ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Financial Toxicity Associated with Biological Medicines: A Scoping Review.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. 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.
- Financial Toxicity Associated with Biological Medicines: A Scoping Review.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Financial toxicity, defined as the economic burden experienced by patients due to medication and other healthcare costs and their consequences, such as material, psychosocial and behavioral effects, represents a significant concern for individuals receiving biological medicines. This scoping review synthesizes current evidence on financial toxicity connected to biological therapies and proposes policy interventions to mitigate its impact, while identifying key research gaps. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across databases Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and EMB Reviews. The initial set of articles was screened in accordance with the PRISMA framework using Covidence software. After title/abstract and full-text screening, 24 studies were included in the final analysis. Data were synthesized guided by Witte's framework of financial toxicity, which distinguishes between objective financial burden (direct and indirect treatment costs) and subjective financial distress (material, psychosocial and behavioral effects). Findings indicate that high out-of-pocket expenses are the primary driver of financial toxicity among patients using biological medicines. These costs are often exacerbated by indirect expenses such as lost income, as well as insurance-related barriers including high co-payments. Although several studies acknowledged the subjective financial distress related to financial toxicity, this dimension was underreported, with few studies incorporating patient-reported outcomes or validated quality-of-life measures. This review reinforces the multifaceted nature of financial toxicity in the context of biological therapies and highlights the urgent need for support systems that address both economic and psychosocial challenges faced by patients. Future research should prioritize strategies to improve access to treatment while minimizing the financial burden.
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.