We’re really excited to present those results. But I’ll say in total, we’ve treated 80 patients with CMML using ruxolitinib, and the highlights are, I think, summarized by one, the safety and toxicity profile actually compares favorably to that of myelofibrosis, especially when we look at myelosuppression, we don’t see as much myelosuppression with rux and CMML. And then secondly, the efficacy is comparable to that seen in myelofibrosis, in that patients have splenomegaly reductions and improvements in symptoms at rates similar to that in myelofibrosis as well...
We’re really excited to present those results. But I’ll say in total, we’ve treated 80 patients with CMML using ruxolitinib, and the highlights are, I think, summarized by one, the safety and toxicity profile actually compares favorably to that of myelofibrosis, especially when we look at myelosuppression, we don’t see as much myelosuppression with rux and CMML. And then secondly, the efficacy is comparable to that seen in myelofibrosis, in that patients have splenomegaly reductions and improvements in symptoms at rates similar to that in myelofibrosis as well.
Now, the study we’re presenting today capitalizes on our first study where we observed that patients who were really symptomatic or had big spleens were the ones that benefited. And in this Phase II extension, those are the patients we looked at. And we were able to track their spleen by CT scan and give them daily handheld devices to measure their symptom scores. And again, the summary is that using those tools, we were able to observe that patients responded just as vigorously and at the same rate as patients with myelofibrosis. So we think that this may be enough evidence to really start thinking seriously about moving ruxolitinib in the proliferative symptomatic subtype of CMML.