Trial reportBritish journal of haematology2026
Patient-reported health-related quality of life in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: Results from the randomised phase 3 FLAIR trial comparing ibrutinib-rituximab versus fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab.
Trial report in British 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Front-Line therapy in CLL: Assessment of Ibrutinib-containing Regimens (FLAIR) demonstrated improved progression-free survival for ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) compared with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). This report presents the secondary end-point of health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). FLAIR was a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial across 101 hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years, World Health Organization performance status (PS) ≤2, requiring treatment; those with >20% 17p deletion were excluded. IR was administered for up to 6 years and FCR for six cycles. Participants completed European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C30 Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), QLQ CLL Module (QLQ-CLL16), three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) and EQ5D visual analogue (EQ-VAS) at baseline and follow-up. Function and symptom trajectories were analysed using repeated-measures multilevel regression. 84.4% of participants completed baseline questionnaires and subsequent compliance was 67.6%-83.5%. Median age was 63 years; most participants were white and male. HR-QoL trajectories were similar. FCR recipients had worse scores at end of treatment but recovered thereafter. By 48 months, more FCR-treated participants showed meaningful improvements in several scales. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) favoured IR for physical, role and social function; emotional function favoured FCR. Diarrhoea was more common with IR; fatigue and dyspnoea were more common with FCR, though differences did not exceed minimally important thresholds. Overall, scales were comparable between treatment groups, indicating that continuous IR does not compromise HR-QoL.
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.