ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2017
Pegfilgrastim Versus Filgrastim for Primary Prophylaxis of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Study
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
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
Aim: One method to deal with febrile neutropenia is the use of granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Pegfilgrastim or Filgrastim injection can lead to a reduction in febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in patients receiving chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of using Pegfilgrastim, 3-day Filgrastim and 1-day Filgrastim medication strategies for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in patients with relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after salvage chemotherapy who referred to two referral centers affiliated to Iran, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in 2014. Method: This cost-effectiveness study was conducted on 131 patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The outcome of the study was the prevention of febrile neutropenia. The cost data were collected from the health payer’s perspective for each medication strategy by reviewing the patients’ medical records and using expert opinion. The results were presented in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the sensitivity analysis was used to assess the robustness of results. In this study, the collected data were analyzed using Excel 2007 and Tree-age 2011. Results: The results showed that the degrees of febrile neutropenia prevented by Pegfilgrastim, 3-day Filgrastim and 1-day Filgrastim strategies were 0.97, 0.95 and 0.83, respectively, and the average annual costs of hospitalization per patient were, 5299, 4959 and 5808 PPP$. Conclusion: The results showed that while 1-day Filgrastim was absolutely predominant, using the 3-day Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim strategies were more cost-effective. Therefore, they can be recommended respectively as the first and second treatment priorities in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after salvage chemotherapy.
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.