All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional.

  TRANSLATE

The gvhd Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the gvhd Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The gvhd and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

The GvHD Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Medac and supported through grants from Sanofi and Therakos. Funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.

Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients

Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.

Find out more

Ruxolitinib + ECP for steroid-refractory GvHD

By Amy Hopkins

Share:

Feb 2, 2026

Learning objective: After reading this article, learners will be able to cite a new clinical development in steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease.


Results from a single-center retrospective study comparing ruxolitinib (Rux) + extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) (n = 31) vs Rux alone (n = 37) in patients with steroid-refractory (SR) acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) and chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine Research by Halahleh et al. The primary objective was to compare the overall response rate (ORR) at last encounter between treatment arms. Key secondary endpoints included incidence of progression from aGvHD to cGvHD, 1-year non-relapse mortality (NRM), GvHD relapse-free survival (GRFS), and survival outcomes.

Key data: The ORR at last encounter was 58% for Rux + ECP vs 49% for Rux alone (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in progression to cGvHD between treatment groups (74% [95% confidence interval [CI], 55–87%] vs 59% [95% CI, 41–76%] for Rux + ECP and Rux alone, respectively [p = 0.387]). No significant difference in 1-year NRM (19% vs 0%; p = 0.31), 3-year survival (70% vs 80%; p = 0.36), or 3-year GRFS (94.7% vs 100%; p = 0.23) was observed between Rux + ECP vs Rux alone.

Key learning: Combining Rux with ECP may improve long-term control of SR-aGvHD and cGvHD compared with Rux alone, supporting the potential benefit of dual immunomodulatory approaches in this setting. 

References

Your opinion matters

Which consideration most strongly guides your decision to escalate therapy in SR-aGvHD?