Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Language
Publication year range
1.
Ann. intern. med ; 176(2)20230123.
Article in English | BIGG - GRADE guidelines | ID: biblio-1537819

ABSTRACT

Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants.


Subject(s)
Humans , Adolescent , Psychotherapy , Exercise , Depressive Disorder/therapy , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use
2.
Ann Oncol ; 29(4): 1070-1071, 2018 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29360917
3.
Eur J Cancer ; 82: 66-71, 2017 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28648700

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Several societies have proposed frameworks to evaluate the benefit of oncology drugs; one prominent tool is the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Our objectives were to investigate the extent of European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved cancer drugs that meet the threshold for 'meaningful clinical benefit' (MCB), defined by the framework, and determine the change in the distribution of grades when an adapted version that addresses the scale's limitations is applied. METHODS: We identified cancer drugs approved by the EMA (2011-2016). We previously proposed adaptations to the ESMO-MCBS addressing its main limitations, including the use of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval in assessing the hazard ratio. To assess the MCB, both the original and adapted ESMO-MCBS were applied to the respective approval studies. RESULTS: In total, we identified 70 approval studies for 38 solid cancer drugs. 21% of therapies met the MCB threshold by the original ESMO-MCBS criteria. In contrast, only 11% of therapies met the threshold for MCB when the adapted ESMO-MCBS was applied. Thus 89% and 79% of therapies did not meet the MCB threshold in the adapted and original ESMO-MCBS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In most of the cancer drugs, the MCB threshold is not met at the time of approval when measured using both ESMO-MCBS scales. Since approval status does not translate into a MCB, stakeholders and decision makers should focus on the benefit/risk ratio of anticancer drugs to assure an appropriate allocation of resources in health care systems.


Subject(s)
Medical Oncology/standards , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/standards , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Meaningful Use , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Societies, Medical , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...