ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
APDS treatment in Germany: decision criteria, costs and contribution of leniolisib to outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Activated PI3 Kinase Delta Syndrome (APDS) is a rare inborn error of immunity. To better classify the contribution of a potential new therapeutic precision agent, leniolisib, medically relevant decision criteria were assessed upon which an outcomes model was built. Methods: Two online surveys and two roundtable discussions with 6 medical and scientific experts were conducted to obtain and discuss clinical and cost components. Based on the discussion results, key decision outcomes were modelled in an outcomes model. Results: Key decision therapeutic criteria of physicians were reliably found in two rounds of Maximum Difference Scaling, with efficacy being most important, followed by safety, disease severity, and quality of life impact. Relevant clinical outcomes in APDS, that were considered well quantifiable, were frequency of infections, lymphoproliferation, bronchiectasis, lymphoma, and mortality. For these outcomes, relevant improvements versus current standard of care were estimated for the new therapeutic precision agent leniolisib. Expert assessments in the online surveys, which were carried out by the 6 participants independently, showed low variance across participants. Ratings resulted in a projected reduction of mortality by use of leniolisib of ~16% at an age of 40 years (95% CI: [9%; 22%]). This age is currently reached only by 65% of APDS patients. Other changes were expected for costs, immunoglobulin replacement, treatment of lymphoma and other malignancies, bronchiectasis, and advanced lung disease, as well as allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). Conclusions: Decision criteria of physicians for treating APDS are well in line with other therapeutic areas, with efficacy considered to be most relevant. Based on currently available data on leniolisib therapy, mortality and several patient-relevant morbidity endpoints are expected to improve in future clinical practice in Germany. Leniolisib may significantly modify the course of disease in APDS patients.
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.