Trial reportPharmacoEconomics1994
Economic analysis of lenograstim in the correction of neutropenia following chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Trial report in PharmacoEconomics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Low-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor overcomes neutropenia in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with higher cost-effectiveness.International journal of hematology · 2005Trial
- Implications of the European Organisation for Research And Treatment Of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for lymphoma care.Clinical drug investigation · 2009Review
- Review
- Challenges to the economic evaluation of new biotechnological interventions in healthcare.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Article
- Review
- Overview of the lenograstim pharmacoeconomics programme.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Review
- Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of lenograstim. Conclusions and future directions.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A prospective economic analysis of lenograstim and placebo was performed as part of a randomised double-blind trial in 162 patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). The primary clinical end-point was the percentage of patients experiencing > or = 1 documented infection in each treatment group. The cost of hospitalisation and the cost of medical services used were the primary economic end-points. Economic analysis was based on the French Hospital perspective. Over the 56-day study period, patients in the placebo group received more days of inpatient intravenous (8.9 vs 5.3 days; p < 0.01) and oral (5.3 vs 4.2 days) antibiotic therapy than those in the lenograstim group. This difference was due to a higher rate of documented infection in the placebo group. Patients treated with placebo also spent more days in hospital for reasons other than administration of chemotherapy (18.5 vs 14.4; p < 0.05). The number of days of chemotherapy was significantly greater in the lenograstim group than in the placebo group (19.4 vs 17.5; p < 0.001) because of shorter delays between chemotherapy cycles in the lenograstim group. The use of lenograstim to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with NHL was associated with a reduction in total direct medical costs (excluding the cost of lenograstim) of FF7297 as a result of reduced patient morbidity. Furthermore, the higher rate of completion of chemotherapy in the lenograstim group may lead to better long term survival; this observation deserves further clinical investigation.
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.