2021
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2021.1984462
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The tools to choose: applying indirect treatment comparisons to the selection of frontline targeted therapy for CLL

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 23 However, methodologic flaws and the imbalance of baseline factors across trials make these indirect comparisons of questionable value. 24 In the setting of relapsed disease, one “real-world” comparison suggested a longer PFS with venetoclax compared with ibrutinib as first targeted agent, 25 whereas a network meta-analysis reported no difference in PFS or OS for venetoclax compared with an ibrutinib-based approach. 26 Given this inconclusive evidence base regarding the superior efficacy of either approach, our considerations should include additional factors, such as tolerability, long-term toxicity, societal cost, and options for effective subsequent treatments.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 23 However, methodologic flaws and the imbalance of baseline factors across trials make these indirect comparisons of questionable value. 24 In the setting of relapsed disease, one “real-world” comparison suggested a longer PFS with venetoclax compared with ibrutinib as first targeted agent, 25 whereas a network meta-analysis reported no difference in PFS or OS for venetoclax compared with an ibrutinib-based approach. 26 Given this inconclusive evidence base regarding the superior efficacy of either approach, our considerations should include additional factors, such as tolerability, long-term toxicity, societal cost, and options for effective subsequent treatments.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%