Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22540394›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2012

Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review.

Bradford R Hirsch, Gary H Lyman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Hospitalizations, outcomes, and management costs of febrile neutropenia in patients from a managed care population.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Article
  12. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bradford R HirschDepartment of Medicine, Duke University and the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Gary H Lyman
Duke Cancer InstituteDuke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for biosimilar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe.

objectivesThe objective of this paper is to review the available pharmacoeconomic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

methodsA MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003.

resultsAcceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support.

conclusionThis evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsEconomics, PharmaceuticalEuropeFeverGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorGranulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansNeoplasmsNeutropeniaUnited StatesAntineoplastic AgentsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorGranulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor

Identifiers

PMID22540394
OpenAlexW116519768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.