ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Old and New Drugs for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Lights and Shadows of Real-World Evidence.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- In-silico identification of genetic variants associated with chronic lymphocytic leukemia for diagnostic and therapeutic applications.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Real-world disease characteristics and frontline treatments used in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in Bulgaria: An observational cohort study (DESCRIBE).The Journal of international medical research · 2026Observational
- Article
- First-Line Treatment of Older Patients with CLL: A New Approach in the Chemo-Free Era.Cancers · 2023Review
- A Retrospective Study on the Efficacy of Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin as Compared to Intravenous Formulation in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Secondary Antibody Deficiency.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil versus ibrutinib in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients without TP53 disruptions: A real-life CLL campus study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several novel treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been recently approved based on the results of randomized clinical trials. However, real-world evidence (RWE) is also requested before and after drug authorization in order to confirm safety and to provide data for health technology assessments. We conducted a scoping review of the available RWE for targeted treatments of CLL, namely ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax, as well as for chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). In particular, we searched studies published since 1 January 2010 and reported outcomes of the above treatments based on health databases, registries, or phase IV studies, including named-patient programs. We included both full papers and abstracts of studies presented at major meetings. Overall, 110 studies were selected and analyzed: 28,880 patients were treated with ibrutinib, 1424 with idelalisib, 751 with venetoclax, 496 with acalabrutinib, and 14,896 with CIT. Reported discontinuation rates were higher than in clinical trials, while effectiveness could not be indirectly compared with clinical trials since a detailed case mix, including cytogenetic risk factors, was partially available and propensity scores rarely applied. RWE on CLL can help to set realistic outcomes with novel treatments, however, real-world studies should be fostered, and available data shared.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.