Evidence mapPaperPMID 41424932Full record

ArticleBlood neoplasia2025

Hypertension in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma in ALPINE: a secondary analysis.

June-Wha Rhee, Nicole Lamanna, Wassim Aldairy, Lipeng Chen, Jun Zhang, Dulce Ramirez, William B White

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Blood neoplasia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03734016 (A Phase 3, Randomized Study of Zanubrutinib), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03734016 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase 3, Randomized Study of Zanubrutinib (BGB-3111) Compared With Ibrutinib in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia or Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorBeiGeneRan2018 to 2024Enrolled652ConditionsChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Small Lymphocytic LymphomaArmsZanubrutinib, Ibrutinib
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

June-Wha RheeDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA.
Nicole LamannaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Wassim AldairyGlobal Patient Safety, BeOne Medicines Ltd, San Mateo, CA.
Lipeng ChenGlobal Patient Safety, BeOne Medicines Ltd, Beijing, China.
Jun ZhangGlobal Statistics & Data Science, BeOne Medicines Ltd, San Mateo, CA.
Dulce RamirezGlobal Patient Safety, BeOne Medicines Ltd, San Mateo, CA.
William B WhiteCardiology Center, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypertension is a common side effect of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis). The second-generation BTKi zanubrutinib has high BTK selectivity, which may minimize off-target effects. A phase 3 trial (ALPINE) demonstrated improved efficacy and safety of zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). To better understand hypertension risk with zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib in ALPINE, this post hoc analysis evaluated hypertension development by measuring antihypertensive therapy initiation. Eligible adults with R/R CLL/SLL were randomized to zanubrutinib 160 mg twice-a-day or ibrutinib 420 mg daily until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Differences in treatment-emergent hypertension, antihypertensive therapy use and changes in blood pressure were evaluated. Of 648 patients (zanubrutinib, n = 324; ibrutinib, n = 324), nearly half used antihypertensive therapy at baseline (zanubrutinib, 48%; ibrutinib, 45%). With zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib, initiation of a new antihypertensive agent (28% vs 32%) or new antihypertensive class (24% vs 29%) were comparable. In patients without baseline antihypertensive therapy, 21% vs 29% with zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib, respectively, initiated new antihypertensive therapy. In all patients, time-to-initiation of a new antihypertensive class was longer with zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib; in those without baseline antihypertensive therapy, time-to-initiation of a new antihypertensive agent was also longer. Mean systolic blood pressure changes were lower with zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib. In conclusion, zanubrutinib was associated with longer time to initiation of antihypertensive therapy compared with ibrutinib in ALPINE. These findings could be of clinical importance when initiating BTKi therapy in patients with CLL/SLL. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03734016.

Identifiers

PMID41424932
PMCPMC12711688

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.