Comparative efficacy of venetoclax-based regiments in the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a systematic review and metanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) are common lymphoproliferative diseases in the elderly, accounting for 33% of all leukemias. The use of targeted therapies has significantly changed the management landscape of CLL/SLL. However, the efficacy of specific targeted therapies, such as venetoclax-based therapies, is limited. This review, therefore, aims to summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of venetoclax-based treatments in the management of CLL/SLL. We conducted a comprehensive search of three electronic databases, PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar, for all relevant articles. The reported outcomes were then analyzed using the statistical software Review Manager (RevMan 5.4.1). Our electronic search yielded 347 articles, of which only five were included in the review. We pooled the outcomes from 2195 patients. Our analysis found that venetoclax-based therapies significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.30; 95% CI [0.21, 0.43] p < 0.00001), overall survival (OS) (HR 0.60; 95% CI [0.45, 0.80] p = 0.0004), and time to the next treatment (TTNT) (HR 0.29; 95% [0.18, 0.46] p < 0.00001). Additionally, we found the comparative safety of venetoclax-based therapies to other combination therapies. Our study found that venetoclax-based therapies are superior to other combination therapies in prolonging survival. Furthermore, they are comparable in safety to standard chemotherapy regimens and cost-effective. The findings of this review provide preliminary evidence on the efficacy of venetoclax-based regimens in CLL/SLL. However, further research is required to determine the best comparative regimen and the feasibility of venetoclax monotherapy in patients with CLL/SLL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".