Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36919083›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2023

Glucarpidase for Treating Adults with Delayed Methotrexate Elimination Due to Impaired Renal Function: An Economic Simulation Analysis.

Jaya Kala, Rebecca Nelson, Christopher Drudge, Allen Zhou, Suzanne Ward, Megan Bourque

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Beyond the budget impact model: A case study for glucarpidase and the real cost of managing curable toxicities.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jaya Kala *University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Rebecca Nelson *Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Christopher DrudgeValue and Evidence, EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9721-3069
Allen ZhouValue and Evidence, EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada.
Suzanne WardBTG International Inc, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Megan BourqueValue and Evidence, EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada.
EVERSANA (Canada) · CAMoffitt Cancer Center · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Glucarpidase is indicated for treating delayed methotrexate (MTX) elimination due to impaired renal function. Although glucarpidase is capable of rapidly eliminating MTX independent of renal clearance, its cost can be perceived as a barrier to use. However, no published economic analyses have evaluated glucarpidase relative to comparable treatments. Purpose: To assess the economic value of glucarpidase for treating adult patients in the United States (US) who experience delayed MTX elimination due to impaired renal function. Methods: A decision tree model was developed to assess the economic value of glucarpidase. The short-term inpatient management of patients as well as long-term survival were simulated. Costs associated with the use of glucarpidase were compared against other methods for treating delayed MTX elimination due to impaired renal function under two scenarios: current practice (ie, mix of timely/delayed use of glucarpidase, hemodialysis, or supportive care [SC] alone) as compared with proposed practice (ie, timely glucarpidase administration within 60 hours for all eligible patients). Hypothetical practical scenarios for US institutions were also considered. Results: For adult patients with delayed MTX elimination, proposed practice as compared to current practice was associated with an increased cost of $20,024 per patient, not considering any incremental reimbursement associated with glucarpidase administration. Importantly, early treatment with glucarpidase, within 60 hours, was shown to be less expensive per patient than delayed glucarpidase treatment or treating with hemodialysis, but more expensive than SC alone. However, proposed practice was associated with multiple clinical benefits, including shorter hospital length of stay. For hypothetical practical scenarios, minimal shifts in treatment patterns had minimal cost impacts. Conclusion: Treatment of all eligible patients with glucarpidase within 60 hours was associated with an increased cost per patient (relative to current practice) but substantial improvements in clinical outcomes. Timely glucarpidase use was less expensive than delayed glucarpidase or hemodialysis.

Indexed as

chemotherapycostsoutcomestoxicity

Identifiers

PMID36919083
PMCPMC10008431
OpenAlexW4323568228

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.