ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Venetoclax-Based Treatment in Treatment-Naïve Fit Patients With CLL Without TP53 Aberrations.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The GAIA-CLL13 trial showed that venetoclax-obinutuzumab (Ven-O) based regimens, with or without ibrutinib, offer superior efficacy compared to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) with regards to progression free survival (PFS) in fit, treatment-naïve (TN) CLL patients. However, their higher costs warrant a cost-effectiveness evaluation. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Ven-O versus venetoclax with rituximab (Ven-R), venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib (Ven-O-I), and CIT in fit, TN CLL patients without TP53 aberrations across the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark. A state-transition Markov model including later line treatment was applied to estimate costs, life years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 38-year horizon. Results were sensitive to long-term OS assumptions. In the base-case analysis, extrapolating OS and PFS for each treatment separately, all venetoclax-based treatments appeared cost-effective compared to CIT in all three countries. ICERs for Ven-R, Ven-O, and Ven-O-I versus CIT were €35 840, €32 513, €30 331 for the Netherlands, €39 881, €38 099, €26 381 for Norway, and €34 010, €37 804, €33 215 for Denmark. In the sensitivity analyses, however, cost-effectiveness was lost when only allowing separate OS and PFS extrapolations for statistically significant differences at 60-month follow-up. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to varying assumptions about national willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds, IGHV-status, and time horizon. In conclusion, venetoclax-based treatments may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for fit, TN CLL patients without TP53 aberrations in the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, but the pricing process for targeted agents should take the uncertainty about cost-effectiveness into account when negotiating pricing of medication. Longer follow-up data is needed to address the uncertainties.
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.