ReviewPharmacoEconomics1993
Idarubicin: a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Idarubicin is an effective agent in the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), inducing complete remission in 39 to 80% of newly diagnosed patients. Although it also demonstrates efficacy as monotherapy, and is of use in relapsed or refractory disease, most comparative clinical trials have administered idarubicin intravenously in combination with cytarabine in newly diagnosed patients. These trials indicate that improved survival and response rates, and rapid achievement of remission, are more likely with idarubicin than with daunorubicin, when both agents are given in combination with cytarabine. In elderly patients, however, response rates are lower than in younger patients, and there is less disparity in efficacy between idarubicin and daunorubicin induction therapy. Although AML is an expensive disease to treat, the majority of costs are associated with the length of hospitalisation, with the acquisition cost of the chemotherapy agents contributing less than 10% to overall expenditure. Idarubicin combined with cytarabine therapy achieved higher response rates with the first cycle of therapy than daunorubicin, thereby reducing the requirements for a second cycle of therapy and further hospitalisation. Compared with daunorubicin plus cytarabine induction treatment, idarubicin plus cytarabine reduced the costs of achieving a complete response by between 22 and 39% in patients with a median age less than 60 years. In patients with a median age of 62 years, who are more representative of the AML population, costs of achieving a complete response were reduced by 3 to 6%. Thus, idarubicin is more cost effective than daunorubicin as induction therapy in combination with cytarabine, in adult patients with AML. The pharmacoeconomic position of idarubicin in postinduction therapy remains to be established.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.