ArticleAnnals of hematology2025
Treatment persistence and overall survival in myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib were not affected by the covid-19 pandemic, despite the reduced starting dose: Analysis of AIFA registries.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyzed the outcome of 2229 patients with myelofibrosis (MF) treated with ruxolitinib before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Two populations of MF were defined from the AIFA web monitoring registries: the pre-COVID-19 (1703, 76.4%) and the post-COVID-19 (526, 23.6%) cohorts. The two populations were balanced using the Inversity Probability of Treatment Weighting. The median age was 69 years and 73 years in the pre- and post- COVID-19 era, respectively. There were no differences in spleen diameters at baseline prior to ruxolitinib in the two groups, but a difference in median spleen volume was noted (961 cm3 in the pre-era and 788.3 cm3 in the post-era). Overall, intermediate-2 IPSS risk were 67.2% in the pre- and 72% in the post-era, whereas the high-risk category was 32.7% and 27.9%, respectively. More patients started on a reduced dose in the post-COVID-19 era (73.5% versus 65% in the pre-era). After adjusting for the differences, an analysis of overall survival revealed no differences between the two groups (HR 0.875, p > 0.05). Patients who started ruxolitinib after COVID-19 had similar probability to stop treatment in the follow-up (HR 0.956, p > 0.05). The results indicate that COVID-19 did not affect the duration of treatment and the relative OS.
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.