ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2026
Number needed to treat to avoid progression and death and cost analysis: zanubrutinib versus acalabrutinib in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsIn the absence of head-to-head comparative trials, this study aimed to compare zanubrutinib versus acalabrutinib in relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) by calculating number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one disease progression or death and associated economic impact.
methodsA health-economic model was developed from US payer perspective using efficacy data from matching-adjusted indirect comparison for overall R/R CLL in base-case analysis, and network meta-analysis for high-risk R/R CLL in the subgroup analysis. The NNT analysis included costs of drug acquisition, adverse event management, medical resource utilization, and subsequent treatment over 24 months. Deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed model uncertainty.
resultsIn the base case, zanubrutinib versus acalabrutinib avoided one progression for every 10 patients treated (NNT = 10) and one death for every 15 patients treated (NNT = 15), yielding per-patient cost savings of $7,335 over 24 months. In high-risk R/R CLL subgroup, one progression was avoided per six patients treated (NNT = 6) and one death per 18 patients treated (NNT = 18), with cost savings of $11,533 per patient. Results were robust across sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsThe NNT analysis demonstrates that treatment with zanubrutinib versus acalabrutinib is associated with more favorable clinical and economic outcomes in R/R CLL, especially in high-risk CLL patients.
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.