{"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 , Alyson Haslam , 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":"36 ","pages":"Article 100423"},"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 , Alyson Haslam , 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\":\"36 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100423\"},\"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。
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.