KRT-232 Compared to Ruxolitinib in Patients With Phlebotomy-Dependent Polycythemia Vera (NCT03669965) | Clinical Trial Compass
UnknownPhase 2
KRT-232 Compared to Ruxolitinib in Patients With Phlebotomy-Dependent Polycythemia Vera
United States, France, Germany20 participantsStarted 2019-01-15
Plain-language summary
This study evaluates KRT-232, a novel oral small molecule inhibitor of MDM2, for the treatment of patients with phlebotomy-dependent polycythemia vera (PV). Inhibition of MDM2 in PV is a new mechanism of action in PV. In Part A, patients must be resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea or have undergone treatment with interferon. In Part B, patients must be resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea.
This study is a global, open-label Phase 2a/2b study to determine the efficacy and safety of KRT-232. In Part A of the study, patients will be randomly assigned to 5 arms with 2 different doses and 3 different dosing schedules of KRT 232. In Part B of the study, patients will be randomized either to treatment with KRT-232 administered at the recommended dose and schedule from Part A or to treatment with ruxolitinib.
Who can participate
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion Criteria:
* Confirmed diagnosis of PV (WHO 2016)
* ECOG ≤ 2
* Part A: patients with and without splenomegaly are eligible
* Part A: patients must be resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea or have undergone treatment with interferon
* Part B: only patients with splenomegaly are eligible
* Part B: patients must be resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea
Exclusion Criteria:
* Diagnosis of post-PV myelofibrosis (IWG-MRT)
* Prior treatment with MDM2 inhibitors, p53-directed therapies, HDAC, BCL 2 inhibitors
* Splenic irradiation within 3 months prior to the first dose of study treatment
* Clinically significant thrombosis within 3 months of screening
* Grade 2 or higher QTc prolongation
* Part B: prior treatment with a JAK inhibitor
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
What they're measuring
1
Proportion of patients with splenomegaly achieving a response at Week 32