ArticlePloS one2022
Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients on ibrutinib compared to other CLL treatments in a real-world US cross sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender Disparities in Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Impact of Treatment Modality.European journal of haematology · 2025Article
- Changes in first-line treatment patterns according to frailty in chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma.Leukemia & lymphoma · 2025Article
- Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Care and Beyond: Navigating the Needs of Long-Term Survivors.Cancers · 2025Review
- Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Management of Adverse Events in the Era of Targeted Agents.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe real-world health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction of ibrutinib-treated patients with CLL compared to a reference group. This study was completed in two parts. The first portion (Norming Study) was a US online survey conducted to serve as a reference population. The Norming Study included a total of 139 patients with CLL, excluding those treated with ibrutinib: 64 were treatment naive (Tx naive), 36 were 1st line (1L), and 38 were in or had completed ≥2 lines (2L+) patients with CLL. The second portion (CLL Ibrutinib Study) included 1L and 2L+ ibrutinib patients with CLL treated for ≥6 months in which 118 patients (1L n = 88 and 2L+ n = 30) completed the study. Respondents completed demographic and clinical information and the following HRQoL surveys: (Short Form-12v2® Health Survey [SF-12v2], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G], FACT-Leukemia [FACT-Leu] Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy [FACIT]-Fatigue, and Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire [CTSQ]). Higher scores indicate better HRQoL/treatment satisfaction. Differences in effect sizes between the two samples at the group level were calculated using Hedges' g. Medium to large positive effects were seen in the CLL Ibrutinib group on several measures compared to the Reference Study groups. The FACT-G total score was 89.2±11.1 for CLL Ibrutinib Study patients compared to 75.8±22.6 CLL Norming Tx naïve patients, 61.3±21.8 in 1L, and 61.7±20.7 in 2L+. Similar trends were seen with FACT-Leu total score and FACIT-Fatigue. CLL Ibrutinib Study patients scored higher on all CTSQ domain scores compared to the CLL Norming patients treated with other CLL therapies. We found that Ibrutinib-treatment had better HRQoL and treatment satisfaction compared to patients receiving other therapies, irrespective of line of therapy.
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.