↓ Skip to main content

Ibrutinib as Initial Therapy for Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
527 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
396 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ibrutinib as Initial Therapy for Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1509388
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan A. Burger, Alessandra Tedeschi, Paul M. Barr, Tadeusz Robak, Carolyn Owen, Paolo Ghia, Osnat Bairey, Peter Hillmen, Nancy L. Bartlett, Jianyong Li, David Simpson, Sebastian Grosicki, Stephen Devereux, Helen McCarthy, Steven Coutre, Hang Quach, Gianluca Gaidano, Zvenyslava Maslyak, Don A. Stevens, Ann Janssens, Fritz Offner, Jiří Mayer, Michael O’Dwyer, Andrzej Hellmann, Anna Schuh, Tanya Siddiqi, Aaron Polliack, Constantine S. Tam, Deepali Suri, Mei Cheng, Fong Clow, Lori Styles, Danelle F. James, Thomas J. Kipps

Abstract

Background Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) primarily affects older persons who often have coexisting conditions in addition to disease-related immunosuppression and myelosuppression. We conducted an international, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial to compare two oral agents, ibrutinib and chlorambucil, in previously untreated older patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Methods We randomly assigned 269 previously untreated patients who were 65 years of age or older and had CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma to receive ibrutinib or chlorambucil. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent review committee. Results The median age of the patients was 73 years. During a median follow-up period of 18.4 months, ibrutinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than did chlorambucil (median, not reached vs. 18.9 months), with a risk of progression or death that was 84% lower with ibrutinib than that with chlorambucil (hazard ratio, 0.16; P<0.001). Ibrutinib significantly prolonged overall survival; the estimated survival rate at 24 months was 98% with ibrutinib versus 85% with chlorambucil, with a relative risk of death that was 84% lower in the ibrutinib group than in the chlorambucil group (hazard ratio, 0.16; P=0.001). The overall response rate was higher with ibrutinib than with chlorambucil (86% vs. 35%, P<0.001). The rates of sustained increases from baseline values in the hemoglobin and platelet levels were higher with ibrutinib. Adverse events of any grade that occurred in at least 20% of the patients receiving ibrutinib included diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and nausea; adverse events occurring in at least 20% of those receiving chlorambucil included nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, and vomiting. In the ibrutinib group, four patients had a grade 3 hemorrhage and one had a grade 4 hemorrhage. A total of 87% of the patients in the ibrutinib group are continuing to take ibrutinib. Conclusions Ibrutinib was superior to chlorambucil in previously untreated patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma, as assessed by progression-free survival, overall survival, response rate, and improvement in hematologic variables. (Funded by Pharmacyclics and others; RESONATE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01722487 .).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 115 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 396 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Unknown 383 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 62 16%
Other 57 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 13%
Unspecified 50 13%
Student > Master 48 12%
Other 128 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 209 53%
Unspecified 59 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 4%
Other 43 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 948. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,343
of 13,420,122 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#240
of 25,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124
of 356,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#4
of 370 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,420,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 62.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 370 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.