ReviewBlood cancer journal2025
Fedratinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a critical appraisal of clinical trial and "real-world" data.
Review in Blood cancer journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fedratinib in chronic kidney disease: antifibrotic potential and renal safety signals from integrated network toxicology and pharmacovigilance.Renal failure · 2025Article
- Fat Fraction MRI for Longitudinal Assessment of Bone Marrow Heterogeneity in a Mouse Model of Myelofibrosis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Myelofibrosis: Treatment Options After Ruxolitinib Failure.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- JAK inhibitors and the risk of infection: a meta-analysis.Archives of dermatological research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fedratinib is a predominantly JAK2 inhibitor that has shown efficacy in untreated and ruxolitinib-exposed patients with myelofibrosis (MF). Based on randomized clinical trial data, it is approved for use in patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) or Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-2 or high-risk disease and is distinguished from ruxolitinib in that it can be administered without dose reduction in patients with thrombocytopenia, to a platelet count above 50,000/µL. In these trials, fedratinib achieved significant spleen volume reduction in ~30-45% of patients and improvement in total symptom scores in 35-40% with good tolerability. In contrast, recently published real-world data suggest that these responses may not be as robust outside clinical trials. In the context of routine clinical practice spleen responses are documented in only 13-68%, with varying degrees of symptom improvement. This may be due to the lack of a uniform definition of ruxolitinib failure, which may influence the timing of initiating fedratinib as a second-line treatment and result in a more prolonged exposure to ruxolitinib prior to intitaing fedratinib treatment. We suggest that given the growing number of drugs available for use in MF, recognizing the failure of first-line (and potentially subsequent) treatments is critical to allow timely transition to potentially more active agents, as highlighted by the data pertaining to fedratinib.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.