The strengths and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data

BACKGROUND: Properly performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses are thought by many to represent among the highest level of evidence addressing important clinical issues. Few would disagree that meta-analyses based on individual patient data (IPD) offer several advantages and represent the standard to which all other systematic reviews should be compared. METHODS: All cancer-related meta-analyses cited in Medline were classified as based on aggregate or individual patient data. A review was then undertaken of all reports comparing the comparative strengths and limitations of meta-analyses using either aggregate or individual patient data. RESULTS: The majority of published meta-analyses are based on summary or aggregate patient data (APD). Reasons suggested for this include the considerable resources, years of study and often, broad international cooperation required for IPD meta-analyses. Many of the most important features of systematic reviews including formal meta-analyses are addressed by both IPD and APD meta-analyses. The need for defining an explicit and relevant clinical question, exhaustively searching for the totality of evidence, meticulous and unbiased data transfer or extraction, assessment of between study heterogeneity and the use of appropriate statistical methods for estimating summary effect measures are essentially the same for the two approaches. CONCLUSION: IPD offers advantages and, when feasible, should be considered the best opportunity to summarize the results of multiple studies. However, the resources, time and cooperation required for such studies will continue to limit their use in many important areas of clinical medicine which can be meaningfully and cost-effectively approached by properly performed APD meta-analyses. APD meta-analyses continue to be the mainstay of systematic reviews utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force, the Cochrane Collaboration and many professional societies to support clinical practice guidelines

Cost‐effectiveness analysis of low‐dose direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for the prevention of cancer‐associated thrombosis in the United States

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154607/1/cncr32724.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154607/2/cncr32724_am.pd

Costs associated with febrile neutropenia in solid tumor and lymphoma patients - an observational study in Singapore.

BackgroundThe primary objective was to describe the total direct inpatient costs among solid tumor and lymphoma patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and the factors that were associated with higher direct cost. The secondary objective was to describe the out-of-pocket patient payments and the factors that were associated with higher out-of-pocket patient payments.MethodsThis was a single-center observational study conducted at the largest cancer center in Singapore. All of the adult cancer patients hospitalized due to FN from 2009 to 2012 were studied. The primary outcomes were the total hospital cost and the out-of-pocket patient payments (adjusted by government subsidy) per FN episode. Univariate analysis and multiple linear regression were conducted to identify the factors associated with higher FN costs.ResultsThree hundred and sixty seven adult cancer patients were documented with FN-related hospitalizations. The mean total hospital cost was US$4,193 (95$3,779-4,607) and the mean out-of-pocket patient payment was US$2,230 (95$1,976-2,484), per FN episode. The factors associated with a higher total hospital cost were longer length of stay, severe sepsis, and lymphoma as underlying cancer. The out-of-pocket patient payment was positively associated with longer length of stay, severe sepsis, lymphoma diagnosed as underlying cancer, the therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF), the private ward class, and younger patients.ConclusionsThe total hospital cost and out-of-pocket patient payments of FN management in lymphoma cases were substantial compared with other solid tumors. Factors associated with a higher FN management cost may be useful for developing appropriate strategies to reduce the cost of FN for cancer patients

Prophylactic G-CSF in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a health economic review

Although the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in conjunction with myelosuppressive chemotherapy is supported by clinical research evidence and advocated by international clinical guidelines when the consequent risk of febrile neutropenia exceeds 20%, there remains doubt as to the cost-effectiveness of the practice. There are limited economic data, and the data that are available are not necessarily applicable to the management of breast cancer in a European setting. Much of the available evidence on G-CSF in the management of febrile neutropenia is partial, focusing primarily on direct costs to the health service – that is, those related to hospitalisation and drug treatment. A full assessment of the cost effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis needs to take account of both costs and outcomes, including mortality, quality of life and patient functioning. As febrile neutropenia has been shown to affect productivity, consideration should also be given to quantifying the indirect costs of neutropenia

Prevention of febrile neutropenia: use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors

There is good evidence to suggest that dose intensity is important when considering the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. However, the development of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia can lead to reduction in dose intensity and other treatment modifications, which may negatively affect patient outcomes. Febrile neutropenia can be prevented by the use of primary prophylactic treatment, notably with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. This practice is supported by international guidelines, all of which recommend that primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors should be used with chemotherapy where the risk of febrile neutropenia is 20% or greater

A prospective study of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network. Interpretation of study results in light of NCAG/NCEPOD findings

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is a medical emergency complicating the treatment of many cancer patients. It is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, as well as impacting on healthcare resources. METHODS: A prospective study of all cases of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network was conducted over a 4-month period. Factors including demographics, treatment history, management of febrile neutropenia and outcome were recorded. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results reflect those of the recent National Chemotherapy Advisory Group (NCEPOD, 2008)/National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death reports (NCAG, 2009) and highlight the need for network-wide c inical care pathways to improve outcomes in this area, British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 407-412. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606059 www.bjcancer.com Published online 21 December 2010 (C) 2011 Cancer Research U

The use of chemotherapy regimens carrying a moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the corresponding management of febrile neutropenia: an expert survey in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

The use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia (defined as having a FN incidence of 10% or more) and the respective incidence and clinical management of FN in breast cancer and NHL has not been studied in Belgium. The existence of a medical need for G-CSF primary and secondary prophylaxis with these regimens was investigated in a real-life setting.Journal ArticleMulticenter StudyResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity. Results: Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98). Conclusions: Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim