What does this research mean for the field?

Among alternative therapeutic agents for cutaneous chronic graft-versus-host disease, only ruxolitinib demonstrates high-level evidence of modest efficacy, whereas treatments like extracorporeal photopheresis, imatinib, and ibrutinib do not confer statistically significant benefits over standard therapy or placebo. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

The review aims to assess the efficacy of various treatments for cutaneous chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD).

December 4, 2025Actas Dermo-SifiliográficasOpen Access

A Systematic Review of Treatments for Cutaneous Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

The review aims to assess the efficacy of various treatments for cutaneous chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD).
Conducted a systematic review of trials published until May 2024.
Included seven randomized controlled trials evaluating therapies like ruxolitinib and extracorporeal photopheresis.
Assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence of included trials.
Ruxolitinib showed an overall response rate of 41.5%, reducing the affected body surface area from 14.5% to 6.2%.
No other treatments provided a statistically significant benefit compared to standard therapy or placebo.
Entospletinib was found to be markedly inferior to placebo.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Implication

Systematic review evaluates treatment efficacy for chronic graft-versus-host disease, revealing ruxolitinib as effective.

Cite This Study

Zhou et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a20a3196236d09b9bcd39c3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad.2025.104522

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

A Systematic Review of Treatments for Cutaneous Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease

Key Points

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

A Systematic Review of Treatments for Cutaneous Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease

Key Points

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider