ArticleClinics of oncology2019
Racial Differences in Accepting Pegfilgrastim Onpro Kit (On-Body Injector) Use Among Cancer Patients.
Article in Clinics of oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit.Oncology and therapy · 2022Review
- Economic and clinical outcomes of pegfilgrastim via prefilled syringe vs on-body injector: a real-world data analysis.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Observational
- First Analysis of Same-day Pegfilgrastim Use with Concurrent Capecitabine-based Regimens in Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies.Cancer medicine journal · 2021Article
- Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on-body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: 1.1.Neulasta Onpro kit eliminates need for additional clinic visit after chemotherapy. Given the racially diverse population in our institution, we investigated acceptance of Onpro kit among patients on chemotherapy. Research Design and Methods: 1.2.Single-institution, retrospective review conducted in patients with GI tumors who received Onpro kit within 1 hour of completion of systemic chemotherapy from Jan 2014 through Jan 2018. Clinic/nursing notes and pharmacy records were reviewed to identify patients who refused Onpro kit and to discern reasons for refusal, including racial reason. Results: 1.3.Total 238 orders for kit were voided amongst 68 patients (Caucasian 41; African American 7; Spanish 3; Asian 17). Overall, 15/68 patients refused kit (22%) of these 87% were Asian. The reasons for refusal included dislike of bulky attachment to skin, request to place kit on stomach instead of arm, trepidation over unwitnessed administration of drug, fear of reaction, disposal at home, fear of pain, lack of confirmation of proper dose administration, and need for MRI. Conclusions: 1.4.While Onpro kit is an attractive alternative, 22% of patients with voided orders, mainly of Asian race, declined its application. We believe the current study represents the first look at important racial differences in accepting Onpro kit. Consideration of patients' cultural heritage, race, ethnicity and education may facilitate communication between physicians and patients to achieve optimal cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31406963PMC6690622W2997816813What 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.