RESUMEN

Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) is one of the leading causes of cancer and is the first cause of death from malignant tumors among women worldwide. New cancer therapies receive regulatory approval yearly and to avoid health disparities in society, the health systems are challenged to adapt their infrastructure, methodologies, and reimbursement policies to allow broad access to these treatments. In addition, listening to patients' voices about their therapy preferences is essential. We aim to investigate the administration route preferences [subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV)] among patients diagnosed with HER2 positive BC and healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to investigate healthcare resources utilization (quality and quantity) for each route of administration (SC or IV) for treating those patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review focused on clinical trials and observational and economic studies, using PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Results: The literature review included 25 studies in the analysis. Studies have reported that patients and HCPs prefer the SC route of administration to IV because it saves time in terms of chair time, administration, and preparation and is less painful. In addition, SC administration might be a more cost-saving option when analyzing direct and indirect costs. Discussion: As BC stands as a significant global health concern and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide, understanding and incorporating patient and HCPs preferences in the choice of administration route become paramount. The observed preference for SC administration not only aligns with the imperative of adapting health systems to facilitate broad access to new cancer therapies but also underscores the importance of considering patient experiences and economic implications in shaping treatment strategies. These insights are crucial for healthcare policymakers, clinicians, and stakeholders in optimizing healthcare resources and enhancing the overall quality of BC care.

RESUMEN

As fraturas são as complicações mais temidas da osteoporose e tornam-se prováveis quanto menor a densidade mineral óssea. Além da densidade mineral óssea, outros fatores clínicos independentes podem influenciar no risco de fratura. Em 2008, a OMS juntamente com a Universidade de Sheffield, desenvolveram a ferramenta FRAX (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool), a qual estima o risco de fraturas maiores e de quadril em 10 anos. O presente trabalho estimou o risco de fraturas relacionadas à osteoporose, através da ferramenta, em pacientes com doença renal crônica, em hemodiálise; comparou o risco de fratura entre os gêneros, entre as diferentes faixas etárias e entre os diferentes IMC; avaliou as diferenças na estimativa de risco de acordo com o tempo de início do tratamento dialítico e avaliou se há diferença significativa na estimativa de risco de fraturas se considerada a insuficiência renal crônica como fator de risco para osteoporose. Realizou-se um estudo transversal entrevistando 93 pacientes. Foi utilizado a ferramente Microsoft Excel. Foi realizada análise de variância e quando o teste F foi significativo, foi utilizado o teste de Tuley. O risco estimado de fraturas maiores, nos pacientes estudados, foi de 4,4%, enquanto o risco de fraturas de quadril foi de 1,6%. Quando considerada a IRC associada à osteoporose secundária, observou-se um risco significativamente maior apenas para fraturas maiores, quando analisados todos os pacientes do estudo. Analisando apenas os pacientes sem outras doenças associadas à osteoporose secundária, o risco foi significativamente maior para ambos tipos de fraturas.

The fractures are the most dreaded complications of osteoporosis and become likely as bone mineral density decreases. In addition to bone mineral density, other independent clinical factors may influence the risk of fracture. In 2008, WHO together with the University of Sheffield, developed FRAX tool (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool), which estimates the risk of further major fractures and hip in 10 years. This study estimated the risk of osteoporosis-related fractures, through the tool, in patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis; It compared the risk of fracture between the sexes, between different age groups and between different BMI; assessed the differences in the risk assessment in accordance with the beginning of the dialysis treatment time, and assessed if there is a significant difference in the estimation of fracture risk when considered chronic kidney disease as a risk factor for osteoporosis. It was conducted a cross-sectional study interviewing 93 patients. Microsoft Excel tool was used. Analysis of variance was performed and when the F test was significant, was used Tuley's test. The estimated risk of further major fractures in patients was 4.4%, while the risk of hip fractures was 1.6%. When considering the CKD associated with secondary osteoporosis, was observed a significantly higher risk for major fractures only, considering all patients in the study. Analyzing only patients with no other illnesses associated with secondary osteoporosis, the risk was significantly higher for both types of fractures.