Validity of the SF-36 Health Survey as an outcome measure for trials in people with spinal cord injury

The SF-36 was interviewer-administered to 305 subjects at recruitment. Feasibility, content validity and internal consistency were assessed. We tested a priori hypotheses about discriminative, convergent and divergent validity. Interviewer-assisted administration was feasible. The content validity of several domains (Physical Function, Role Physical, Social Function and Role Emotional) was compromised by the irrelevance of some items and response options. Resultant ceiling and floor effects may limit the SF-36?s ability to detect changes over time. The SF-36 was able to discriminate differences between people with: tetraplegia versus paraplegia (in the Physical Function and Physical Composite scores); injuries that were recent ( 4 years) (in the Vitality, Social Function and Mental Health domain and Mental Composite scores), and who were employed versus unemployed (in the Physical Function, Social Function, Mental Health and Mental Composite scores). It was not able to discriminate between groups dichotomised by age, injury completeness or gender. The convergent and divergent validity of all SF-36 domains was as in other populations, except for correlations involving the Physical Function scale which were poor. Internal consistency was similar to that in other populations (Cronbach?s alpha from 0.75 to 0.92); the SF-36 has sufficient precision for population-based and clinical research in spinal cord injury. The SF-36 is useful for comparing the health status of people with spinal cord injury to that of other populations, but supplementation with a disease-specific health status measure may be necessary for trials of interventions in people with spinal cord injuries.Quality of life, outcome measures, sf-36

Systematic review of the efficacy of antiemetics in the treatment of nausea in patients with far advanced cancer

Objectives: To systematically review studies of antiemetics used in the treatment of nausea in patients with far-advanced cancer. Data sources: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and uncontrolled studies identified by electronic and hand searching. Review methods: Identified studies were appraised for quality and effect size. Results: Of 21 studies included, 2 were systematic reviews, 7 were RCT and 12 were uncontrolled studies or case series. Differences in interventions and outcomes amongst the RCT precluded any quantitative data synthesis and all seven studies were prone to bias. Whereas uncontrolled studies indicated a high response rate to standard regimens (75-93% for both nausea and vomiting), RCT showed much lower response rates to these agents (23-36% for nausea, 18-52% for vomiting). The two methods of antiemetic choice (choice based either on the inferred mechanism or empirical) were equally effective. There is reasonably strong evidence for the use of metoclopramide in cancer-associated dyspepsia and steroids in malignant bowel obstruction. There was conflicting evidence about the efficacy of serotonin antagonists compared with standard treatments (e.g. metoclopramide, dopamine antagonists and dexamethasone). There was little or no evidence of the efficacy of some commonly used and seemingly effective drugs such as haloperidol, cyclizine, and methotrimeprazine. Conclusion: Evidence supporting the existing consensus-based guidelines for management of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer is sparse. Current approaches to treatment based on the neuropharmacology of the emetic pathway may be inappropriate in this setting. Well-designed studies of the impact of "standard" management and novel agents on nausea and vomiting in palliative populations are needed

Community views on factors affecting medicines resource allocation:Cross-sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia

Objective: The aim of the present study was to determine Australian community views on factors that influence the distribution of health spending in relation to medicines. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was performed of 3080 adults aged ≥18 years. Participants were asked to rank, in order of importance, 12 criteria according to which medicines funding decisions may be made. Results: Of all respondents, 1213 (39.4%) considered disease severity to be the most important prioritisation criterion for funding a new medicine. This was followed by medicines treating a disease affecting children (13.2%) and medicines for cancer patients (9.1%). Medicines targeting a disease for which there is no alternative treatment available received highest priority from 8.6% of respondents. The remaining eight prioritisation criteria were each assigned a top ranking from 6.6% to 1.7% of respondents. Medicines targeting a disease for which there is no alternative treatment available were ranked least important by 7.7% of respondents, compared with 2.4%, 1.9% and 1.0% for medicines treating severe diseases, diseases affecting children and cancer respectively. \u27End-of-life treatments\u27 and \u27rare disease therapies\u27 received the least number of highest priority rankings (2.0% and 1.7% respectively). Conclusions: These results provide useful information about public preferences for government spending on prescribed medicines. Understanding of public preferences on the funding of new medicines will help the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and government determine circumstances where greater emphasis on equity is required and help inform medicines funding policy that best meets the needs of the Australian population. What is known about this topic?: There is increased recognition of the importance of taking into account public preferences in the heath technology assessment (HTA) decision-making process. What does this paper add?: The Australian public view the severity of disease to be the most important funding prioritisation criterion for medicines, followed by medicines used to treat children or to treat cancer. What are the implications for practitioners?: The general public are capable of giving opinions on distributional preferences. This information can help inform medicines funding policy and ensure that it is consistent with the values of the Australian population

Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines:A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia

Background Around the world government agencies responsible for the selection and reimbursement of prescribed medicines and other health technologies are considering how best to bring community preferences into their decision making. In particular, community views about the distribution or equity of funding across the population. These official committees and agencies often have access to the best available and latest evidence on clinical effectiveness, safety and cost from large clinical trials and population-based studies. All too often they do not have access to high quality evidence about community views. We therefore, conducted a large and representative population-based survey in Australia to determine what community members think about the factors that do and should influence government spending on prescribed medicines. Methods A choice-based survey was designed to elicit the importance of individual criteria when considering the equity of government spending on prescribed medicines. A representative sample of 3080 adult Australians completed the survey by allocating a hypothetical budget to different combinations of money spent on two patient populations. Societal preferences were inferred from absolute majority responses i.e. populations with more than 50% of respondents\u27 allocation for a particular allocation criterion. Results This study shows that, all else being equal, severity of disease, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off, and life-style unrelated diseases are supported by the public as resource allocation criteria. Where \u27all else is not equal\u27, participants allocated more resources to the patient population that gained considerable improvement in health and fewer resources to those that gained little improvement in health. This result held under all scenarios except for \u27end-of-life treatments\u27. Responses to cost (and corresponding number of patients treated) trade-off scenarios indicated a significant reduction in the proportion of respondents choosing to divide resources equally and a shift in preference towards devoting resources to the population that were more costly to treat for all criteria with the exception of severity of disease. Conclusions The general public have clear views on what\u27s fair in terms of government spending on prescribed medicines. In addition to supporting the application of the \u27rule of rescue\u27, important considerations for government spending included the severity of disease being treated, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off and life-style unrelated diseases. This study shows that the general public are willing to share their views on what constitutes an equitable allocation of the government\u27s drug budget. The challenge remains to how best to consider those views alongside clinical and economic considerations

The rising cost of anticancer drugs in Australia

Background: Anticancer drugs are often expensive and are contributing to the growing cost of cancer care. Concerns have been raised about the effect rising costs may have on availability of new anticancer drugs. Aim: This study aims to determine the recent changes in the costs of anticancer drugs in Australia. Methods: Publicly available expenditure and prices paid by the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for anticancer drugs from 2000 to 2012 were reviewed. The measures used to determine changes in cost were total PBS expenditure and average price paid by the PBS per prescription for anticancer drugs and for all PBS listed drugs. An estimated monthly price paid for newly listed anticancer drugs was also calculated. Results: Annual PBS expenditure on anticancer drugs rose from A$65 million in 1999–2000 to A$466 million in 2011–2012; an average increase of 19% per annum. The average price paid by the PBS per anticancer drug prescription, adjusted for inflation, increased 133% from A$337 to A$786. The real average annual increase in the price per anticancer drug prescription was more than double that for all other PBS drugs combined (7.6% vs 2.8%, difference 4.8%, 95% confidence interval −0.4% to 10.1%, P = 0.07). The median price for a month’s treatment of the new anticancer drugs listed was A$4919 (range A$1003 to A$12 578, 2012 prices). Conclusions: PBS expenditure and the price of anticancer drugs in Australia rose substantially from 2000 to 2012. Dealing with these burgeoning costs will be a major challenge for our health system and for those affected by cancer

Excisional treatment in women with cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS): a prospective randomised controlled noninferiority trial to compare AIS persistence/recurrence after loop electrosurgical excision procedure with cold knife cone biopsy: protocol for a pilot study

Introduction: Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix is the precursor to invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma. An excisional biopsy such as a cold knife cone biopsy (CKC) should be performed to exclude invasive adenocarcinoma. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) is an alternative modality to CKC but is controversial in AIS. There is a perception that there is a greater likelihood of incomplete excision of AIS with LEEP because the depth of excised tissue tends to be smaller and the tissue margins may show thermal artefact which can interfere with pathology assessment. In the USA, guidelines recommend that any treatment modality can be used to excise AIS, provided that the specimen remains intact with interpretable margins. However, there are no high-quality studies comparing LEEP with CKC and well-designed prospective studies are needed. If such a study were to show that LEEP was non-inferior to CKC for the outcomes of post-treatment persistence, recurrence and adenocarcinoma, LEEP could be recommended as an appropriate treatment option for AIS in selected patients. This would benefit women because, unlike CKC, LEEP does not require general anaesthesia and may be associated with reduced morbidity. Methods and analysis: The proposed exploratory study is a parallel group trial with an allocation ratio of 2:1 in favour of the intervention (LEEP: CKC). Participants are women aged ≥18 to ≤45 years diagnosed with AIS on cervical screening and/or colposcopically directed biopsy in Australia and New Zealand, who are to receive excisional treatment in a tertiary level centre. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the St John of God Healthcare Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number #1137)

Sentinel-lymph-node-based management or routine axillary clearance? Three-year outcomes of the RACS Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Axillary Clearance (SNAC) 1 trial

Purpose We sought to determine whether the benefits of sentinel-node-based management (SNBM) over routine axillary clearance (RAC) at 1 year persisted to 3 years of follow-up. Methods 1088 women with clinically node negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to SNBM versus RAC. Upper limb volume, symptoms and function were assessed at 1, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months after surgery objectively with upper limb measurements by clinicians, and subjectively by patients’ using validated self-rating scales. Results Upper limb volume increased in both groups over the first 2 years and differed between the two groups all time points beyond 1 month (P<0.02), but then plateaued. Upper limb swelling was no worse in women who had axillary clearance as two-stage procedure than in women assigned RAC as a one-stage procedure. Upper limb volume had increased 15% or more in 6.0% at 6 months and 17.6% at 3 years in those assigned RAC versus 4.2% and 11.9% in those assigned SNBM. Reductions in upper limb movement were also greater with RAC than SNBM over 6 months, but improved and were similar in the two groups from 1 to 3 years. Subjective ratings of upper limb swelling, symptoms, dysfunction, and disability over 3 years were worse in the RAC group. Upper limb swelling at 3 years was rated severe by few women (1.1%), but moderate by 9.4% in the RAC group and 2.5% in the SNBM group (P<0.001). Conclusions The benefits of SNBM over RAC persist 3 years after surgery.Royal Australasian College of Surgeon

Discussion of costs and financial burden in clinical practice: A survey of medical oncologists in Australia

Background A diagnosis of cancer is associated with significant physical, psychological and financial burden. Including costs of cancer is an important component of shared decision making. Doctors bear a responsibility towards educating patients about the financial aspects of care. Multiple organisations have advocated for price transparency and implementing Informed Financial Consent in the clinic. However, few studies have evaluated the perspectives of oncologists on the current state of this discussion. Aims The aim of this study is to determine the views and perspectives of medical oncologists regarding communication of costs and financial burden in patients with cancer. Methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional online survey via REDCap. The survey was distributed to medical oncologists and advanced trainees currently registered with Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA). Data was collected using the online survey comprising socio-demographic characteristics, discussion of costs and financial burden, and facilitators and barriers to these discussions. Results 547 members of MOGA were invited to participate in the study, and 106 of 547 MOGA members (19%) completed the survey. Most oncologists (66%) felt that it was their responsibility to discuss costs of care, however a majority of oncologists (59.3%) reported discussing costs with less than half of their patients. Only 25% of oncologists discussed financial concerns with more than half of their patients, and most oncologists were unfamiliar with cancer-related financial burden. Most Oncologists with greater clinical experience and those working in private practice were more likely to discuss costs with a majority of their patients. Conclusions Certain characteristics of medical oncologists and their practices were associated with reported prevalence of discussing costs of care and financial burden with their patients. In the context of rising costs of cancer care, interventions targeting modifiable factors such as raising oncologist awareness of costs of care and financial burden, screening for financial toxicity and availability of costs information in an easily accessible manner, may help increase the frequency of patient-doctor discussions about costs of care, contributing to informed decision-making and higher-quality cancer care

The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials::Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training

Aims: To explore cancer trial coordinators' roles and challenges in administering patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, and establish what PRO-specific training and guidance they received and needed. Methods: Eligible cancer trial coordinators experienced with PRO assessment from approved Australian sites participated in an audio-recorded, semi-structured interview (transcribed verbatim). Recruitment continued until data saturation. Transcripts underwent content analysis. Results: Twenty coordinators participated (professional training: nursing (n = 12), science/research (n = 4), both (n = 4)). PRO administration formed a minor component of most (85%) coordinators' roles. PRO administration challenges included managing ‘English second language’ participants, participants' companions who attempted to complete questionnaires, burdensome questionnaires, and balancing their duty of care against trial requirements. Coordinators reported inconsistencies in PRO administration, which appeared to arise as a result of confusion and inconsistent or contradictory PRO training. Inconsistencies concerned whether/when they explained the purpose of PRO assessment, which participants they approached to complete PROs, and whether they used PRO trial data to inform care. Coordinators received PRO training from various sources; most commonly study-specific start-up meetings (45%) or from colleagues (30%). Two received no PRO-specific training. Despite the challenges reported, many (55%) felt they did not need further PRO training. Conclusion: Trial coordinators receive inconsistent PRO-specific training and are often unclear how to prioritise different aspects of data quality when faced with everyday challenges, leading to inconsistent methods, missing data, poor quality data, and even bias. Agreement on how coordinators should prioritise the requirements of PRO studies is a necessary pre-requisite for the development of much-needed, consensus-based PRO administration guidelines