SynthesisAnnals of hematology2025
Efficacy and influencing factors of immunosuppressive therapy for pure red cell aplasia: meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Annals of hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Favorable response to second-line sirolimus regardless ofTherapeutic advances in hematology · 2026Article
- Pure Red Cell Aplasia Associated With Thymic Tumors, a Nationwide Retrospective Study.American journal of hematology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acquired pure red cell aplasia (aPRCA) is a rare hematological syndrome characterized by anemia and a significant reduction in erythroid progenitor cells. Immunosuppressive therapy (IST), including Corticosteroids (CS), Cyclosporine (CsA), and cyclophosphamide (CYC), is the primary treatment. However, variations in clinical efficacy and limited comparative studies have created uncertainty in therapeutic choices. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of IST and the factors influencing treatment outcomes. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Two researchers independently screened studies and extracted data. The quality of studies was assessed using the MINORS scale. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA/MP16, and effect size (ES) was calculated using fixed- or random-effects models based on heterogeneity. A total of 33 studies involving 1,193 patients were included. The overall efficacy of IST was significant, with a pooled ES of 0.656 (95% CI: 0.600-0.710). CsA demonstrated the highest efficacy (ES = 0.699; 95% CI: 0.615-0.779), followed by CYC (ES = 0.592; 95% CI: 0.423-0.752) and CS (ES = 0.568; 95% CI: 0.457-0.676). Subgroup analyses revealed that factors such as etiology, combination therapies, first- vs. second-line treatment, and genetic characteristics significantly influenced outcomes. Notably, the response to IST was higher in primary aPRCA (ES = 0.667; 95% CI: 0.598-0.733) compared to LGLL-associated (ES = 0.515; 95% CI: 0.393-0.637) and thymoma-associated (ES = 0.690; 95% CI: 0.492-0.864) aPRCA. The combination of CS and CsA yielded superior efficacy (ES = 0.761; 95% CI: 0.658-0.853) compared to combination of CS and CsA and monotherapy. First-line treatment demonstrated better efficacy than second-line treatment (ES = 0.659; 95% CI: 0.596-0.720) vs. (ES = 0.452; 95% CI: 0.199-0.715). The important finding was that (ES = 0.861; 95% CI: 0.595-1.000) in the STAT3 mutation (+) group and (ES = 0.375; 95% CI: 0.034-0.801) in the STAT3 mutation (-) group. IST demonstrates overall efficacy in aPRCA, with variations influenced by etiology, drug combinations, and genetic mutations such as STAT3. These findings highlight the need for personalized treatment strategies and further research to validate and optimize IST efficacy.
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.