MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Population Based Study on the Utilization and Cost of Azacitidine In a Canadian Province.

2010· article· en· W2575033743 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pamela Skrabek, Matthew D. Seftel, Donald S. Houston, Kristjan Paulson, Pat Burns, Marc Geirnaert, B. Lozar, Venetia Bourrier, Sri Navaratnam, Rajat Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationAzacitidinePharmacyRegimenPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicineFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1508 Background: Azacitidine (AZA) is an efficacious therapy for high risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS). In a randomized trial by Fenaux et al. patients were treated with a median of 9 cycles of AZA at 75mg/m2/day × 7 days every 28 days. Based on the published treatment regimen (Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 223-32), the average cost of AZA is estimated to be $10,000 Canadian dollars per month. With a median of nine full dose cycles of AZA cost per patient is anticipated to be $90,000. In many health care systems, AZA has not been approved, due to financial constraints. Population based studies may provide a more realistic estimate of AZA drug utilization and cost. The province of Manitoba (population 1.2 million) offers a unique opportunity to perform population based studies, as provincial health and pharmacy services capture information regarding administration of parenteral drugs like AZA. Although AZA is not funded by the province, it was provided by the manufacturer on compassionate basis for any patient who met the approved criteria from April 2009 to 31 March 2010. Enrolled patients continued to receive the drug even after March 2010. The drug was administered at a single site. Methods: All patients enrolled during the period of compassionate use (April 2009-31 March 2010) who received one or more doses of AZA were prospectively followed for drug administration, response, toxicity and outcome. For this analysis, the last follow up was 31 July 2010. Results: Eleven eligible patients received at least one cycle of AZA. The diagnosis was MDS in 8, AML in remission with underlying MDS in 2 and CMML in 1. Four of eleven patients had therapy-related MDS and two patients were ECOG >2 at onset of therapy. A total of 42 cycles were given with a median of 3.0 (range 1–9) cycles per patient. There was a 25–50% dose reduction in 9 of 42 cycles (21%) due to cytopenias. Eleven of 42 cycles (26%) were complicated by febrile neutropenia, with 7 of these episodes requiring hospital admission. Reasons for discontinuing AZA were: (a) progressive cytopenia or transformation to AML in four (b) acceptance for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in three (c) severe sepsis during therapy in two (d) lack of objective response in one. Only one patient continues on AZA. Hematologic improvement and transfusion independence was seen in 5/11 and 3/11 patients respectively. There were two patients with bone marrow complete response (CR) in addition to hematologic improvement, one of whom underwent HSCT. The approximate cost of AZA in this cohort is $34,090 per patient. Conclusion: In this population based study, we demonstrate that many MDS patients are withdrawn from further treatment due to adverse effects or lack of early response, in contrast to patients participating in clinical trials. Despite receiving dose reductions and fewer total cycles of AZA, a comparable number of patients (45.5%) had objective responses. Our study suggests that the actual drug acquisition cost would be just over one third (38%) of the projected cost based on clinical trial data. Decisions to fund or deny expensive drugs should include data from population based studies. Disclosures: Kumar: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→French-language works237,207→