Trial reportBlood cancer journal2026
Firstline treatment with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in patients with polycythemia vera: results from the randomized RuxoBEAT trial.
Trial report in Blood cancer journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02577926 (Ruxolitinib Versus Best Available Therapy in Patients With High-risk Polycythemia Vera or High-risk Essential Thrombocythemia - The Ruxo-BEAT Trial), which is not on this 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.
Ruxolitinib Versus Best Available Therapy in Patients With High-risk Polycythemia Vera or High-risk Essential Thrombocythemia - The Ruxo-BEAT Trial
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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ruxolitinib (RUX) is approved as second-line treatment for HU-intolerant/-resistant patients with polycythemia vera (PV). Here, we assessed RUX vs. best available therapy (BAT) as first-line treatment in PV in the randomized multicenter RuxoBEAT clinical trial (NCT02577926). Crossover from BAT to RUX was possible after 6 months. Baseline characteristics in the RUX (n = 44) and BAT (n = 34) arms were comparable. The primary endpoint, the clinico-hematologic complete response (CR) rate at month 6, was not met (2.3% vs. 2.9%, p = 1.000). Analyses of secondary and exploratory endpoints showed that RUX was significantly more effective than BAT in improving hematocrit, splenomegaly, and patient-reported pruritus and fatigue, but less effective in reducing platelet counts. Compared to baseline, JAK2V617F variant allele frequency decreased significantly in both RUX and BAT groups at 6 months. The time on treatment (p < 0.001) and duration of treatment (p = 0.022) were significantly superior for RUX vs. BAT during the 24-month study period. There were no new safety signals. These findings demonstrate that RUX did not lead to higher CR rates than BAT and suggest that RUX may induce clinically meaningful additional disease improvements in first-line therapy of PV patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42918761What 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.