ArticleTherapeutic advances in hematology2026
Favorable response to second-line sirolimus regardless of
Article in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cyclosporine A (CsA) is the standard first-line treatment for acquired pure red cell aplasia (PRCA), but outcomes vary. Effective salvage strategies for CsA-refractory patients, particularly those with complex secondary subtypes, remain inadequately defined. Additionally, the clinical utility of Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of second-line sirolimus for the treatment of PRCA and explore the possible genetic predictors for the response. Design: This study was a retrospective, single center, comparative study. Methods: Patients with acquired PRCA treated between 2021 and 2025, including 36 patients who received first-line CsA and 22 patients who switched to sirolimus due to lack of response or intolerance. Clinical outcomes, including overall response rate (ORR) and time to response (TTR), were compared between primary and secondary PRCA. Results: The ORR for first-line CsA was 25.0% (9/36), with significantly higher efficacy observed in primary cases (42.1%, 8/19) than in secondary cases (5.9%, 1/17; Conclusions: CsA is effective in primary PRCA, whereas sirolimus demonstrates efficacy in both primary and secondary cases regardless of
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.