ArticlePulmonary therapy2024
Perspectives on Drug Product Design Among Patients with Lung Cancer in the United Kingdom.
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of oral anticancer medications has become more prevalent in cancer therapy. This is particularly the case in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, when the treatment delivery interaction between the patient and the healthcare provider is removed, the risk of non-adherence increases. Insights into patient preferences can allow drug product formulation scientists to design more patient-centric medications that may promote an increase in adherence which, in turn, may lead to more beneficial health outcomes.
methodsWe conducted an advisory board with patients with NSCLC in the United Kingdom to elicit and understand preferences for drug product attributes related to appearance, instructions, and modality. The advisory board was preceded by a quantitative preference survey that included three object-case best-worst scaling exercises and was followed by administering the same survey to a broader group of patients to confirm the results.
resultsPatients strongly prefer once-daily dosing over more frequent dosing, regardless of the number of pills because taking tablets or capsules multiple times each day can disrupt daily activities. In addition, patients place high importance on surface smoothness because a rough surface implies decreased swallowability. Finally, food restrictions involving directions regarding taking medication with or without food represent difficulties for patients with cancer. Results of the follow-up survey confirmed these results.
conclusionsDrug developers should attempt to limit the dosing of these medications to once-daily regimens, avoid surface roughness, and develop formulations that can be taken without regard to the timing of meals to the greatest extent possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.