No abstract

BackgroundThe incidence of cancer pain increases in discharged patients because of discontinued standard treatments and reductions in medication adherence. Motivated by the need for better pain management in discharged patients, we developed a mobile phone app (Pain Guard) to provide continuous treatment information and feedback to discharged cancer patients suffering from pain.ObjectiveThe aim was to design, construct, and test the Pain Guard app in patients managing cancer pain, evaluate the total remission rate of pain and the improvement in quality of life (QoL) to improve pain management for cancer pain patients, and assess patient acceptance of the app.MethodsThis randomized controlled double-arm study involved 58 patients with cancer pain symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned to a group receiving care through the Pain Guard app (n=31) or to a control group (n=27) who received only traditional pharmaceutical care. In a pretest, participants were rated using a baseline cancer pain assessment and QoL evaluation. During treatment, the consumption levels of analgesic drugs were recorded every week. After a 4-week study period, another round of cancer pain assessment and QoL evaluation was conducted. The system’s usability, feasibility, app compliance, and satisfaction were also assessed. Our primary outcome was remission rate of pain, and secondary outcomes were medication adherence, improvements in QoL, frequency of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP), incidence of adverse reactions, and satisfaction of patients.ResultsAll participants (N=58) successfully completed the study. There were no significant differences in baseline pain scores or baseline QoL scores between groups. At the end of the study, the rate of pain remission in the trial group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<.001). The frequency of BTcP in the app group was considerably lower than that in the control group (P<.001). The rate of medication adherence in the trial group was considerably higher than that in the control group (P<.001). Improvements in global QoL scores in the trial group were also significantly higher than those in the control group (P<.001). The incidence of adverse reactions in the trial group (7/31) was lower than that in the control group (12/27), especially constipation, with significant differences (P=.01). The 31 participants in the trial group completed a satisfaction survey regarding Pain Guard: 23 (74%) indicated that they were satisfied with receiving pharmaceutical care by Pain Guard, 5 (16%) indicated that they were somewhat satisfied, 2 (6%) indicated neutral feelings, and 1 (3%) indicated that they were somewhat dissatisfied; no participants indicated that they were very dissatisfied.ConclusionsPain Guard was effective for the management of pain in discharged patients with cancer pain, and its operability was effective and easily accepted by patients.Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trials Registry ChiCTR1800016066; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27153

BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide as first-line treatments for small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the US payer.MethodsThis study established a partition survival model for three health states, metastasis probability, and safety data based on the CASPIAN clinical trial. The health utility value was mainly derived from the published literature. Only direct medical costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsDurvalumab plus platinum–etoposide increased QALY by 0.220 compared to that observed with platinum–etoposide only. The cost increased by $78,198.75 and the incremental cost per QALY increased by $355,448.86. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses indicated that the model parameters varied within a limited range and had no significant effect on the results.ConclusionsAlthough durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide can improve quality of life, it also substantially increases the cost of medical treatment. Under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, durvalumab does not have a cost-effective comparative advantage.

No abstract

No abstract

Aims Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often prescribed to prevent or treat gastrointestinal disease. Whether the combination of systemic anti‐tumour therapy and PPIs leads to poor outcomes in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear. This systematic review explored the relationship between PPIs and survival outcomes of patients with advanced NSCLC who are receiving systemic anti‐tumour therapy. Methods We searched studies reporting the overall survival (OS) and/or progression‐free survival (PFS) of advanced NSCLC patients who are receiving systemic anti‐tumour therapy with or without PPIs on PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for literature published prior to 31 August 2021. The meta‐analysis used a random effects model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 to assess statistical heterogeneity. Publication bias and sensitivity analysis were performed. Results Fourteen retrospective studies comprising 13 709 advanced NSCLC patients were identified. Subgroup analyses showed that the use of PPI was correlated with the OS or PFS of patients receiving chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy (PPI users' group vs non‐users' group: HR for OS = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21–1.51, P < .00001; HR for PFS = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.25–1.80, P < .0001). Publication bias and sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust. Conclusion Meta‐analysis demonstrated that PPI use in advanced NSCLC patients who were undergoing systemic anti‐tumour therapy was correlated with increased mortality risk. Until results are further confirmed, caution should be applied when administering PPIs and systemic anti‐tumour therapy to advanced NSCLC patients.

Background: This study aimed to analyze the cost effectiveness of camrelizumab in the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.Methods: On the basis of the ESCORT clinical trial, a partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate the patient’s lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to test the stability of the model.Results: Treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with camrelizumab added 0.36 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $1,439.64 compared with chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $3,999 per QALY gained. The ICER was far lower than the threshold of willingness to pay for one time the GDP per capita in China. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of drugs, but the parameters did not have a major effect on the results of the model.Conclusion: Camrelizumab is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. This informs patient selection and clinical path development.

Aim: To investigate the cost–effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with nonresected hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Materials & methods: Markov model was used to simulate the direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data were derived from the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population. Results: Sorafenib treatment resulted in 1.794 QALYs at a cost of $43,780.73. Lenvatinib treatment resulted in 2.916 QALYs for patients weighing <60 and ≥60 kg at a cost of $57,049.43 and $75,900.36, The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to the sorafenib treatment group was $11,825.94/QALY and $28,627.12/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: According to WHO’s triple GDP per capita, the use of lenvatinib by providing drugs is a cost-effective strategy.