When the risk of febrile neutropenia is 20%, prophylactic colony-stimulating factor use is clinically effective, but is it cost-effective?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Antineoplastic Agents↗
Biomedical subjects
Jared R Adams
Publications and source records attributed to Jared R Adams.
Shared decision-making and evidence-based practice.
Shared decision-making refers to a process of health care delivery in which practitioners and clients seeking help for problems or disorders collaborate to access relevant information and to enable client-centered selection of health care resources. Though nearly all clients express a desire for more information, preferences for participation in health care decisions vary by individual and by illness. Two common strategies to promote shared decision-making are communication training for clients and clinicians, and decision aids to provide targeted information and values clarification. Research in several areas of medicine shows that active client participation results in a variety of benefits, from increased satisfaction to decreased symptom burden. Many current mental health interventions promote client-centered care, client choice, and self-directed care, but research on shared decision-making in mental health for clients with severe and persistent mental illness is just beginning.
Cooperative Behavior↗
Use of erythropoietin in cancer patients: assessment of oncologists' practice patterns in the United States and other countries.
PURPOSE: To assess physician use of erythropoietin in cancer patients before publication of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology guidelines. METHODS: Questionnaires about erythropoietin use in practice and 12 hypothetical clinical scenarios involving patients with cancer were mailed to 2000 oncologists/hematologists in the United States and 19 other countries. Response rates were 30% in the United States and 25% internationally. Data on erythropoietin use for ovarian cancer were obtained from one clinical trial. Multivariate regression models assessed predictors of erythropoietin prescription. RESULTS: Most physicians selected a hemoglobin level < or =10 g/dL as an upper threshold for erythropoietin use (36% to 51% of U.S. physicians and 21% to 32% of foreign physicians). Frequent erythropoietin use (defined as use in at least 10% of cancer patients) was higher in the United States than elsewhere (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5 to 13.4). Among U.S. physicians, those who said they used erythropoietin frequently were more likely to be in fee-for-service than managed care settings (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.3 to 3.7). Those who reported never using erythropoietin practiced in countries that had lower annual per capita health care expenditures, lower proportions of privately funded health care, and a national health service (P <0.05 for all comparisons). Of 235 ovarian cancer patients who received topotecan, 38% (45/118) of U.S. patients and 2% (2/117) of European patients who developed grade 1 anemia (hemoglobin level between 10 and 12 g/dL) were treated with erythropoietin (P <0.01). CONCLUSION: Financial considerations and a hemoglobin level <10 g/dL appear to influence erythropoietin use in the United States, whereas financial considerations alone determine erythropoietin use abroad.
Anemia↗
Erythropoietin, uncertainty principle and cancer related anaemia.
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate if erythropoietin (EPO) is effective in the treatment of cancer related anemia, and if its effect remains unchanged when data are analyzed according to various clinical and methodological characteristics of the studies. We also wanted to demonstrate that cumulative meta-analysis (CMA) can be used to resolve uncertainty regarding clinical questions. METHODS: Systematic Review (SR) of the published literature on the role of EPO in cancer-related anemia. A cumulative meta-analysis (CMA) using a conservative approach was performed to determine the point in time when uncertainty about the effect of EPO on transfusion-related outcomes could be considered resolved. PARTICIPANTS: Patients included in randomized studies that compared EPO versus no therapy or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of patients requiring transfusions. RESULTS: Nineteen trials were included. The pooled results indicated a significant effect of EPO in reducing the number of patients requiring transfusions [odds ratio (OR) = 0.41; 95%CI: 0.33 to 0.5; p < 0.00001;relative risk (RR) = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.68]. The results remain unchanged after the sensitivity analyses were performed according to the various clinical and methodological characteristics of the studies. The heterogeneity was less pronounced when OR was used instead of RR as the measure of the summary point estimate. Analysis according to OR was not heterogeneous, but the pooled RR was highly heterogeneous. A stepwise metaregression analysis did point to the possibility that treatment effect could have been exaggerated by inadequacy in allocation concealment and that larger treatment effects are seen at hb level > 11.5 g/dl. We identified 1995 as the point in time when a statistically significant effect of EPO was demonstrated and after which we considered that uncertainty about EPO efficacy was resolved. CONCLUSION: EPO is effective in the treatment of anemia in cancer patients. This could have already been known in 1995 if a CMA had been performed at that time.
Anemia↗
G-CSF as prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in SCLC.
OBJECTIVES: In 1991, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) was reported as the first tumour type where colony stimulating factor (CSF) support was clinically effective. We reviewed 13 health services research studies that addressed CSF use as supportive care for SCLC. METHODS: Findings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) membership surveys, patterns of care studies, ASCO evidence-based guidelines and cost-effectiveness studies for CSF use were reviewed. RESULTS: For primary prophylaxis for SCLC, ASCO CSF clinical guidelines clearly do not support granulocyte (G)-CSF use. Cost-effectiveness models indicate that CSF use in this setting is associated with as much as US$1900 incremental patient care costs per cycle given an 18% febrile neutropenia rate. ASCO membership surveys found that < 10% of respondents supported CSF as primary prophylaxis while a patterns-of-care study found 55% use. In the secondary prophylaxis setting, ASCO CSF guidelines in 1994, 1996 and 1997 were equally supportive of CSF use versus dose reduction but dose-reduction was considered the preferred option in 2000. Over half of the ASCO member respondents in 1994 and in 1997 supported G-CSF use; cost-effectiveness models indicated that CSF use incurred an additional US$144 and 277 per cycle and the patterns of care study found 27% use of CSF in the community practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: In 2002, the findings of a decade of health services studies have shifted towards not being supportive of CSF use for primary or secondary prophylaxis for SCLC patients.
Carcinoma, Small Cell↗