肿瘤学随机临床试验的生活质量评估中是否包含财务毒性?

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Cancer Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100423
Timothée Olivier , Alyson Haslam , Vinay Prasad
{"title":"肿瘤学随机临床试验的生活质量评估中是否包含财务毒性?","authors":"Timothée Olivier ,&nbsp;Alyson Haslam ,&nbsp;Vinay Prasad","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Financial difficulties in relation with diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer affects their quality-of-life (QoL). We aim to characterize how financial toxicity was captured in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and to estimate how often the study-drug or other expenses were covered by sponsors.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in six high impact journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and JAMA Oncology). Selected articles needed to report on a RCT published between January 2018 and December 2019, study an anti-cancer drug, and have reported QoL results. We abstracted the QoL questionnaires used; whether the survey was directly assessing financial difficulties; whether a difference in financial toxicity was reported between arms; and whether the sponsor supplied the study-drug or covered other expenses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>For all 73 studies that met inclusion criteria, 34 studies (47%) utilized QoL questionnaires without direct assessment of financial difficulties. The study drug was provided by the sponsor in at least 51 trials (70%), provided according to local rules in 3 trials (4%), and undetermined in the remaining 19 trials (26%). We found 2 trials (3%) with payments or compensation to enrolled patients.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This cross-sectional study found 47% of articles reporting on QoL in oncology RCTs did not use QoL questionnaires directly assessing financial toxicity. Additionnaly, the study drug was supplied by the sponsor in most trials. Financial toxicity occurs in real-life settings when patients have to pay for the drugs and other medical expenses. QoL assessments from oncology RCTs lack generalizability to real-world settings, due to limited querying of financial toxicity.</p></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><p>Real-world evidence could be demanded by regulators as post-requirement studies to ensure QoL results observed in trials will replicate in patients treated outside investigational trials.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is financial toxicity captured in quality of life assessments in oncology randomized clinical trials?\",\"authors\":\"Timothée Olivier ,&nbsp;Alyson Haslam ,&nbsp;Vinay Prasad\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100423\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Financial difficulties in relation with diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer affects their quality-of-life (QoL). We aim to characterize how financial toxicity was captured in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and to estimate how often the study-drug or other expenses were covered by sponsors.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in six high impact journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and JAMA Oncology). Selected articles needed to report on a RCT published between January 2018 and December 2019, study an anti-cancer drug, and have reported QoL results. We abstracted the QoL questionnaires used; whether the survey was directly assessing financial difficulties; whether a difference in financial toxicity was reported between arms; and whether the sponsor supplied the study-drug or covered other expenses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>For all 73 studies that met inclusion criteria, 34 studies (47%) utilized QoL questionnaires without direct assessment of financial difficulties. The study drug was provided by the sponsor in at least 51 trials (70%), provided according to local rules in 3 trials (4%), and undetermined in the remaining 19 trials (26%). We found 2 trials (3%) with payments or compensation to enrolled patients.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This cross-sectional study found 47% of articles reporting on QoL in oncology RCTs did not use QoL questionnaires directly assessing financial toxicity. Additionnaly, the study drug was supplied by the sponsor in most trials. Financial toxicity occurs in real-life settings when patients have to pay for the drugs and other medical expenses. QoL assessments from oncology RCTs lack generalizability to real-world settings, due to limited querying of financial toxicity.</p></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><p>Real-world evidence could be demanded by regulators as post-requirement studies to ensure QoL results observed in trials will replicate in patients treated outside investigational trials.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景癌症患者在诊断和治疗方面的经济困难影响了他们的生活质量。我们的目的是描述肿瘤学随机临床试验(RCT)中财务毒性是如何被捕获的,并估计赞助商支付研究药物或其他费用的频率。方法这是对发表在六种高影响力期刊(《新英格兰医学杂志》、《柳叶刀》、《美国医学会杂志》、The Lancet Oncology、Journal of Clinical Oncology和JAMA Oncology)上的文章的横断面分析。所选文章需要报告2018年1月至2019年12月期间发表的RCT,研究抗癌药物,并报告QoL结果。我们提取了所使用的生活质量问卷;调查是否直接评估了财政困难;是否报告了武器之间在财务毒性方面的差异;以及申办方是否提供研究药物或承担其他费用。结果在所有73项符合纳入标准的研究中,34项研究(47%)使用了生活质量问卷,而没有直接评估经济困难。该研究药物由申办方在至少51项试验中提供(70%),在3项试验中根据当地规则提供(4%),在其余19项试验中未确定(26%)。我们发现有2项试验(3%)对入选患者进行了付款或补偿。结论这项横断面研究发现,47%的肿瘤学随机对照试验中报告生活质量的文章没有使用生活质量问卷直接评估经济毒性。此外,在大多数试验中,研究药物由赞助商提供。在现实生活中,当患者必须支付药物和其他医疗费用时,就会产生经济毒性。由于对财务毒性的查询有限,肿瘤学随机对照试验的生活质量评估缺乏对现实世界环境的可推广性。政策摘要监管机构可能会要求提供真实世界的证据作为需求后研究,以确保试验中观察到的生活质量结果将在试验外接受治疗的患者中复制。
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
Is financial toxicity captured in quality of life assessments in oncology randomized clinical trials?

Background

Financial difficulties in relation with diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer affects their quality-of-life (QoL). We aim to characterize how financial toxicity was captured in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and to estimate how often the study-drug or other expenses were covered by sponsors.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in six high impact journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and JAMA Oncology). Selected articles needed to report on a RCT published between January 2018 and December 2019, study an anti-cancer drug, and have reported QoL results. We abstracted the QoL questionnaires used; whether the survey was directly assessing financial difficulties; whether a difference in financial toxicity was reported between arms; and whether the sponsor supplied the study-drug or covered other expenses.

Results

For all 73 studies that met inclusion criteria, 34 studies (47%) utilized QoL questionnaires without direct assessment of financial difficulties. The study drug was provided by the sponsor in at least 51 trials (70%), provided according to local rules in 3 trials (4%), and undetermined in the remaining 19 trials (26%). We found 2 trials (3%) with payments or compensation to enrolled patients.

Conclusion

This cross-sectional study found 47% of articles reporting on QoL in oncology RCTs did not use QoL questionnaires directly assessing financial toxicity. Additionnaly, the study drug was supplied by the sponsor in most trials. Financial toxicity occurs in real-life settings when patients have to pay for the drugs and other medical expenses. QoL assessments from oncology RCTs lack generalizability to real-world settings, due to limited querying of financial toxicity.

Policy summary

Real-world evidence could be demanded by regulators as post-requirement studies to ensure QoL results observed in trials will replicate in patients treated outside investigational trials.

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
Journal of Cancer Policy
Journal of Cancer Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
47
审稿时长
65 days
期刊最新文献
Palliative Care in Turkey: Insights from experts through key informant interviews Is health-related quality of life sufficiently addressed in trials for breast cancer treatments? An assessment based on reimbursement opinions from the French health technology assessment body, 2009–2023 Shaping the future research agenda of Cancer Nursing in Italy: Insights and strategic directions Emergency and non-emergency routes to cancer diagnoses in 2020 and 2021: A Population-based study of 154,863 patients Artificial Intelligence and cancer: Profile of registered clinical trials
×
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