Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31829250›Full record

ReviewSystematic reviews2019

The comparative efficacy and risk of harms of the intravenous and subcutaneous formulations of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: a rapid review.

Miriam Van den Nest, Anna Glechner, Maria Gold, Gerald Gartlehner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Budget Impact Analysis of the Introduction of Rituximab and Trastuzumab Intravenous Biosimilars to EU-5 Markets.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2021
    Article
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.

Miriam Van den NestDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Donau-Universität Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria. miriamvdn@gmx.at.ORCID 0000-0003-2653-3473
Anna GlechnerDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Donau-Universität Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.
Maria GoldDepartment for Oncology, University Hospital, 3100 St, Pölten, Austria.
Gerald GartlehnerDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Donau-Universität Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody for patients with HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-positive breast cancer, which is added to regular treatment and reduces mortality. Originally, trastuzumab had to be administered intravenously (IV) over 30 min every 3 weeks for 1 year. Since 2012, a formulation for the subcutaneous (SC) administration of trastuzumab has been available, which has not yet been approved in the USA. Advocates claim that the SC formulation saves time and money, despite higher costs. The purpose of this study is to review existing literature concerning the comparative efficacy and risk of harms of trastuzumab IV and SC concerning patient-relevant health outcomes.

methodsWe conducted searches in the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE for articles published through May 2018 in English or German. In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished studies. We dually reviewed the abstracts and full-text articles based on a priori defined inclusion criteria, rated the risk of bias of included studies, and assessed the strength of the evidence for each outcome of interest. Because data was insufficient for quantitative synthesis, we summarized results narratively.

resultsWe identified three RCTs (randomized controlled trials) meeting our eligibility criteria, which included data on 1003 patients. We found moderate evidence for similar event rates (20.05% vs. 18%, HR (hazard ratio) 0.88, CI 95% = 0.62-1.27), and mortality rates (10% vs. 8%, HR 0.76, CI 95% = 0.44-1.32) after 1.7 years for patients receiving trastuzumab IV and for patients receiving SC. Results remained similar after 3.3 years, though evidence lacked strength due to a high dropout rate. All trials reported more adverse events among the SC group than in the IV group. Evidence for these findings was of moderate strength. Nevertheless, more than 85% of the patients preferred trastuzumab SC over IV. Results concerning serious adverse events appeared to be heterogeneous.

conclusionResults of studies indicate similar efficacy between the two routes of administration. The higher rates of adverse events for SC administration were mainly attributable to injection site-related events. The clinical decision of whether to administer trastuzumab SC or IV requires the consideration of several factors and should be determined individually.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousInjections, SubcutaneousTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesEuropeFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTrastuzumabUnited StatesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesTrastuzumabBreast cancerRapid reviewRoute of administrationSubcutaneousTrastuzumab

Identifiers

PMID31829250
PMCPMC6905114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.