Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38149251›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2023

ECP versus ruxolitinib in steroid-refractory acute GVHD - a retrospective study by the EBMT transplant complications working party.

Olaf Penack, Christophe Peczynski, William Boreland, Jessica Lemaitre, Ksenia Afanasyeva, Brian Kornblit, Manuel Jurado, Carmen Martinez, Annalisa Natale, Jose Antonio Pérez-Simón and 13 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 18 institutions in 13 countries.

Olaf PenackMedical Clinic, Department for Haematology, Oncology and Tumorimmunology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christophe PeczynskiEBMT Transplant Complications Working Party, Paris, France.
William BorelandEBMT Transplant Complications Working Party, Paris, France.
Jessica LemaitreEBMT Transplant Complications Working Party, Paris, France.
Ksenia AfanasyevaDepartment of Haematology, First Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Brian KornblitDepartment of Haematology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Manuel JuradoDepartment of Haematology, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain.
Carmen MartinezDepartment of Hematology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Annalisa NataleDepartment of Haematology, Ospedale Civile, Pescara, Italy.
Jose Antonio Pérez-SimónDepartment of Hematology, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBIS)/CSIC, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
Lucia BrunelloDepartment of Haematology, SS. Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy.
Daniele AvenosoDepartment of Haematology, Kings' College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Stefan KleinDepartment of Haematology, Universitaetsmedizin, Mannheim, Germany.
Zubeyde Nur OzkurtDepartment of Haematology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Türkiye.
Concha HerreraServicio de Hematología Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, IMIBIC, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain.
Stina WichertDepartment of Haematology, Skane University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Patrizia ChiusoloFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore-Roma, Rome, Italy.
Eleni GavriilakiDepartment of Haematology, Papanicolaou G. Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Grzegorz W BasakEBMT Transplant Complications Working Party, Paris, France.
Hélène SchoemansEBMT Transplant Complications Working Party, Paris, France.
Christian KoeneckeEBMT Transplant Complications Working Party, Paris, France.
Ivan MoiseevDepartment of Haematology, First Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Zinaida PericEBMT Transplant Complications Working Party, Paris, France.
Inserm · FREuropean Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · FRFirst Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg · RUAzienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo · ITGazi University · TRG. Papanikolaou General Hospital · GRHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESHospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves · ESInstituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla · ESInstituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba · ESKing's College Hospital · GBMedical University of Warsaw · PLMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DERigshospitalet · DKSkåne University Hospital · SEUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity Hospital Centre Zagreb · HRUniversity of Mannheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Extracorporal Photophoresis (ECP) is in clinical use for steroid-refractory and steroid-dependent acute GVHD (SR-aGVHD). Based on recent Phase-III study results, ruxolitinib has become the new standard of care for SR-aGVHD. Our aim was to collect comparative data between ruxolitinib and ECP in SR-aGVHD in order to improve the evidence base for clinical decision making. Methods: We asked EBMT centers if they were willing to participate in this study by completing a data form (Med-C) with detailed information on GVHD grading, -therapy, -dosing, -response and complications for each included patient. Results: 31 centers responded positively (14%) and we included all patients receiving alloSCT between 1/2017-7/2019 and treated with ECP or ruxolitinib for SR-aGVHD grades II-IV from these centers. We identified 53 and 40 patients with grades II-IV SR-aGVHD who were treated with ECP and ruxolitinib, respectively. We performed multivariate analyses adjusted on grading and type of SR-aGVHD (steroid dependent vs. refractory). At day+90 after initiation of treatment for SR-aGVHD we found no statistically significant differences in overall response. The odds ratio in the ruxolitinib group to achieve overall response vs. the ECP group was 1.13 (95% CI = [0.41; 3.22], p = 0.81). In line, we detected no statistically significant differences in overall survival, progression-free survival, non-relapse mortality and relapse incidence. Discussion: The clinical significance is limited by the retrospective study design and the current data can't replace prospective studies on ECP in SR-aGVHD. However, the present results contribute to the accumulating evidence on ECP as an effective treatment option in SR-aGVHD.

Indexed as

Graft vs Host DiseaseHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansNitrilesProspective StudiesPyrazolesPyrimidinesRetrospective StudiesSteroidsNitrilesPyrazolesPyrimidinesruxolitinibSteroidsallogeneic stem cell transplantationECPGvHDruxolinitibsteroid-refractory

Identifiers

PMID38149251
PMCPMC10750400
OpenAlexW4389565370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.