Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021
Patient, nurse, and physician preferences: final results of the CONVENIENCE study evaluating pegfilgrastim prophylaxis via pre-filled syringe or on-body injector in cancer patients.
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03619993 (A Comparison of Pegfilgrastim), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
A Comparison of Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) Application Via Manual Injection Versus Injection Via an On-body Injector Regarding Patient Preference and Health Economics
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety assessment of Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) in patients with solid tumors: a real-world adverse event analysis from the FAERS database.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Enhancing patient-centered care: a randomized study on G-CSF administration preferences in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Observational
- How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Review
- Human Factors Validation of a Wearable, On-Body Infusor for Subcutaneous Administration of Furosemide.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Health professionals' preferences with the use of pegfilgrastim on-body injector at oncology centers in 8 cities in Colombia.BMC health services research · 2023Observational
- Trends in Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Following Introduction of Biosimilars Among Adults With Cancer and Commercial or Medicare Insurance From 2014 to 2019.JAMA network open · 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
17 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe on-body injector (OBI) automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy (CTx), thus eliminating the need of return visits to the medical office for guideline-compliant pegfilgrastim administration. The CONVENIENCE study aimed to evaluate patient, nurse, and physician preferences as well as health economics for pegfilgrastim administration either with OBI or manually using a pre-filled syringe (PS).
methodsPatients with early breast cancer, receiving two or three weekly anthracycline/cyclophosphamide or three weekly taxane-based CTx, and patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving first-line R-CHOP-14 or -21 were randomized 1:1 to receive both pegfilgrastim application forms for four consecutive CTx cycles in an alternating sequence starting either with OBI or PS. Primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed by questionnaires.
resultsA total of 308 patients were evaluable in the per-protocol analysis. Patients slightly preferred OBI over PS (OBI, n = 133, 43.2%; vs. PS, n = 111, 36.0%; p-value = 0.159), while study nurses slightly preferred PS (n = 19, 46.3%) over OBI (n = 18, 43.9%) and physicians clearly preferred PS (n = 24, 58.8%) over OBI (n = 15, 36.6%). Among patients with preference for OBI, saving of time was their major reason for preference (53.4%). Pegfilgrastim was administered 24-72 h after each CTx cycle in 97.6% of OBI and 63.1% of PS applications.
conclusionThe OBI was slightly preferred by patients and saving time was the major reason for their preference. PS was physicians' most preferable choice and slightly preferred by nurses. Using OBI, pegfilgrastim was almost always administered within the time period recommended by current guidelines, while it was often not applied as specified using PS.
trial registrationNo: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03619993. Registered on June 25, 2018.
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.