The registry constitutes a large complemental database for the patient population in Germany. About one third of the IBD patients were not in clinical remission (CDAI ≥150/CAI >4) (CD: 45%; UC: 27%), although high rates of immunosuppressive drugs (CD: 47%; UC 26%) were administered. This study shows a large burden of active disease associated with an unexpectedly high (co)morbidity and high psychosocial impairments, indicating a reduced health state in IBD patients.
Background. Survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been significantly improved with the introduction of the monoclonal antibodies targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Novel molecular-targeted agents such as aflibercept and regorafenib have recently been approved. The aim of this review is to summarize and assess the effects of molecular agents in mCRC based on the available phase II and III trials, pooled analyses, andmeta-analyses/systematic reviews. Methods. A systematic literature search was conducted using the meta-database of the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information. Criteria of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network were used to assess the quality of the controlled trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Results. Of the 806 retrieved records, 40 publications were included. For bevacizumab, efficacy in combination with fluoropyrimidine-
Recently the sequencing of the human genome has become a major biological and clinical research field. However, the public health impact of this new technology with focus on the financial effect is not yet to be foreseen. To provide an overview of the current health economic evidence for genome sequencing, we conducted a thorough systematic review of the literature from 17 databases. In addition, we conducted a hand search. Starting with 5 520 records we ultimately included five full-text publications and one internet source, all focused on cost calculations. The results were very heterogeneous and, therefore, difficult to compare. Furthermore, because the methodology of the publications was quite poor, the reliability and validity of the results were questionable. The real costs for the whole sequencing workflow, including data management and analysis, remain unknown. Overall, our review indicates that the current health economic evidence for genome sequencing is quite poor. Therefore, we listed aspects that needed to be considered when conducting health economic analyses of genome sequencing. Thereby, specifics regarding the overall aim, technology, population, indication, comparator, alternatives after sequencing, outcomes, probabilities, and costs with respect to genome sequencing are discussed. For further research, at the outset, a comprehensive cost calculation of genome sequencing is needed, because all further health economic studies rely on valid cost data. The results will serve as an input parameter for budget-impact analyses or cost-effectiveness analyses.
The consideration of patient preferences in decision-making has become more important, especially for life-threatening diseases such as lung cancer. This paper aims to identify the preferences of lung cancer patients with regard to their treatment and involvement in the decision-making process. We conducted a systematic literature review from 12 electronic databases and included studies published between 2000 and 2012. A total of 20 studies were included in this review. These revealed that lung cancer patients do have preferences that should be considered in treatment decisions; however, these preferences are not homogenous. We found that patients often consider life extension to be more important than the health-related quality of life or undesirable side effects. This preference seems to depend on patient age. Nausea and vomiting are the most important side effects to be avoided; the relevance of other side effects differs highly between subgroups. The majority of lung cancer patients, nevertheless, seem to prefer a passive rather than an active role in decision-making, although the self-reported preferences differed partly from the physicians' perceptions. Overall, we identified an urgent need for larger studies that are suitable for subgroup analyses and incorporate multi-attributive measurement techniques.
Treatment decisions in life-threatening diseases, like colorectal cancer (CRC), are crucial, since they have a great impact on patient's survival and health-related quality of life. Thereby, the inclusion of patient's preferences becomes more and more important; however, these first need to be identified. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review in 12 electronic databases, published between 2000 and 2012, in order to identify patient's preferences concerning treatment preferences and involvement in the decision-making process. Nineteen studies were included and thoroughly analysed. This review shows that CRC patients do have preferences regarding different treatment options and outcomes; however, these preferences are not homogenous and seem to depend on personal factors like age and gender. Despite the existence of these preferences, the majority of patients prefer a passive role in the decision-making process, which in part may be explained by the severity of the disease. Again, subgroup analyses reveal the impact of personal factors like gender and education on the preference. Due to the importance of personal factors in the analysis of patient preferences, we identified an urgent need for larger studies that are suitable for subgroup analyses and incorporate multi-attributive measurement techniques, like discrete choice methods.
BackgroundNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) imposes a substantial burden on patients, health care systems and society due to increasing incidence and poor survival rates. In recent years, advances in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC have resulted from the introduction of targeted therapies. However, the application of these new agents increases treatment costs considerably. The objective of this article is to review the economic evidence of targeted therapies in metastatic NSCLC.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness (CE) as well as cost-utility studies. Medline, Embase, SciSearch, Cochrane, and 9 other databases were searched from 2000 through April 2013 (including update) for full-text publications. The quality of the studies was assessed via the validated Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.ResultsNineteen studies (including update) involving the MoAb bevacizumab and the Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors erlotinib and gefitinib met all inclusion criteria. The majority of studies analyzed the CE of first-line maintenance and second-line treatment with erlotinib. Five studies dealt with bevacizumab in first-line regimes. Gefitinib and pharmacogenomic profiling were each covered by only two studies. Furthermore, the available evidence was of only fair quality.ConclusionFirst-line maintenance treatment with erlotinib compared to Best Supportive Care (BSC) can be considered cost-effective. In comparison to docetaxel, erlotinib is likely to be cost-effective in subsequent treatment regimens as well. The insights for bevacizumab are miscellaneous. There are findings that gefitinib is cost-effective in first- and second-line treatment, however, based on only two studies. The role of pharmacogenomic testing needs to be evaluated. Therefore, future research should improve the available evidence and consider pharmacogenomic profiling as specified by the European Medicines Agency. Upcoming agents like crizotinib and afatinib need to be analyzed as well.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2466-14-192) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This checklist is an initial approach to improve transparency and understanding of CoI studies in terms of the extent, structure and development of the socioeconomic burden of diseases. The checklist supports the comparability of different studies and facilitates study conception.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.