A Multicenter, Retrospective Study Evaluating Clinical Outcomes of Ruxolitinib Therapy In Heavily Pretreated Chronic GVHD Patients With Steroid Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although ruxolitinib is emerging as the treatment of choice for steroid-refractory or -dependent chronic graft versus host disease (cGVHD) based on randomized control trial data, there is relatively little real-world data published on ruxolitinib for this indication. We wanted to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in cGVHD patients who have failed any previous systemic therapy for cGVHD. We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of ruxolitinib in 115 heavily pretreated patients with steroid-refractory or -dependent chronic GVHD across 5 transplantation centers. The majority of the study population had severe cGVHD (60%) and received ruxolitinib at the fourth treatment line or beyond (82%, n = 96). The median duration of follow-up in this study population was 13 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was 48.6%, 54.9%, and 48.5% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Clinical benefit (an outcome metric combining ORR with steroid reduction) was observed in 58.7%, 64.8%, and 60.6% of patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Approximately one third of patients (37.9%) were able to discontinue prednisone at 12 months, and 63.8% were able to taper prednisone to a daily dose <0.1 mg/kg at 12 months. Failure-free survival at 12 months was 64.6% (54.1%-73.2%). Multivariate analysis identified that patients with severe cGVHD were at a higher risk of failure because of a therapy switch, whereas a pretransplantation hematopoietic stem cell transplantation-comorbidity index score ≥ 3 was associated with a high risk of failure because of increasing risk of non-relapse mortality. Overall, this study demonstrates the therapeutic efficacy of ruxolitinib for cGVHD in a heavily pretreated real-world population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".