While we found relatively good st and ards of reporting the study ’s question , population , interventions , comparators and conclusions , the overall reporting was poor , and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident ( i.e. absence of incremental analysis , of discounting long-term costs and effects ) .
Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent .
Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations ( HEEs ) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations .
Nevertheless , while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods , they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs .
HEEs , as context -specific tools , are not easily generalizable from setting to setting .
Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries .
Therefore , a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region ( LAC ) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC ( trans-regional ) and to other LAC countries ( intra-regional ) , respectively .
Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing high-dose ifosfamide + GM-CSF vs high-dose cyclophosphamide + GM-CSF for blood progenitor cell mobilization
Between August 1994 and June 1999 , 56 patients were prospect ively r and omized to receive ifosfamide 10 g/m2 + GM-CSF 5 μg/kg/day ( IFO+GM-CSF n = 28 ) and cyclophosphamide 4 g/m2 + GM-CSF 5 μg/kg/day ( CY+GM-CSF n = 28 ) . Both groups were comparable for age , gender , diagnosis , disease stage and previous chemotherapy . The IFO+GM-CSF group demonstrated a shorter median interval between therapy and apheresis ( 10 days ( 8–14 ) vs 13 days ( 8–25 ) P = 0.002 ) , median number of doses of GM-CSF ( 9 ( 7–13 ) vs 15 ( 9–31 ) P = 0.001 ) , median of days with aplasia ( 0.5 ( 0–10 ) vs 6 ( 0–21 ) P = 0.001 ) , median days with fever ( 0 ( 0–6 ) vs 3 ( 0–9 ) P = 0.006 ) and median of days using i.v . antibiotics ( 0 ( 0–11 ) vs 7.5 ( 0–19 ) P = 0.002 ) . The median MNC yield was similar in both groups . The CD34 + cell yield was better in the CY+GM-CSF group ( 3.14 ( 0.9–11.8 ) vs 5.33 ( 0.08–32 ) ) but not at significant levels ( P = 0.1 ) . White blood cell hematopoietic recovery was more rapid in the CY+GM-CSF group ( 16 ( 10–22 ) vs13 ( 10–24 ) P = 0.02 ) . Platelet engraftment was similar in both groups . Costs of mobilization and transplantation were almost the same : $ 28 570 ( $ 18 527–$47 028 ) and $ 30 020 ( $ 17 281–$67 591 ) , respectively ( P = 0.9 ) . There were no differences in disease-free survival and overall survival between both groups . Mild and transient non-hematological toxicity ( hemorrhagic cystitis , decrease in serum creatinine clearance and CNS dysfunction ) was seen most frequently in the IFO+GM-CSF group . Bone Marrow Transplantation ( 2000 ) 25 , 1141–1146
While we found relatively good st and ards of reporting the study ’s question , population , interventions , comparators and conclusions , the overall reporting was poor , and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident ( i.e. absence of incremental analysis , of discounting long-term costs and effects ) .
Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent .
Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations ( HEEs ) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations .
Nevertheless , while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods , they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs .
HEEs , as context -specific tools , are not easily generalizable from setting to setting .
Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries .
Therefore , a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region ( LAC ) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC ( trans-regional ) and to other LAC countries ( intra-regional ) , respectively .