Adverse Events and Economic Burden Among Patients Receiving Systemic Treatment for Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 927-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHAUM M. KABADI ◽  
STACEY DACOSTA BYFIELD ◽  
LISA LE ◽  
TEMITOPE OLUFADE
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Economic Burden ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Mantle Cell

scholarly journals Erratum on “Non-indolent mantle cell lymphoma at a single public hospital in Brazil: real world first-line treatment cohort study data”

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 194
Author(s):  
Sergio Augusto Buzian Brasil ◽  
Carolina Colaço ◽  
Tomas Barrese ◽  
Roberto P. Paes ◽  
Cristina Bortolheiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Public Hospital ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
First Line Treatment

scholarly journals Non-indolent mantle cell lymphoma at a single public hospital in Brazil: real world first-line treatment cohort study data

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-97
Author(s):  
Sergio Augusto Buzian Brasil ◽  
Carolina Colaço ◽  
Tomas Barrese ◽  
Roberto P. Paes ◽  
Cristina Bortolheiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Public Hospital ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
First Line Treatment

Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of erenumab: A retrospective cohort study

Cephalalgia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (13) ◽  
pp. 1511-1522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Kanaan ◽  
Gabrielle Hettie ◽  
Elizabeth Loder ◽  
Rebecca Burch
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Real World ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Injection Site Reaction ◽  
Clinical Interview ◽  
Headache Center

Background We aimed to systematically assess the effectiveness and tolerability of erenumab in a clinical setting, specifically a tertiary headache center. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study at the John Graham Headache Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. All patients who received erenumab from a headache specialist at the Center from 17 May 2018 to 31 January 2019 were included. Patients were contacted and underwent a structured clinical interview including information about erenumab use, perceived benefit, adverse events (AEs), and a global assessment of benefit versus drawbacks. Chart review was performed for patients who could not be contacted. Results Four hundred and forty-four patients were initially identified and 418 were eligible. Two hundred and ninety-five participants completed the structured clinical interview portion of the study (response rate 70.6%). Seventy-four patient charts were additionally reviewed. Two hundred and forty-one participants had used erenumab. One hundred and sixty nine (70%) of participants experienced at least one adverse event, with constipation (43%), injection site reaction (24%), fatigue (15%), worsening headache (12%), and dizziness (11%) the five most commonly reported AEs. One hundred and sixty-eight participants (69.7%) felt that the benefits of erenumab outweighed any drawbacks. One hundred and fifty-one participants (62.7%) planned to continue using erenumab. Cost of treatment was cited by 12% of participants as a reason for either not starting or for stopping erenumab. Of patients who had an increase in dose due to lack of or partial efficacy, 46.5% felt that the dose increase was helpful. We identified one case of unintended pregnancy in our study population. Conclusions This large “real-world” study validates the findings of benefit of erenumab observed in clinical trials. Although adverse events were far more common in this population than in clinical trials, the planned continuation rate was relatively high. The substantial discrepancy between adverse events seen in clinical practice compared with clinical trials suggests systematic differences between clinical trial participants and patients who receive the treatment in clinical practice, or may indicate suboptimal ascertainment of adverse events in the trials. Clinicians should continue to be vigilant for adverse events in clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document