ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2015
Economic and clinical aspects of intravenous versus oral busulfan in adult patients for conditioning prior to HSCT.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer drug development: The missing links.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2019Review
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
purposeBusulfan (BU) used as cytoreductive conditioning prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is available as intravenous (IV) and oral (O) preparation. IV-BU has clinical advantages associated with relevant incremental costs. The aim was to determine the economic impact of IV-BU versus O-BU in adult HSCT recipients from a German health care providers' perspective.
methodsA budget-impact model (BIM) including costs and risks for oral mucositis (OM), infection with OM, and hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) was developed. Model inputs are literature data comparing clinical effects of IV-BU versus O-BU and German cost data (conditioning therapy, treatment of OM, infections, SOS without/with multiorgan failure) from literature and tariff lists.
resultsBase case calculations resulted the following: total costs of adverse events were €86,434 with O-BU and €44,376 with IV-BU for ten patients each. Considering costs of adverse events and drugs, about €5840 for ten patients receiving IV-BU are saved. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in several ways. Cost savings range between €4910 and €12,640 per ten patients for all adverse events and €2070 or €1140 per ten patients considering SOS only. Drug treatment of SOS and treatment of multiorgan failure during severe SOS are major cost drivers. Worst case scenario calculations (assuming -25% risk of all adverse events for O-BU and +25% for IV-BU) yield up to €27,570 per ten patients with IV-BU.
conclusionsConsidering costs of adverse events and drugs, IV-BU is the dominant alternative from a German providers' perspective. For more comprehensive economic evaluations, additional epidemiological data, evidence on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and treatment patterns are needed.
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.