Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40317777›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical apheresis2025

Cost-Effectiveness of Preemptive Plerixafor Versus Rescue Plerixafor for Mobilization and Collection of Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Patients With Multiple Myeloma and Lymphoma.

Roselene Mesquita Augusto Passos, Miriam Allein Zago Marcolino, Júlia Augusto Passos, Vinicius Fernando Calsavara, Leila de Lourdes Martins Perobelli, Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina, Cesar de Almeida-Neto

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of clinical apheresis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Roselene Mesquita Augusto PassosDepartamento de Transplante de Medula Óssea e Hematologia, Hospital de Transplantes Euryclides de Jesus Zerbini, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9509-5043
Miriam Allein Zago MarcolinoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Epidemiologia, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5333-3173
Júlia Augusto PassosFaculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4843-8875
Vinicius Fernando CalsavaraDepartment of Computational Biomedicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2332-5863
Leila de Lourdes Martins PerobelliDepartamento de Transplante de Medula Óssea e Hematologia, Hospital de Transplantes Euryclides de Jesus Zerbini, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0643-5975
Alessandro Gonçalves CampolinaCentro de Investigação Translacional em Oncologia, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0233-0797
Cesar de Almeida-NetoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Médicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8490-4634

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brazil (CAPES) 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlerixafor combined with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has shown superior efficacy in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). However, its widespread use is constrained by high costs, and there is ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of mobilization strategies. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of preemptive versus rescue plerixafor in patients from the Brazilian Public Health Care System with multiple myeloma or lymphoma eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT).

methodsThis observational study assessed the costs and clinical outcomes of preemptive and rescue plerixafor strategies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for the percentage of patients with successful optimal or minimal HSC collections, who underwent ASCT and the number of leukapheresis sessions.

resultsThe study included 285 patients, 82 in the preemptive and 203 in the rescue group. Preemptive plerixafor resulted in a lower mobilization failure rate, a decreased need for remobilization, a higher proportion of patients progressing to ASCT, and a shorter interval between the beginning of mobilization and ASCT. The incremental cost of preemptive versus rescue plerixafor was US$ 1532.44. The incremental effectiveness observed was 10.1% for minimally successful harvest (ICER US$ 151.28), 4.7% for optimal harvest (ICER US$ 326.05), and 13.1% for patients progressing to ASCT (ICER US$ 116.18). Regarding the number of leukapheresis sessions, preemptive plerixafor was dominated. SUMMARY: Preemptive plerixafor is a cost-effective strategy compared to rescue plerixafor, offering higher efficacy and lower ICER values, making it a clinically beneficial option despite its higher cost.

Indexed as

Hematopoietic Stem Cell MobilizationHeterocyclic CompoundsLymphomaMultiple MyelomaAdultAgedBenzylaminesCost-Benefit AnalysisCyclamsFemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHematopoietic Stem CellsHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansMaleMiddle AgedBenzylaminesCyclamsGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHeterocyclic CompoundsplerixaforAMD3100autologous transplantationcost effectiveness ratiogranulocyte colony‐ stimulating factorleukapheresis

Identifiers

PMID40317777
PMCPMC12049149

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.