ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Venetoclax plus azacitidine in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: a treatment-purpose framework for interpreting response depth.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venetoclax plus azacitidine has demonstrated substantial clinical activity in treatment-naïve higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS), including high rates of complete remission, marrow complete remission, and overall response. However, recent phase 3 experience indicates that greater response depth does not necessarily translate into improved overall survival. We propose a treatment-purpose framework for interpreting the clinical value of venetoclax plus azacitidine in HR-MDS. This framework first distinguishes its potential use as a bridge to allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation from its use for non-transplant disease control. For patients treated with transplant intent, rapid blast reduction, preservation of transplant readiness, the proportion proceeding to transplantation, and post-transplant outcomes should be prioritised. For patients without transplant intent, durable haematological improvement, transfusion independence, symptom control, infection burden, hospitalization, treatment interruption, and quality of survival may be more clinically meaningful. Molecular and cytogenetic variables, including TP53 status, complex karyotype, and IPSS-M risk, should currently support stratified evaluation rather than direct treatment selection. Future studies should align response assessment and clinical endpoints with treatment intent, molecular risk, tolerability, and long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.