ArticleJournal of blood medicine2019
Lenograstim and filgrastim in the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis of hospitalized patients: efficacy and cost of the prophylaxis in a retrospective survey.
Article in Journal of blood medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Monocentric Analysis of the Effectiveness and Financial Consequences of the Use of Lenograstim versus Filgrastim for Mobilization of Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cells in Patients with Lymphoma and Myeloma Receiving Chemotherapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.Journal of blood medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and related costs of using two different molecules of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim - LENO or filgrastim - FIL) as primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in a hematological inpatient setting.
methodsThe primary endpoints of the analysis were the efficacy of the two G-CSFs in terms of the level of white blood cells, hemoglobin and platelets at the end of the treatment and the per capita direct medical costs related to G-CSF prophylaxis.
resultsTwo hundred twelve patients (96 LENO, 116 FIL) have been evaluated. The following statistically significant differences have been observed between FIL and LENO: the use of a higher number of vials (11 vs 7;
conclusionThe use of LENO has been associated with a lower number of days of hospitalization, number of vials and less incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation. LENO seems to be cost-saving when compared with FIL (-15.2%).
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.