ArticleTherapeutic advances in hematology2024
Comparable efficacy and safety of generic and branded imatinib for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in China.
Article in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generics imatinib became an alternative treatment option for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients in China. However, clinicians and patients alike harbor concerns regarding the long-term safety of generic imatinib. Objectives: Patients with chronic phase CML receiving frontline imatinib treatment. Design: A retrospective study was used to evaluate the blood concentration, effectiveness, and safety of generic in 170 CML patients. Methods: Imatinib plasma concentrations were detected by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Results: Among the 170 patients, 73 (42.9%) patients treated with branded imatinib as first-line therapy, while 22 (12.9%) switched to generic imatinib during treatment due to economic considerations. No significant differences in trough concentrations between branded and generic imatinib (1549.9 ± 648.8 ng/mL vs 1479.0 ± 507.0 ng/mL; Conclusion: Generic imatinib are equally effective and safe compared to branded molecules, both for newly diagnosed patients and those who switch from branded.
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.