Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35577545›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2023

The role of clinical trials in the sustainability of the Italian national health service cancer drug expenditure.

Lorenzo Gasperoni, Alessandro Cafaro, Eleonora Ferretti, Valentina Di Iorio, Oriana Nanni, Carla Masini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Lorenzo GasperoniOncological Pharmacy Unit, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola, Emilia Romagna, Italy lorenzo.gasperoni@irst.emr.it.ORCID 0000-0001-6427-0809
Alessandro CafaroOncological Pharmacy Unit, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola, Emilia Romagna, Italy.
Eleonora FerrettiHospital Pharmacy, Azienda USL Modena, Modena, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Valentina Di IorioOncological Pharmacy Unit, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola, Emilia Romagna, Italy.
Oriana NanniUnit of Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola, Emilia Romagna, Italy.
Carla MasiniOncological Pharmacy Unit, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola, Emilia Romagna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8744-0708

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClinical trials offer new and potentially more effective therapeutic options for cancer patients and a potential cost-saving opportunity, especially considering that trial drugs are provided free-of-charge. The aim of this study was to analyse drug-related cost savings in clinical trials in a cancer institute over a 3 year period. The cost savings relate to the pharmaceutical expenditure of our centre, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori".

methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients taking part in interventional clinical cancer trials approved by a local independent Ethics Committee between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2020. The standard of care (SOC) was identified as the standard treatment that would have been offered to a patient if he/she had not been enrolled in the study. The sum of SOC costs of all patients represents the potential cost avoidance during the study period. Results were stratified by year, trial promoter, trial phase and tumour type. The same approach was used to perform a secondary analysis of compassionate use programmes.

resultIn the 3 year analysis, 1,257 patients were treated with experimental therapies in 244 clinical trials, of which 157 were profit and 87 academic. Results showed an overall cost savings of €13,266,518, more than 50% of which (€7,035,009) was related to phase III studies. Profit clinical trials generated €9,069,764 (68.4%) of the drug cost savings compared with €4,196,754 (31.6%) of academic studies. The stratification for tumour type was €3,552,592 (26.8%) genitourinary cancer, €3,268,074 (24.6%) melanoma, €2,574,127 (19.4%) haematological malignancies, €2,330,791 (17.6%) lung cancer, €728,149 (5.5%) gastrointestinal cancer, €557,608 (4.2%) rare tumours and €255,178 (1.9%) breast cancer. The secondary analysis on compassionate use included 122 patients involved in 28 different access programmes and revealed cost savings of €1,649,550.

conclusionThe results of our analysis point to the benefits of participating in and planning clinical trials for the public healthcare sector.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansRetrospective StudiesState MedicineAntineoplastic AgentsClinical TrialECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICALHealth Care Economics and OrganizationsMEDICAL ONCOLOGYPHARMACY SERVICE, HOSPITAL

Identifiers

PMID35577545
PMCPMC9986930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.