治疗癌症疼痛的鞘内给药系统:健康技术评估。

Q1 Medicine Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Pub Date : 2016-01-29 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01
{"title":"治疗癌症疼痛的鞘内给药系统:健康技术评估。","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intrathecal drug delivery systems can be used to manage refractory or persistent cancer pain. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of these systems compared with current standards of care for adult patients with chronic pain due owing to cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library databases, National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database, and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from January 1994 to April 2014 for evidence of effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness. We used existing systematic reviews that had employed reliable search and screen methods and searched for studies published after the search date reported in the latest systematic review to identify studies. Two reviewers screened records and assessed study validity. The cost burden of publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain was estimated for a 5-year timeframe using a combination of published literature, information from the device manufacturer, administrative data, and expert opinion for the inputs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included one randomized trial that examined effectiveness and harms, and one case series that reported an eligible economic evaluation. We found very low quality evidence that intrathecal drug delivery systems added to comprehensive pain management reduce overall drug toxicity; no significant reduction in pain scores was observed. Weak conclusions from economic evidence suggested that intrathecal drug delivery systems had the potential to be more cost-effective than high-cost oral therapy if administered for 7 months or longer. The cost burden of publicly funding this therapy is estimated to be $100,000 in the first year, increasing to $500,000 by the fifth year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence could not establish the benefit, harm, or cost-effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems compared with current standards of care for managing refractory cancer pain in adults. Publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain would result in a budget impact of several hundred thousand dollars per year.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"16 1","pages":"1-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761860/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: A Health Technology Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intrathecal drug delivery systems can be used to manage refractory or persistent cancer pain. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of these systems compared with current standards of care for adult patients with chronic pain due owing to cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library databases, National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database, and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from January 1994 to April 2014 for evidence of effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness. We used existing systematic reviews that had employed reliable search and screen methods and searched for studies published after the search date reported in the latest systematic review to identify studies. Two reviewers screened records and assessed study validity. The cost burden of publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain was estimated for a 5-year timeframe using a combination of published literature, information from the device manufacturer, administrative data, and expert opinion for the inputs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included one randomized trial that examined effectiveness and harms, and one case series that reported an eligible economic evaluation. We found very low quality evidence that intrathecal drug delivery systems added to comprehensive pain management reduce overall drug toxicity; no significant reduction in pain scores was observed. Weak conclusions from economic evidence suggested that intrathecal drug delivery systems had the potential to be more cost-effective than high-cost oral therapy if administered for 7 months or longer. The cost burden of publicly funding this therapy is estimated to be $100,000 in the first year, increasing to $500,000 by the fifth year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence could not establish the benefit, harm, or cost-effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems compared with current standards of care for managing refractory cancer pain in adults. Publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain would result in a budget impact of several hundred thousand dollars per year.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"1-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761860/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鞘内给药系统可用于治疗难治性或持续性癌痛。我们研究了这些系统与目前的癌症慢性疼痛成年患者护理标准相比的益处、危害、成本效益和预算影响:我们检索了 1994 年 1 月至 2014 年 4 月期间的 Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid Embase、Cochrane 图书馆数据库、国家卫生服务经济评估数据库和塔夫茨成本效益分析注册表,以寻找有效性、危害性和成本效益方面的证据。我们使用了采用可靠检索和筛选方法的现有系统综述,并检索了最新系统综述中报告的检索日期之后发表的研究,以确定研究。两名审稿人筛选了记录并评估了研究的有效性。我们结合已发表的文献、设备制造商提供的信息、行政管理数据以及专家意见,估算了 5 年内由政府资助的鞘内给药系统治疗癌痛的成本负担:结果:我们纳入了一项研究有效性和危害性的随机试验,以及一项符合经济评估要求的病例系列报告。我们发现质量很低的证据表明,在综合疼痛治疗中加入鞘内给药系统可降低总体药物毒性;未观察到疼痛评分有显著降低。从经济学证据中得出的微弱结论表明,如果持续用药 7 个月或更长时间,鞘内给药系统有可能比高价口服疗法更具成本效益。据估计,政府资助这种疗法的成本负担在第一年为 10 万美元,到第五年将增至 50 万美元:目前的证据无法确定鞘内给药系统与目前治疗成人难治性癌痛的标准相比的益处、危害或成本效益。为治疗癌痛的鞘内给药系统提供公共资金每年将产生数十万美元的预算影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain: A Health Technology Assessment.

Background: Intrathecal drug delivery systems can be used to manage refractory or persistent cancer pain. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of these systems compared with current standards of care for adult patients with chronic pain due owing to cancer.

Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library databases, National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database, and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from January 1994 to April 2014 for evidence of effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness. We used existing systematic reviews that had employed reliable search and screen methods and searched for studies published after the search date reported in the latest systematic review to identify studies. Two reviewers screened records and assessed study validity. The cost burden of publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain was estimated for a 5-year timeframe using a combination of published literature, information from the device manufacturer, administrative data, and expert opinion for the inputs.

Results: We included one randomized trial that examined effectiveness and harms, and one case series that reported an eligible economic evaluation. We found very low quality evidence that intrathecal drug delivery systems added to comprehensive pain management reduce overall drug toxicity; no significant reduction in pain scores was observed. Weak conclusions from economic evidence suggested that intrathecal drug delivery systems had the potential to be more cost-effective than high-cost oral therapy if administered for 7 months or longer. The cost burden of publicly funding this therapy is estimated to be $100,000 in the first year, increasing to $500,000 by the fifth year.

Conclusions: Current evidence could not establish the benefit, harm, or cost-effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems compared with current standards of care for managing refractory cancer pain in adults. Publicly funding intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain would result in a budget impact of several hundred thousand dollars per year.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Level 2 Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Sleep Disorders: A Health Technology Assessment. Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Stress Urinary Incontinence, Fecal Incontinence, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Health Technology Assessment. Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma: a Health Technology Assessment. Sucrose Octasulfate-Impregnated Dressings for Adults With Difficult-to-Heal Noninfected Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Difficult-to-Heal Noninfected Venous Leg Ulcers: A Health Technology Assessment. Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1