Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34727316›Full record

Observational studyAdvances in therapy2022

Utilization of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study of US Healthcare Claims Data.

Rebecca C Arend, David M O'Malley, Susana Banerjee, Kimmie McLaurin, Richard Davidson, Gráinne H Long

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Characteristics and real-world outcomes of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer who received niraparib plus bevacizumab first-line maintenance therapy in the COMB1NE study.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Rebecca C Arend *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 619 19th Street South, 176F Rm 10250, Birmingham, AL, 35249, USA. rarend@uabmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2108-3426
David M O'Malley *The Ohio State University and James Cancer Center, M210 Starling Loving Hall, 320 West 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2828-0177
Susana BanerjeeThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8840-7934
Kimmie McLaurinAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, One MedImmune Way, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA.
Richard DavidsonAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, City House, 136 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8PA, UK.
Gráinne H LongAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, City House, 136 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8PA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5080-9885
AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) · GBAstraZeneca (United States) · USRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe aimed to characterize real-world utilization of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) in women with ovarian cancer (OC).

methodsThis retrospective observational study of claims data from US MarketScan

resultsOverall, 303, 348, and 162 women with OC received olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib, respectively. During follow-up, risk of any CEI was higher with niraparib versus olaparib (odds ratio 3.36 [95% confidence interval 2.00-5.65]) and niraparib versus rucaparib (2.09 [1.10-3.95]), with no significant difference between rucaparib and olaparib (1.61 [0.93-2.79]). PARPi dose decreases were observed in 21.1%, 35.1%, and 30.2% of olaparib-, niraparib-, and rucaparib-treated patients, respectively. Persistence (no treatment gaps of more than 90 days) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) with olaparib (62.2%) versus niraparib (35.9%) and rucaparib (48.7%); adherence (medication possession ratio, MPR ≥ 80%) was 80.2% versus 38.6% and 63.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). Inpatient admissions and outpatient service use were higher with niraparib and rucaparib versus olaparib, reflected in mean (± standard deviation) total medical costs (excluding pharmacy) of $5393 ± 8828 for olaparib, $7732 ± 14,054 for niraparib, and $6868 ± 7929 for rucaparib.

conclusionDifferences between the licensed PARPi were observed in the risk of experiencing a CEI, likelihood of dose modifications, ability to receive continuous PARPi therapy, HCRU, and costs.

Indexed as

Ovarian NeoplasmsPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsAgedDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMedicareRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesPoly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsDose modificationHealthcare resource utilizationOvarian cancerPARP inhibitorsReal-world evidenceTolerability

Identifiers

PMID34727316
PMCPMC8799547
OpenAlexW3210256176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.