SynthesisFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Indirect treatment comparison of ivosidenib and other therapies in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia.
Synthesis in Future oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the relative efficacy of ivosidenib + azacitidine versus other therapies (venetoclax, glasdegib, azacitidine, decitabine and low-dose cytarabine [LDAC]) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed IDH1-mutated (mIDH1) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy.
methodsA systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify evidence from studies assessing the clinical efficacy of therapies in the population of interest. The relative efficacy of ivosidenib + azacitidine was estimated using a network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). In addition, an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of OS was conducted against venetoclax + azacitidine to account for population imbalances.
resultsFollowing the SLR and feasibility assessment, six studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The NMA included all population types identified in the relevant studies (including patients with and without mIDH1) and determined ivosidenib + azacitidine as the treatment with the greatest effect. The MAIC showed that ivosidenib + azacitidine was associated with numerically favorable OS compared to venetoclax + azacitidine.
conclusionBoth NMA and MAIC methods generated consistent results, demonstrating a benefit of ivosidenib + azacitidine versus other therapies for the treatment of newly diagnosed IDH1m AML.
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.