Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30410313›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

Home administration of filgrastim (Nivestim™) in primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

Burkhard Otremba, Carsten Hielscher, Volker Petersen, Christian Petrik

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02956967 (Home Administration Of Nivestim), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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.

NCT02956967 completednot on this map

Home Administration Of Nivestim(tm) In The Primary Prophylaxis Of Chemotherapy- Induced Febrile Neutropenia Non-interventional, Observational, Prospective Study Short Name: Home Short Name: Home

TypeobservationalSponsorPfizerRan2015 to 2016Enrolled171ConditionsNon-Interventional StudyArmsOverall satisfaction questionnaires of home use of Nivestim
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Extrapolation in Practice: Lessons from 10 Years with Biosimilar Filgrastim.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2019
    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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Burkhard OtrembaOncological Practice Oldenburg/Delmenhorst, Oldenburg, Germany, otremba@onkopraxis-oldenburg.de.
Carsten HielscherGynecology Competence Center Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany.
Volker PetersenPractice for Hematology and Oncology, Heidenheim, Germany.
Christian PetrikPfizer Inc, Berlin, Germany.
Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg · DEHeidenhain (Germany) · DEPfizer (Germany) · DEUniversity of Applied Sciences Stralsund · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™) reduces the duration and severity of neutropenia and the frequency of occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN). Administration of this biosimilar filgrastim and the patient population receiving it at home have not been sufficiently documented in day-to-day medical practice. Insight into home administration may help optimize the management of FN in this setting, potentially at a reduced cost and patient burden vs hospital administration. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a prospective, non-interventional, non-comparative, multisite study involving 171 patients across 29 sites treated with at least one dose of filgrastim. Mean age was 59.3 years, and most patients were female and G-CSF-naïve. The data collected originated from paper-based patient questionnaires and routine documentation by the treating physicians. The primary endpoint was the characterization of patients treated with filgrastim. Secondary endpoints were satisfaction with filgrastim, effectiveness, safety and tolerability, and compliance with prescription.

resultsMost patients had solid tumors (95.9%), mainly located in the breast, while 4.7% had malignant hematological disease. Solid tumors were recorded as grade 1 (7.9%), grade 2 (28.0%), grade 3 (45.7%), and grade 4 (3.0%), and the majority of patients classified at TNM Stages I and II. Many patients (71.0%) could self-inject filgrastim and 72.2% found the handling instructions "extremely straightforward and easy to understand" at least once. Nearly all (99.4%) patients found the syringes "easy to use" at least once and 91.7% were willing to continue home administration. The mean patient satisfaction score for home administration was 1.9±0.9, ranging from 1 (very satisfied) to 6 (absolutely dissatisfied). No cases of neutropenia were observed and only one event of FN occurred.

conclusionHome-based prophylaxis for FN with filgrastim was found to be effective, well tolerated, and well received by patients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02956967).

Indexed as

biosimilarfilgrastimneutropeniaoncology

Identifiers

PMID30410313
PMCPMC6199230
OpenAlexW2897764399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.