ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2021
Effect on Patients' Outcomes of a Change to Biosimilar Filgrastim Product in Autologous Stem Cell Mobilization.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing addition of a biosimilar filgrastim product to the formulary, sites in the authors' provincial health authority transitioned from using the originator filgrastim to the biosimilar for autologous stem cell mobilization.
objectiveTo assess the effect on patient outcomes of a universal change to use of the biosimilar filgrastim in stem cell mobilization.
methodsThis retrospective pre-post study included patients undergoing autologous stem cell mobilization at 2 cancer hospitals in Alberta, Canada, between July 1, 2018, and November 30, 2019. Clinical outcomes were investigated for patients treated with a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (biosimilar or originator product) for mobilization before stem cell transplant, approximately 6 months before and after the defined date of product change.
resultsIn total, 102 patients were treated with the originator product and 101 patients with the biosimilar. Effectiveness was similar between the originator and biosimilar products, with 98% successful harvest of stem cells in all patients treated. Independent t tests showed no statistically significant differences between patients receiving the originator and those receiving the biosimilar in terms of time from mobilization to collection (difference of means -0.9 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.12 to 0.32), time for neutrophil engraftment (difference of means 0 days, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36), time for platelet engraftment (difference of means 1 day, 95% CI -0.55 to 2.55), average length of stay (difference of means -0.7 day, 95% CI -2.71 to 1.31), and CD34+ value (difference of means -1 × 10
conclusionsIn this pre-post study, changing to the biosimilar product from the originator maintained clinical effectiveness outcomes while decreasing overall drug expenditures. A well-planned change to the biosimilar product, executed in conjunction with clinician consultation and monitoring of effectiveness outcomes, can ensure appropriate patient therapy while significantly improving the uptake of biosimilars and decreasing expenditures for biologic drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33896951PMC8042197W3156218709What 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.