AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Helmy M. Guirgis Department Pharmacy University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA
Citation: Helmy M. Guirgis, (2022) The Impact of The Immune Check Point Duration of use on Cost in Lung Cancer. J. Pharmaceutics and Pharmacology Research. 5(6); DOI: 10.31579/2693-7247/086
Copyright: © 2022, Helmy M. Guirgis, This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cite
Received: 05 April 2022 | Accepted: 18 April 2022 | Published: 30 May 2022
Keywords: lung cancer; monotherapy; pembrolizumab (pembro); atezolizumab (atezo); cemiplimab (cemi)
Background: Monotherapy and combinations of Pembrolizumab (Pembro), Atezolizumab (Atezo) and Cemiplimab (Cemi), prolonged overall survival (OS) in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (a/m NSCLC). Pembro demonstrated 5-year OS gain. The duration of therapy of the immune check point inhibitors (ICI) has not been defined. One-year adjuvant Durvalumab (Durv) and Atezo significantly prolonged OS. Neoadjuvant few cycles resulted in positive outcomes. Costs are relatively expensive, multiplying with prolonged use. The estimated 2019 CAR-T cost was $450,000. The Affordable Insulin bill 6833 capping insulin monthly cost at $35 was approved by the U.S. House of Representative. There are unmet needs for coherent drug cost policies and containment. We aimed 1- Explore the factors which impact ICI costs in lung cancer stages 2- Navigate cost-saving strategy based on generics, therapy duration and monotherapy utilization thresholds at $450,000 and $550,000 for combinations Methods: Clinical studies outcomes were quoted. Annual drug prices were calculated. Results: Estimated annual Pemetrexed (Peme) costs were $113,793, generic chemicals < $1,000 and Bevacizumab (Bev) $150,126 vs $148,000, mean 6 ICI. Pembro 2-year costs were $334,652. The 3- $501,978 and 5- $836,630 were above the $450,000. Atezo + Bev+ Peme combination had the highest 2-year $722,977 costs, above $550,000. Atezo + Peme costs were $422,725, Pembro + Peme $448,445 and Cemi + Peme $425,385, not significantly different. Costs decreased by 25% using generics. Extending ICI use by 6-12 months increased combination costs by 25-50%. Adjuvant 1-year Durv costs were $148,013 and Atezo $154,446, half the 2-year. Using response rates, cost of neoadjuvant Nivolumab (Nivo) 2-4 cycles were $25,000 - $50,000. Conclusion: Generics, short ICI duration use, neo-adjuvants, and utilization thresholds reduced costs.
Advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (a/m-NSCLC), Adverse events (AEs), Atezolizumab (Atezo), Bevacizumab (Bev), Biosimilar (Bio), Cemiplimab (Cemi), Confidence Interval (CI), Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte -associated antigen 4 (CTLA), Dorvolumab (Dorvo), Hazard Ratio HR), Nivolumab (Nivo), Immune check point inhibitors (ICI), Ipilimumab (Ipi), Pembrolizumab (Pembro), Pemetrexed (Peme), Programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1). Programmed death receptor-ligand-1 (PD-L1), Squamous (sq).
The 1 st immune check point inhibitors (ICI) Pembrolizumab (Pembro) was introduced in 2016. It significantly prolonged the overall survival (OS) in 1st line advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (a/m NSCLC) with high programmed death receptor-1 (PD-L1), lacking epidermal growth factors (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genomic aberrations (1). Survival and 5-year OS were further confirmed (2-5). Duration of therapy after 2-years has not been clearly defined. Atezolizumab (Atezo) (6) and Cemiplimab (Cemi) (7) later demonstrated OS. Chemo-drugs in combinations with Pembro (8), Atezo (9-11), and Cemi (12) showed effectiveness regardless of PD-L1. Nivolumab/Ipilimumab (Nivo/Ipi), with and without chemo, have also shown OS gain (13,14). One-year adjuvant Durvalumab (Durv) (15) and Atezo significantly prolonged OS (16). Value (18-21) and cost effectiveness (22-23) were extensively studied. However, drug costs have rarely been scrutinized except by the press, media, and few scattered reports (24). ICI costs are rather expensive, multiplying with further therapy. CAR-T cell therapy 2019 cost was estimated at $450,000 (17). The H.R. Affordable Insulin bill 6833 to cap the cost of insulin prices at $35 per month was approved by the U.S. House of Representative. There are unmet needs for coherent drug cost policies and containment. We Open Access Research Article Journal of Pharmaceutics and Pharmacology Research Helmy M. Guirgis * AUCTORES Globalize your Research J Pharmaceutics and Pharmacology Research Copy rights@ Helmy M. Guirgis et.al. Auctores Publishing LLC – Volume 5(6)-086 www.auctoresonline.org ISSN: 2693-7247 Page 2 of 5 aimed 1- Explore the factors which impact ICI costs in various lung cancer stages 2-Navigate cost-saving strategy based on generics, shorter ICI duration, use of neoadjuvant therapy and $450,000 utilization thresholds for monotherapy use and $550,000 for combination
A-Monotherapy: The estimated annual costs of the 3 approved ICI in 1st-line a/mNSCLC in PD-L1 >50% were Pembro $167,326, Atezo $154,446 and Cemi $154,896. The mean 6 ICI was $148,431. Pemetrexed (Peme) was $113,793 and generic chemical drugs < $1,000. Bev cost was $150,126 and Bio-similar Bev $111,566, 0.74 cost of Bev (Graph 1).
The 2-year Pembro costs were $334,652, not significantly different from the 35 cycles. One added year increased costs to $501,978, $51,078 above the $450,000 threshold by $51,978. Pembro has demonstrated 5-year survival. If used for 5 years, cost would be $836,630 (Table (1).
Atezo 2-year costs (6) were $308,892 and Cemi, approved early 2021 (7), was $309,782. There was no significant cost difference between the 3 ICI. All were below $450,000 (Table 1).
Both 1-year adjuvant Durvalumab (Durv) trial (15) after chemo-radiation of unresectable stage III and Atezo following chemotherapy in resected IB-IIIA (16) reported significant OS. Durv cost was $148,013 and Atezo $154,446, essentially half the 2-year costs.
Combinations: The $550,000 threshold was set to cover the $100,000 cost of patent chemo-drugs. Peme annual price was $113,793, 0.68 that of
Pembro. The 2-year combination costs of Pembro-Peme (8), Atezo+Bev+Peme, Atezo+Bio-Bev+Peme, Atezo+chemo (9-11), Cemi-chemo (12), Nivo/Ipi and Nivo/Ipi+Peme (13,14) were shown in Table 2. Atezo+Bev+Peme demonstrated the highest costs at $722,977, with Bio-similar lower at $645,857. Nivo/Ipi and Nivo/Ipi + 2-Peme cycles hovered around $550,000. Lower costs were demonstrated by Pembro+ Peme at $448, 445, Atezo+Peme $442,725 and Cemi+Peme $423,585. Using generics instead of Peme, costs decreased to the 2-year ICI monotherapy baseline. Extending combination use beyond 2-years by 6-12 months increased costs by 25-50%.
In graph 2, ICI costs were depicted in various stage of lung cancer. Costs were the highest in a/mNSCLC, twice the adjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy using 2-4 cycles resulted in positive responses in early lung cancer stages (26-28) at $25,000 - $50,000 costs.
Sales are constrained by high costs, disproportionately targeting the financially- disadvantaged patients and nations. Cost is a sensitive and complicated subject to tackle. ICI costs are relatively expensive. Synthesis is technically complicated, time consuming and costly. With no guarantee of success, it is fair and imperative that the pharmaceutical companies retrieve their investments in such highly competitive business.
In the present work, posted drug prices constituted the sole basis of drug comparison. Value and cost effectiveness of the ICI have been extensively studied by the parent drug companies. The HR of the monotherapy and combination therapies were overlapping in the cited clinical studies with no clear difference. With exception of neoadjuvant trials, OS and the HR were well documented. The observations that 20% of Pembro-treated patients in 1st-line a/mNSCLC with PDL1 > 50% survived 5 years seemed to justify the 2-year costs. Pembro, the first ICI synthesized, has, so far, the distinctive advantage of long-term OS benefit. The 3-year costs were $501,978, above $450,000 and multiplied with further use. Treatment of 1,000 patients, a small subset of a/mNSCLC, would be a heavy economic burden to bear. There was no significant cost difference between monotherapy Pembro, Atezo and Cemi. Costs could play a differentiating factor should one ICI have a significant cost reduction.
Peme, an inhibitor of the folate-dependent enzyme first reported in 2013 (25), is expected to lose its patency in the ensuing few years. Peme annual price was $113,793, with cost doubling if used for 2-years. On turning generic, there would be a steep drop in cost and a sharp rise in use. The ICI class, with its longer duration of action, has essentially replaced Peme in 1st-line a/mNSCLC in most of the affluent nations.
The most expensive 2-year Atezo+Bev+Peme combination was $722,977, far above the 550,00. Its Bio-similar regime was $645,857, lower by 11%. It would be self-inflicted wound to incur high costs considering the availability of cheaper combinations. Costs of Nivo/Ipi+2-Peme cycles were more expensive than Nivo/Ipi with $13,130, at approximate $550,000 costs. Pempro+Peme and Atezo+Peme and Cemi-Peme costs were less expensive. Combination costs would drop by about 25% using generics. The role of generics is presently being threatened by shortage and supply route disruptions. At present, there is no head-to-head outcome and safety comparison between one ICI and another. It is doubtful that such study would be undertaken in the future.
Cost saving was demonstrated using bio-similar, generics and adjuvant therapy. However, the clearest cost-saving evidence was using neoadjuvant Nivo. At cost fraction, few 2-4 cycles, with or without chemo (26,27) showed positive outcome. Based on the results of the CheckMate 816 study (NCT02998528), demonstrating statistically significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS), the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone among patients with early NSCLC (28). Circulating DNA biomarker is presently being explored to signal tumor clearance (29).
Cost divergence in drug prices between US and Germany was previously noted (30,31) with prices tending generally to be higher in the US where some drugs first originated. At present, cost reforms (32,33) have not been widely accepted. Application of utilization thresholds would lower costs and help consumers. Drug companies would also benefit through wider global distributions and sales. Cost containment needs to be a shared responsibility between dug companies, medical scientists and practicing physicians.
In summary, Pembro, Atezo and Cemi 2-year costs seemed fair and reasonable in 1st-line a/m NSCLC with PDL1 > 50%. Pembro 3-year costs multiplied with further use, supporting the adoption of utilization threshold strategy. At 2 years, Atezo+Bev+Peme combination demonstrated the highest cost.
Pempro+Peme and Atezo+Peme and Cemi-Peme were lower and dropped further using generics. Adjuvant therapy was 50% the 2-year costs. In the neo-adjuvant space, few cycles ICI resulted in EFS at minimal costs. Duration use, generics, utilization thresholds and neo-adjuvants resulted in cost containment.
Sales are constrained by high costs, disproportionately targeting the financially- disadvantaged patients and nations. Cost is a sensitive and complicated subject to tackle. ICI costs are relatively expensive. Synthesis is technically complicated, time consuming and costly. With no guarantee of success, it is fair and imperative that the pharmaceutical companies retrieve their investments in such highly competitive business.
In the present work, posted drug prices constituted the sole basis of drug comparison. Value and cost effectiveness of the ICI have been extensively studied by the parent drug companies. The HR of the monotherapy and combination therapies were overlapping in the cited clinical studies with no clear difference. With exception of neoadjuvant trials, OS and the HR were well documented. The observations that 20% of Pembro-treated patients in 1st-line a/mNSCLC with PDL1 > 50% survived 5 years seemed to justify the 2-year costs. Pembro, the first ICI synthesized, has, so far, the distinctive advantage of long-term OS benefit. The 3-year costs were $501,978, above $450,000 and multiplied with further use. Treatment of 1,000 patients, a small subset of a/mNSCLC, would be a heavy economic burden to bear. There was no significant cost difference between monotherapy Pembro, Atezo and Cemi. Costs could play a differentiating factor should one ICI have a significant cost reduction.
Peme, an inhibitor of the folate-dependent enzyme first reported in 2013 (25), is expected to lose its patency in the ensuing few years. Peme annual price was $113,793, with cost doubling if used for 2-years. On turning generic, there would be a steep drop in cost and a sharp rise in use. The ICI class, with its longer duration of action, has essentially replaced Peme in 1st-line a/mNSCLC in most of the affluent nations.
The most expensive 2-year Atezo+Bev+Peme combination was $722,977, far above the 550,00. Its Bio-similar regime was $645,857, lower by 11%. It would be self-inflicted wound to incur high costs considering the availability of cheaper combinations. Costs of Nivo/Ipi+2-Peme cycles were more expensive than Nivo/Ipi with $13,130, at approximate $550,000 costs. Pempro+Peme and Atezo+Peme and Cemi-Peme costs were less expensive. Combination costs would drop by about 25% using generics. The role of generics is presently being threatened by shortage and supply route disruptions. At present, there is no head-to-head outcome and safety comparison between one ICI and another. It is doubtful that such study would be undertaken in the future.
Cost saving was demonstrated using bio-similar, generics and adjuvant therapy. However, the clearest cost-saving evidence was using neoadjuvant Nivo. At cost fraction, few 2-4 cycles, with or without chemo (26,27) showed positive outcome. Based on the results of the CheckMate 816 study (NCT02998528), demonstrating statistically significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS), the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone among patients with early NSCLC (28). Circulating DNA biomarker is presently being explored to signal tumor clearance (29).
Cost divergence in drug prices between US and Germany was previously noted (30,31) with prices tending generally to be higher in the US where some drugs first originated. At present, cost reforms (32,33) have not been widely accepted. Application of utilization thresholds would lower costs and help consumers. Drug companies would also benefit through wider global distributions and sales. Cost containment needs to be a shared responsibility between dug companies, medical scientists and practicing physicians.
In summary, Pembro, Atezo and Cemi 2-year costs seemed fair and reasonable in 1st-line a/m NSCLC with PDL1 > 50%. Pembro 3-year costs multiplied with further use, supporting the adoption of utilization threshold strategy. At 2 years, Atezo+Bev+Peme combination demonstrated the highest cost.
Pempro+Peme and Atezo+Peme and Cemi-Peme were lower and dropped further using generics. Adjuvant therapy was 50% the 2-year costs. In the neo-adjuvant space, few cycles ICI resulted in EFS at minimal costs. Duration use, generics, utilization thresholds and neo-adjuvants resulted in cost containment.
Sales are constrained by high costs, disproportionately targeting the financially- disadvantaged patients and nations. Cost is a sensitive and complicated subject to tackle. ICI costs are relatively expensive. Synthesis is technically complicated, time consuming and costly. With no guarantee of success, it is fair and imperative that the pharmaceutical companies retrieve their investments in such highly competitive business.
In the present work, posted drug prices constituted the sole basis of drug comparison. Value and cost effectiveness of the ICI have been extensively studied by the parent drug companies. The HR of the monotherapy and combination therapies were overlapping in the cited clinical studies with no clear difference. With exception of neoadjuvant trials, OS and the HR were well documented. The observations that 20% of Pembro-treated patients in 1st-line a/mNSCLC with PDL1 > 50% survived 5 years seemed to justify the 2-year costs. Pembro, the first ICI synthesized, has, so far, the distinctive advantage of long-term OS benefit. The 3-year costs were $501,978, above $450,000 and multiplied with further use. Treatment of 1,000 patients, a small subset of a/mNSCLC, would be a heavy economic burden to bear. There was no significant cost difference between monotherapy Pembro, Atezo and Cemi. Costs could play a differentiating factor should one ICI have a significant cost reduction.
Peme, an inhibitor of the folate-dependent enzyme first reported in 2013 (25), is expected to lose its patency in the ensuing few years. Peme annual price was $113,793, with cost doubling if used for 2-years. On turning generic, there would be a steep drop in cost and a sharp rise in use. The ICI class, with its longer duration of action, has essentially replaced Peme in 1st-line a/mNSCLC in most of the affluent nations.
The most expensive 2-year Atezo+Bev+Peme combination was $722,977, far above the 550,00. Its Bio-similar regime was $645,857, lower by 11%. It would be self-inflicted wound to incur high costs considering the availability of cheaper combinations. Costs of Nivo/Ipi+2-Peme cycles were more expensive than Nivo/Ipi with $13,130, at approximate $550,000 costs. Pempro+Peme and Atezo+Peme and Cemi-Peme costs were less expensive. Combination costs would drop by about 25% using generics. The role of generics is presently being threatened by shortage and supply route disruptions. At present, there is no head-to-head outcome and safety comparison between one ICI and another. It is doubtful that such study would be undertaken in the future.
Cost saving was demonstrated using bio-similar, generics and adjuvant therapy. However, the clearest cost-saving evidence was using neoadjuvant Nivo. At cost fraction, few 2-4 cycles, with or without chemo (26,27) showed positive outcome. Based on the results of the CheckMate 816 study (NCT02998528), demonstrating statistically significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS), the FDA approved nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone among patients with early NSCLC (28). Circulating DNA biomarker is presently being explored to signal tumor clearance (29).
Cost divergence in drug prices between US and Germany was previously noted (30,31) with prices tending generally to be higher in the US where some drugs first originated. At present, cost reforms (32,33) have not been widely accepted. Application of utilization thresholds would lower costs and help consumers. Drug companies would also benefit through wider global distributions and sales. Cost containment needs to be a shared responsibility between dug companies, medical scientists and practicing physicians.
In summary, Pembro, Atezo and Cemi 2-year costs seemed fair and reasonable in 1st-line a/m NSCLC with PDL1 > 50%. Pembro 3-year costs multiplied with further use, supporting the adoption of utilization threshold strategy. At 2 years, Atezo+Bev+Peme combination demonstrated the highest cost.
Pempro+Peme and Atezo+Peme and Cemi-Peme were lower and dropped further using generics. Adjuvant therapy was 50% the 2-year costs. In the neo-adjuvant space, few cycles ICI resulted in EFS at minimal costs. Duration use, generics, utilization thresholds and neo-adjuvants resulted in cost containment.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
My Testimonial Covering as fellowing: Lin-Show Chin. The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
My experience publishing in Psychology and Mental Health Care was exceptional. The peer review process was rigorous and constructive, with reviewers providing valuable insights that helped enhance the quality of our work. The editorial team was highly supportive and responsive, making the submission process smooth and efficient. The journal's commitment to high standards and academic rigor makes it a respected platform for quality research. I am grateful for the opportunity to publish in such a reputable journal.
My experience publishing in International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was exceptional. I Come forth to Provide a Testimonial Covering the Peer Review Process and the editorial office for the Professional and Impartial Evaluation of the Manuscript.
