SynthesisBMC immunology2025
Systematic literature reviews to identify epidemiological, clinical, economic and health-related quality of life evidence in activated PI3Kδ syndrome (APDS).
Synthesis in BMC immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Targeting PI3Kδ for lymphoma and immune diseases treatment: a review.Molecular diversity · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundActivated phosphoinositide 3-kinase delta (PI3Kδ) syndrome (APDS) is an ultra-rare inborn error of immunity, characterised by immunodeficiency and immune dysregulation. Having only been recognised in 2013, evidence on APDS is limited. We carried out four systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to identify and narratively synthesise evidence on the following for APDS: epidemiology (epidemiology SLR), clinical efficacy/safety of treatments (clinical SLR), cost-effectiveness and costs/healthcare (HCRU) associated with (economic SLR) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and utility data (HRQoL SLR) from a global perspective.
methodsThe Cochrane Collaboration and the University of York's Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, University of York CRD, conference proceedings and other grey literature were searched through to May 2023 for all SLRs, except the epidemiology SLR (searched to Nov 2021); economic databases were also searched for the economic and HRQoL SLRs. Eligible records were: primary epidemiology publications (epidemiology SLR), interventional/observational studies of treatments (clinical SLR), cost/HCRU studies/economic evaluations (economic SLR) and HRQoL/utility studies (HRQoL SLR) in people with APDS. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist (clinical SLR) and the Drummond checklist (economic SLR).
resultsThe numbers of unique relevant studies identified were: 0 (epidemiology SLR), 117 (clinical SLR; 87 reported on <5 patients), 2 (economic SLR) and 1 (HRQoL SLR). The clinical SLR reported symptomatic treatments to be only partially effective at controlling APDS manifestations, with variable tolerability. Outcome reporting was heterogeneous and inconsistent, with small sample sizes and patients receiving multiple treatments, limiting interpretation of results. The economic SLR reported a high direct cost of APDS. Additional HRQoL/utility studies are required to evaluate the clinical and HRQoL burden of APDS and the impact of therapies.
conclusionFour methodologically robust SLRs identified limited evidence on epidemiology, clinical outcomes, costs and HRQoL in APDS, reflecting its ultra-rare nature and recent recognition. This suggests a need for more rigorous data evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of APDS treatments. Outcome reporting was highly heterogeneous and inconsistent across studies, sample sizes were small and patients often received multiple treatments, limiting interpretation of results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.