SynthesisDrugs - real world outcomes2023
Systematic Literature Review of Real-World Effectiveness Results Data for First-Line Ibrutinib in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma.
Synthesis in Drugs - real world outcomes, 2023. 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.
- Real-world survival outcomes in first-line ibrutinib-treated patients with high-risk CLL/SLL.Blood advances · 2025Article
- Real-world efficacy and safety outcomes of acalabrutinib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: primary results of a French multicentre observational study (NAOS).Annals of hematology · 2025Observational
- Article
- Healthcare resource utilization and costs of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma patients who relapse or are refractory to ibrutinib.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIbrutinib, an oral Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy as a first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia in multiple, phase III, randomized clinical trials. This systematic literature review assessed the clinical effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in real-world clinical settings.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and relevant conference websites were searched for articles published in the USA from 1 January, 2014 to 30 June, 2020. Overall survival, progression-free survival, overall response rate, and time to next treatment were summarized.
resultsThis analysis included a total of 12 publications representing data from 112 to 2033 patients from community and academic centers, and the multicenter informCLL registry. Patients were predominantly male (60-99%) with a median age range from 62 to 77 years, and included those with high-risk genomic features (del[17p]: 21-33%; del[11q]: 33%; and unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain variable gene: 59%). Real-world effectiveness with ibrutinib complemented the efficacy demonstrated in randomized clinical trials. Across various studies, the 12-month overall survival rates ranged from 95% to 96%; 18-month overall survival rates were similarly high (91%). Twelve-month progression-free survival rates ranged from 89% to 93%, and the overall response rate ranged from 71% to 90% across four studies. In the studies that reported time to next treatment, 91% and 87% of patients treated with first-line ibrutinib did not initiate new treatment at 12 months and 24 months, respectively.
conclusionsThis systematic literature review confirms the benefit of ibrutinib as a first-line treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in real-world clinical settings and is consistent with results from randomized clinical trials, including in patients with high-risk genomic features.
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.