MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417015030 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-7213

Ruxolitinib in malignancy-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (M-HLH): A systematic literature review

2025· article· en· W4417015030 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shivam Rainchwar, Rakesh Patil, Ashwini Khadatkar, Rohan Halder, Reema Singh, A. P. Ahire, Sujay Rainchwar

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRuxolitinibSystematic reviewMacrophage activation syndromeCytokine stormAdverse effectHemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosisCytokine release syndromeMeta-analysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: HLH (Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis) is a critical hyperinflammatory syndrome caused activation of cytotoxic T-cells and macrophages, resulting in a cytokine storm and multi-organ failure. Malignancy-associated HLH (M-HLH), commonly associated with hematological malignancies like lymphomas and having poor outcomes with 28-days mortality of more than 50%. Standard therapies (e.g. HLH-94/2004 protocols) are usually not effective in M-HLH due to drug resistance and toxicity. Ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor), gives a specific alternative by disrupting the JAK-STAT pathway involved in proinflammatory cytokine signalling. This is the first systematic review primarily focused on ruxolitinib-based regimens in M-HLH, seeking to assess its efficacy, safety, and likely role in improving outcomes in this high-risk population. Methods: PRISMA 2020 guidelines were used for conducting this systematic review. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched thoroughly in June 2025. A combination of MeSH terms and keywords such as “ruxolitinib,” “hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis,” “HLH,” and “malignancy” were used. Included studies involved adult patients diagnosed with malignancy-associated HLH (M-HLH) and treated with ruxolitinib. Studies reporting at least one clinical outcome such as complete response(CR), partial response(PR), overall response rate(ORR), overall survival(OS), adverse events(AEs) and minimum sample size of 5 were included. We excluded case reports, case series, review articles, or studies that do not report M-HLH-specific data . Literature reviews were performed independently by two authors. Disagreement was resolved through consensus and opinion of a third reviewer. Data were pooled on variables like study design, type of malignancy, ruxolitinib regimen, and clinical outcomes. All included studies scored≥6 on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, indicating moderate-high methodological quality. Results: Out of 68 identified articles, 59 were screened after removing duplicates. 43 studies were not relevant to present review, 11 were excluded due to case reports, case series, not having M-HLH data, or inaccessible full texts. So, five studies were included. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to clinical and methodological variations. Zhou et al (2020) studied 70 adult patients with lymphoma-associated HLH(LAHS). Comparison of R-DED regimen (Ruxolitinib 0.3 mg/kg/day(Day1–14) + doxorubicin(20mg Day1–2) + etoposide(100mg Day1, 50mg Day2–5) + dexamethasone(10mg BID Day1–5, then 10mg OD Day6–14) with HLH-94 therapy achieved an ORR of 89%(CR:50%, PR:39%), with a median OS of 5.4 months as compared to 1.5 months in the control group. Neutropenia(61%), febrile neutropenia(33%), and transaminitis(19%) were common toxicities. Stalder et al. (2023) evaluated 6 adults with AML-associated HLH who were treated with a dose-adjusted RED regimen Dose-adjusted ruxolitinib (5–20mg BID) + etoposide 50–150mg/m² twice weekly +dexa 10mg/day achieved ORR of 100%(CR:83%, PR:17%). Despite one-third 60-day mortality (due to AML progression), the adRED regimen showed grade reduction of ≥3 infections and lower cumulative steroid/etoposide use compared to historical controls. Infections (33%) and cytopenias were toxicities reported. Zhou et al (2022) in phase-II trialusedruxolitinib plus dexamethasone(Ru-D) (ruxolitinib 15mg BID 8weeks; dexamethasone 10mg/day) in 15 adults with HLH [8 with LAHS]. ORR 86.7%, LAHS specific 2-month OS of 62.5% and mortality of 37.5% due to lymphoma progression, not HLH. LAHS specific response rates were not separately mentioned but all responders proceeded to chemotherapy. Regimen was well tolerated with no treatment-related deaths or discontinuations, suggesting Ru-D is effective as initial treatment before starting chemotherapy in LAHS. Two ongoing Phase-II trials namely HLHRUXO trial (NCT04551131) and a trial in China (NCT04999878) are investigating ruxolitinib-based regimens in M-HLH cases. Conclusion: Ruxolitinib shows promise as a targeted therapy for malignancy-associated HLH, achieving response rates up to 100% with manageable toxicity in early-phase studies. Early and timely incorporation of ruxolitinib with rapid bridge to definitive therapy needs to be studied due to very high 28 day mortality in LAHS. Larger prospective trials are urgently needed to validate efficacy, optimize dosing strategies, and define its role within current HLH treatment paradigms.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,019

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,007
Bibliométrie0,0090,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchTravaux en français237 207