacy with entecavir has been reported in treating viral reactivation and prophylaxis, so a nucleoside analog such as entecavir or tenofovir should be considered in patients who are at high risk.8-10
Management of liver injury related to ruxolitinib depends on the cause and severity. Identifying contributing causes, such as drug–drug interactions and prior viral hepatitis exposure and excluding other hepatotoxins are the initial imperative. Prior viral exposure with reactivation should be treated or prophylaxed when applicable. For mild transaminase elevations without hyperbilirubinemia, monitoring or temporary dose reduction may be appropriate. In more significant liver injury, dose interruption may be necessary. Consideration of an alternative JAK inhibitor may occasionally be warranted, as there does not appear to be significant evidence to suggest cross-reactivity between ruxolitinib and other JAK inhibitors. Of note, a retrospective review of liver injury occurring in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms receiving ruxolitinib suggested a variety of potential etiologies, including those unrelated to the drug itself (EMH), in addition to obstructive portal vein apathy and drug-induced liver injury.