ReviewPharmacoEconomics1994
Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of lenograstim. Conclusions and future directions.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Overview of the lenograstim pharmacoeconomics programme.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of lenograstim, a new recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rHuG-CSF), as an adjunct to cancer chemotherapy, 3 phase III randomised clinical trials were recently conducted in Europe in patients with inflammatory breast cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and small cell lung cancer. To explore the economic implications of lenograstim therapy, a multinational pharmacoeconomics programme was undertaken using data collected during these clinical trials. This programme consisted of concurrent prospective economic evaluations undertaken by study teams in France (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma), Germany and Italy (a combined evaluation in inflammatory breast cancer) and the UK (small cell lung cancer). In these studies, attention was focused on the direct costs of medical care-principally the costs of cancer chemotherapy as well as its associated morbidity. In 2 of the pharmacoeconomic evaluations (i.e. the French, German/Italian), lenograstim was found to generate cost savings as a result of reductions in morbidity associated with chemotherapy. However, the cost of lenograstim therapy would be likely to exceed these savings, leading to an overall increase in the costs of cancer treatment. Whether the use of lenograstim is cost-effective will therefore largely depend on its impact on patient survival and quality of life, and current practical use. These issues are the focus of additional clinical studies currently underway. In addition, new research is focusing on the clinical benefits of lenograstim in other areas of oncology and haematology. Further pharmacoeconomic studies in these areas are also warranted.
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.