RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Acromegaly is a rare hormonal disorder that results in enlargement of the face, hands and feet. It is associated with comorbidities, increased mortality, reduced quality of life and economic burden. Adequate treatment is critical to alleviate symptoms; however, the treatment burden is substantial. To understand how different treatment aspects might ease the burden, this study investigated preferences for treatment options among people with acromegaly in the US, using a choice experiment (CE). METHODS: An online CE was conducted based on a similar study among the US general population. Respondents were recruited through Acromegaly Community in the US, and all eligible respondents were included. The survey assessed six treatment options that varied according to administration, frequency, storage, treatment setting, needle type and injection pain. RESULTS: 109 adults with acromegaly completed the survey between October and December 2022. On average, the population had lived with symptoms for 15 years, while the average number of years with the diagnosis was eight. Respondents preferred subcutaneous injections every fourth week and preferred them at home rather than at the hospital. Most respondents preferred subcutaneous injections right under the skin administered once every fourth week with a pen at home over oral capsules administered twice daily at home. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that new treatment options administered as subcutaneous injections right under the skin once every fourth week at home have the potential to lower the treatment burden among people with acromegaly, emphasizing the importance of taking each person's preference into consideration when choosing treatment.
Asunto(s)
Acromegalia , Adulto , Humanos , Acromegalia/tratamiento farmacológico , Acromegalia/epidemiología , Calidad de Vida , Inyecciones Subcutáneas , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , ComorbilidadRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Real-world evidence on later line treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is sparse. We evaluated clinical outcomes among RRMM patients in the 1-year following treatment with pomalidomide or daratumumab and compared economic outcomes between RRMM patients and non-MM patients. PATIENT AND METHODS: Adult patients with ≥1 claim of pomalidomide or daratumumab were identified between January 2012 and February 2018 using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus US claims database. Patients were required to have a diagnosis or treatment for MM and a claim of any immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors before the index date. Mean time to new therapy, overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier curve and adverse events (AEs) were reported over the 1-year post-index period. RRMM patients were also matched to a non-MM comparator cohort and economic outcomes were compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: 289 RRMM patients were matched to 1,445 patients without MM. Most prevalent hematological AE was anemia (72.0%) and non-hematological AE was infections (75.4%). Mean (SD) time to a new treatment was 4.7 (5.3) months and median OS was 14.6 months. RRMM patients had significantly higher hospitalizations and physician office visits (Both P < .0001) compared to non-MM patients. Adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients with RRMM had 4.9 times (95% CI 3.8-6.4, P < .0001) the total healthcare costs compared with patients without MM. The major driver of total costs among RRMM patients was pharmacy costs (67.3%). CONCLUSION: RRMM patients showed a high frequency of AEs, low OS, and a substantial economic burden suggesting need for effective treatment options.
Asunto(s)
Mieloma Múltiple , Adulto , Anticuerpos Monoclonales , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Dexametasona/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Mieloma Múltiple/tratamiento farmacológico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/tratamiento farmacológico , Talidomida/análogos & derivadosRESUMEN
UNLABELLED: A consensus meeting was convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to provide recommendations for interpreting clinical importance of treatment outcomes in clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments. A group of 40 participants from universities, governmental agencies, a patient self-help organization, and the pharmaceutical industry considered methodologic issues and research results relevant to determining the clinical importance of changes in the specific outcome measures previously recommended by IMMPACT for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains: (1) Pain intensity, assessed by a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale; (2) physical functioning, assessed by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory interference scales; (3) emotional functioning, assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory and Profile of Mood States; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement, assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. It is recommended that 2 or more different methods be used to evaluate the clinical importance of improvement or worsening for chronic pain clinical trial outcome measures. Provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in specific outcome measures that can be used for outcome studies of treatments for chronic pain are proposed. PERSPECTIVE: Systematically collecting and reporting the recommended information needed to evaluate the clinical importance of treatment outcomes of chronic pain clinical trials will allow additional validation of proposed benchmarks and provide more meaningful comparisons of chronic pain treatments.