Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32116718›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020

Views of European Drug Development Stakeholders on Treatment Optimization and Its Potential for Use in Decision-Making.

Robbe Saesen, Stéphane Lejeune, Gianluca Quaglio, Denis Lacombe, Isabelle Huys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Transforming Drug Development for Neurological Disorders: Proceedings from a Multidisease Area Workshop.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Towards a New Understanding of Unmet Medical Need.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021
    Article
  14. Evaluation of patient engagement in medicine development: A multi-stakeholder framework with metrics.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
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

5 authors.

Robbe SaesenEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Stéphane LejeuneEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Gianluca QuaglioPanel for the Future of Science and Technology, European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels, Belgium.
Denis LacombeEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current drug development paradigm has been criticized for being too drug-centered and for not adequately focusing on the patients who will eventually be administered the therapeutic interventions it generates. The drug-driven nature of the present framework has led to the emergence of a research gap between the pre-approval development of anticancer medicines and their post-registration use in real-life clinical practice. This gap could potentially be bridged by transitioning toward a patient-centered paradigm that places a strong emphasis on treatment optimization, which strives to optimize the way health technologies are applied in a real-world environment. However, questions remain concerning the ideal features of treatment optimization studies and their acceptability among key stakeholders.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the views of key stakeholders in the drug development process regarding the concept of treatment optimization.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2018 and May 2019 with 26 participants across ten EU Member States and six different stakeholder groups, including academic clinicians as well as representatives of patient organizations, regulatory authorities, health technology assessment agencies, payers, and industry.

resultsBased on the input of the experts interviewed, clarification was obtained regarding the optimal features of treatment optimization studies in terms of their conduct, funding, timing, design, and setting. Moreover, a number of opportunities and challenges of undertaking such trials were identified. Inter-stakeholder discussion during their design was seen as desirable. There was also broad support among the participants for regulatory measures to facilitate treatment optimization, although there was no agreement on the optimal scale and nature of these initiatives. Furthermore, the interviewees believed that the evidence strength of well-designed treatment optimization studies performed according to rigorous quality standards is greater than or at least equal to that of classical clinical trials. In addition, there was a strong consensus that the results of treatment optimization studies should be taken into account during the decision-making of regulators, payers, and/or clinicians.

conclusionsStakeholders involved in drug development consider treatment optimization studies to be valuable tools to address current evidence gaps and support their implementation into the existing research framework.

Indexed as

clinical researchdrug developmenthealth technology assessmentpharmaceutical industryqualitative researchreal-world evidenceregulatory sciencetreatment optimization

Identifiers

PMID32116718
PMCPMC7015135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.