Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31758323›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

Improvement in adherence to Capecitabine and Lapatinib by way of a therapeutic education program.

Laure Vacher, Emilie Thivat, Camille Poirier, Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier, Philippe Chollet, Hervé Devaud, Pascale Dubray-Longeras, Fabrice Kwiatkowski, Xavier Durando, Isabelle van Praagh-Doreau and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Laure VacherOncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Laure.VACHER@clermont.unicancer.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3744-2334
Emilie ThivatDélégation Recherche Clinique & Innovation, Centre de Lutte contre le Cancer, 58 rue Montalembert, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Camille PoirierOncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Marie-Ange Mouret-ReynierOncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Philippe CholletOncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Hervé DevaudOncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Pascale Dubray-LongerasOncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Fabrice KwiatkowskiDélégation Recherche Clinique & Innovation, Centre de Lutte contre le Cancer, 58 rue Montalembert, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Xavier DurandoOncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Isabelle van Praagh-DoreauOncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Régine ChevrierPharmacy Department, Centre Jean Perrin, F-63011, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA patient non-adherence with oral anticancer agents is a well-recognized barrier to effective treatment. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of a therapeutic education program among non-adherent patients treated with Capecitabine alone or associated with Lapatinib.

methodsSixty-five cancer patients were enrolled. Among them, 55 participated in the first observational phase of the study, measuring adherence using electronic MEMS pillboxes (medication event monitoring system). An adherence score was assessed in the form of a composite adherence score including intake dose and intake intervals. Ten non-adherent patients (adherence score < 80%) were included in the intervention phase of the study and were enrolled on a therapeutic education program. The efficacy of the program was evaluated on the basis of an improvement in adherence scores. We also studied factors influencing adherence.

resultsThe average adherence score was 83.6 ± 15.7% in the overall population. Forty-one patients were adherent (adherence score > 80%) and 14 patients were non-adherent (adherence score < 80%). The therapeutic education program for non-adherent patients (n = 10) increased their adherence score by 17.8% and led 60% of these patients to become adherent. The number of toxicities during the first cycles was a predictive factor for non-adherence.

conclusionThis study showed an improvement in adherence to Capecitabine ± Lapatinib among non-adherent patients by way of a therapeutic education program.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCapecitabineFemaleHumansLapatinibMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProspective StudiesCapecitabineLapatinibAdherence rateCapecitabine and LapatinibFactors of non-adherenceNon-adherent patientsTherapeutic education program

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.