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。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Advances in Therapy Pub Date : 2024-10-19 DOI:10.1007/s12325-024-02985-9
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,&nbsp;Iain Fotheringham,&nbsp;Lalith Mittal,&nbsp;Arthur Sillah,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Iain Fotheringham,&nbsp;Lalith Mittal,&nbsp;Arthur Sillah,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然癌症患者传统上通过静脉注射(IV)接受肿瘤治疗,但一些疗法也开始采用皮下注射(SC)等替代给药方式。本研究旨在从患者、医疗保健提供者(HCP)和医疗保健系统的角度评估静脉注射与皮下注射疗法:方法:对 2000 年至 2022 年的 MEDLINE 和 Embase 数据库进行了系统性检索。此外,还对会议论文集等其他来源的灰色文献进行了检索。如果观察性研究和临床试验评估的对象是接受静脉注射或皮下注射药物治疗的任何癌症类型的成年患者,并包括患者或医护人员报告的结果或医疗系统对给药方式的看法,则将这些研究和临床试验纳入其中。文献检索确定的记录由两名独立审稿人进行筛选。纳入的研究由一位审稿人提取数据,由第二位审稿人验证,并采用叙述式方法进行综合:经过筛选,33 项独特的研究被纳入系统综述。患者和医护人员报告称,相对于静脉注射治疗,患者更青睐静脉注射治疗。此外,从患者角度来看,与静脉注射疗法相比,静脉注射疗法减少了治疗时间和经济负担。从医护人员的角度来看,与静脉注射治疗相比,皮下注射治疗可持续缩短治疗时间。虽然有关静脉注射和皮下注射治疗对医疗系统影响的信息有限,但从这一角度考虑,与静脉注射相比,使用皮下注射制剂在不同的使用情况下都能节省成本(直接成本)和时间:结论:与静脉给药相比,吸入剂肿瘤治疗是患者和医护人员的首选,可增加选择性,缩短治疗时间,同时提高医疗能力,减轻医疗系统的经济负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

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
Advances in Therapy
Advances in Therapy 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.60%
发文量
353
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Patient Satisfaction Scale Following a Laxative for Antibiotic Washout Prior to Oral Microbiome Therapy. Our Experience in Treating Infantile Hemangioma: Prognostic Factors for Relapse After Propranolol Discontinuation. Hyporesponsiveness to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents in Dialysis-Dependent Patients with Anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease: A Retrospective Observational Study. Efanesoctocog Alfa Versus Emicizumab in Adolescent and Adult Patients With Haemophilia A Without Inhibitors. Efanesoctocog Alfa versus Standard and Extended Half-Life Factor VIII Prophylaxis in Adolescent and Adult Patients with Haemophilia A without Inhibitors.
×
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