Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31745601›Full record

ArticleAnnals of hematology2019

Single-agent ibrutinib in RESONATE-2™ and RESONATE™ versus treatments in the real-world PHEDRA databases for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Gilles Salles, Emmanuel Bachy, Lukas Smolej, Martin Simkovic, Lucile Baseggio, Anna Panovska, Hervé Besson, Nollaig Healy, Jamie Garside, Wafae Iraqi and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of hematology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Approaches to Selecting "Time Zero" in External Control Arms with Multiple Potential Entry Points: A Simulation Study of 8 Approaches.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.

Gilles SallesCentre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, INSERM 1052, Pierre Bénite, France. gilles.salles@chu-lyon.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9541-8666
Emmanuel BachyCentre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, INSERM 1052, Pierre Bénite, France.
Lukas Smolej4th Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
Martin Simkovic4th Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
Lucile BaseggioCentre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, INSERM 1052, Pierre Bénite, France.
Anna PanovskaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Hervé Besson, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Nollaig HealyJanssen Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Jamie GarsideJanssen-Cilag Limited, High Wycombe, UK.
Wafae IraqiJanssen Pharmaceuticals, Paris, France.
Joris DielsJanssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.
Corinna Pick-LauerJanssen-Cilag GmbH, Neuss, Germany.
Martin Spacek1st Department of Medicine, Department of Hematology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Renata UrbanovaUniversity Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Daniel LysakUniversity Hospital Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Ruben HermansIQVIA Real-World Insight Solutions, London, UK.
Jessica LundbomIQVIA Real-World Insight Solutions, London, UK.
Evelyne Callet-BauchuCentre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, INSERM 1052, Pierre Bénite, France.
Michael DoubekDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRCharles University · CZIQVIA (United Kingdom) · GBMasaryk University · CZJanssen (Belgium) · BEJanssen (France) · FRJanssen (Germany) · DEJanssen (Ireland) · IEJanssen (United Kingdom) · GBPilsen Tools (Czechia) · CZTolbrug Specialistische Revalidatie · NLUniversity Hospital Olomouc · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After analyzing treatment patterns in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (objective 1), we investigated the relative effectiveness of ibrutinib versus other commonly used treatments (objective 2) in patients with treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory CLL, comparing patient-level data from two randomized registration trials with two real-world databases. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics. Rituximab-containing regimens were often prescribed in clinical practice. The most frequently prescribed regimens were fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab (FCR, 29.3%), bendamustine + rituximab (BR, 17.7%), and other rituximab-containing regimens (22.0%) in the treatment-naïve setting (n = 604), other non-FCR/BR rituximab-containing regimens (38.7%) and non-rituximab-containing regimens (28.5%) in the relapsed/refractory setting (n = 945). Adjusted HRs (95% CI) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), respectively, with ibrutinib versus real-world regimens were 0.23 (0.14-0.37; p < 0.0001) and 0.40 (0.22-0.76; p = 0.0048) in the treatment-naïve setting, and 0.21 (0.16-0.27; p < 0.0001) and 0.29 (0.21-0.41; p < 0.0001) in the relapsed/refractory setting. When comparing real-world use of ibrutinib (n = 53) versus other real-world regimens in relapsed/refractory CLL (objective 3), adjusted HRs (95% CI) were 0.37 (0.22-0.63; p = 0.0003) for PFS and 0.53 (0.27-1.03; p < 0.0624) for OS. This adjusted analysis, based on nonrandomized patient data, suggests ibrutinib to be more effective than other commonly used regimens for CLL.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualLeukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-CellAdenineAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBendamustine HydrochlorideCyclophosphamideDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPiperidinesPyrazolesAdenineBendamustine HydrochlorideCyclophosphamidefludarabineibrutinibPiperidinesPyrazolesPyrimidinesRituximabVidarabineChronic lymphocytic leukemiaIbrutinibOverall survivalProgression-free survivalRandomized controlled trialReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID31745601
PMCPMC6900267
OpenAlexW2991609674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.