Raquel Aguiar-Ibáñez, Iain Fotheringham, Lalith Mittal, Arthur Sillah, Smit Pathak
{"title":"从患者、医疗服务提供者和医疗保健系统的角度看静脉注射和皮下注射给药方式在肿瘤治疗中的差异:系统回顾。","authors":"Raquel Aguiar-Ibáñez, Iain Fotheringham, Lalith Mittal, Arthur Sillah, Smit Pathak","doi":"10.1007/s12325-024-02985-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>While patients with cancer have traditionally received oncology treatments through intravenous (IV) administration, some therapies are becoming available via alternative modes of administration, such as subcutaneous (SC). This study aimed to evaluate IV versus SC therapy administration from the perspectives of the patient, healthcare provider (HCP), and healthcare system.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE and Embase databases from 2000 to 2022. This was supplemented with grey literature searches of additional sources such as conference proceedings. Observational studies and clinical trials were included if they assessed adult patients with any cancer type who were treated with pharmacologic therapies administered via IV or SC and included patient- or HCP-reported outcomes or healthcare system perspectives on the mode of administration. Records identified by the literature search were screened by two independent reviewers. Included studies were data extracted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer and synthesized using a narrative approach.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>After screening, 33 unique studies were included in the systematic review. Patients and HCPs reported substantially more favorable preference rates for SC over IV treatment. Additionally, from the patient perspective there were reductions in treatment time and economic burden for SC compared with IV therapy. From the HCP’s perspective, treatment time was consistently reduced by SC compared with IV treatment administration. Although information on the impact of SC and IV treatments for oncology on healthcare systems was limited, the use of SC formulations showed consistent cost savings (direct costs) and time savings from this perspective considering various uptake scenarios compared with IV administration.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Compared with IV administration, SC oncology treatment is a preferred option by patients and HCPs, increasing optionality and reducing treatment time while simultaneously increasing capacity and reducing the financial burden on healthcare systems.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7482,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Therapy","volume":"41 12","pages":"4396 - 4417"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences Between Intravenous and Subcutaneous Modes of Administration in Oncology from the Patient, Healthcare Provider, and Healthcare System Perspectives: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Raquel Aguiar-Ibáñez, Iain Fotheringham, Lalith Mittal, Arthur Sillah, Smit Pathak\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12325-024-02985-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>While patients with cancer have traditionally received oncology treatments through intravenous (IV) administration, some therapies are becoming available via alternative modes of administration, such as subcutaneous (SC). This study aimed to evaluate IV versus SC therapy administration from the perspectives of the patient, healthcare provider (HCP), and healthcare system.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE and Embase databases from 2000 to 2022. This was supplemented with grey literature searches of additional sources such as conference proceedings. Observational studies and clinical trials were included if they assessed adult patients with any cancer type who were treated with pharmacologic therapies administered via IV or SC and included patient- or HCP-reported outcomes or healthcare system perspectives on the mode of administration. Records identified by the literature search were screened by two independent reviewers. Included studies were data extracted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer and synthesized using a narrative approach.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>After screening, 33 unique studies were included in the systematic review. Patients and HCPs reported substantially more favorable preference rates for SC over IV treatment. Additionally, from the patient perspective there were reductions in treatment time and economic burden for SC compared with IV therapy. From the HCP’s perspective, treatment time was consistently reduced by SC compared with IV treatment administration. Although information on the impact of SC and IV treatments for oncology on healthcare systems was limited, the use of SC formulations showed consistent cost savings (direct costs) and time savings from this perspective considering various uptake scenarios compared with IV administration.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Compared with IV administration, SC oncology treatment is a preferred option by patients and HCPs, increasing optionality and reducing treatment time while simultaneously increasing capacity and reducing the financial burden on healthcare systems.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Therapy\",\"volume\":\"41 12\",\"pages\":\"4396 - 4417\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-024-02985-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-024-02985-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differences Between Intravenous and Subcutaneous Modes of Administration in Oncology from the Patient, Healthcare Provider, and Healthcare System Perspectives: A Systematic Review
Background
While patients with cancer have traditionally received oncology treatments through intravenous (IV) administration, some therapies are becoming available via alternative modes of administration, such as subcutaneous (SC). This study aimed to evaluate IV versus SC therapy administration from the perspectives of the patient, healthcare provider (HCP), and healthcare system.
Methods
A systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE and Embase databases from 2000 to 2022. This was supplemented with grey literature searches of additional sources such as conference proceedings. Observational studies and clinical trials were included if they assessed adult patients with any cancer type who were treated with pharmacologic therapies administered via IV or SC and included patient- or HCP-reported outcomes or healthcare system perspectives on the mode of administration. Records identified by the literature search were screened by two independent reviewers. Included studies were data extracted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer and synthesized using a narrative approach.
Results
After screening, 33 unique studies were included in the systematic review. Patients and HCPs reported substantially more favorable preference rates for SC over IV treatment. Additionally, from the patient perspective there were reductions in treatment time and economic burden for SC compared with IV therapy. From the HCP’s perspective, treatment time was consistently reduced by SC compared with IV treatment administration. Although information on the impact of SC and IV treatments for oncology on healthcare systems was limited, the use of SC formulations showed consistent cost savings (direct costs) and time savings from this perspective considering various uptake scenarios compared with IV administration.
Conclusion
Compared with IV administration, SC oncology treatment is a preferred option by patients and HCPs, increasing optionality and reducing treatment time while simultaneously increasing capacity and reducing the financial burden on healthcare systems.
期刊介绍:
Advances in Therapy is an international, peer reviewed, rapid-publication (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance) journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of therapeutics and interventions (including devices) across all therapeutic areas. Studies relating to diagnostics and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, communications and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world. Advances in Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.