Randomized controlled trial of an app for cancer pain management.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this investigation was to devise a mobile application for self-management of cancer-related discomfort, with the overarching goal of enhancing patients' overall well-being. Would the utilization of the self-management application result in an amelioration of life quality compared to conventional follow-up procedures? METHODS: Modules were meticulously devised with the collaborative expertise of oncology pain specialists employing the Delphi technique. Reliability of the consultation was assessed using Cronbach's α. After developing the app, a prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to evaluate the app's effect on participants' quality of life. The trial group used the app; the control group received a follow-up telephone consultation. Assessments of quality of life were conducted both at baseline and following a 4-week intervention period. RESULTS: After two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, the functional modules of Pain Guardian were determined to include five functional modules, including pain self-measurement (real-time dynamic recording of pain by patients), patient reminders (reminders of outbreaks of pain disposal, medication, and review), uploading of examination reports, online consultation, health education, and other functional modules. Cronbach's α was 0.81. Overall, 96 patients (including esophageal, gastric, colorectal, nasopharyngeal, pulmonary, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, uterine, bone, thoracic, bladder, cervical, soft tissue sarcoma, mediastinal, and lymphoma) with cancer pain were divided into the trial and control groups. There were no significant differences in basic information and quality of life at baseline between groups. After 4 weeks of intervention, quality of life was significantly higher in the trial group than in the control group. Patients' satisfaction with the app was high (93.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The primary obstacle encountered in the development of applications for managing cancer-related discomfort lies in the sensitive nature of the subject matter, potentially leading to patient apprehension regarding application usage for pain management. Consequently, meticulous attention to user preferences and anticipations is imperative, necessitating the creation of an application characterized by user-friendliness and medical efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry ChiCTR1800016066; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27153 . Date of Registration: 2018-05-09.

Post-marketing safety concerns with nirmatrelvir: A disproportionality analysis of spontaneous reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.

AIMS: Nirmatrelvir is an antiviral drug with a novel mechanism of action, targeting the 3-CL protease, and is used in the treatment of COVID-19. However, the potential side effects have not yet been fully studied. The aim of this study was to identify potential safety signals of nirmatrelvir by analysing post-marketing safety data based on the largest publicly available worldwide pharmacovigilance database. METHODS: We analysed nirmatrelvir adverse events to identify and characterize relevant safety signals based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database in 2022. The case/non-case approach was used to estimate the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information component (IC) with relevant confidence intervals (95% CI) for adverse events (AEs) that numbered 4 or more. RESULTS: A total of 26 846 cases were included. Disease recurrence (ROR [95% CI] = 413.2 [395.6-431.59]), dysgeusia (ROR [95% CI] = 110.84 [106.04-115.85]), anosmia (ROR [95% CI] = 15.21 [12.76-18.11]), ageusia (ROR [95% CI] = 9.80 [8.50-11.3]) and urticaria (ROR [95% CI] = 1.91 [1.69-2.17]) were the main safety signals. In addition, abdominal pain upper and skin toxicity were two specific safety signals of nirmatrelvir. In the pregnant population, there was a significant increased ROR for life-threatening conditions (ROR [95% CI] = 8.00 [1.77-36.20]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified that the main and specific safety signals of nirmatrelvir were disease recurrence, dysgeusia, abdominal pain upper and skin toxicity. Clinicians and pharmacists should be vigilant of these AEs, although differentiating between COVID-19 symptoms and AEs can be challenging. Notably, a potential safety concern of nirmatrelvir should be a warning based on a small number of events in the pregnant population. However, the available data are insufficient, and further continued pharmacovigilance and surveillance is needed to fully understand this issue.

Differences in Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media: Analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Database.

BACKGROUND: A comparative hypersensitivity risk profile of frequently used iodinated contrast media (ICM) may be required for their safer use. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) and specific ICM and characterize the spectrum of ICM-related HSRs. METHODS: We performed a disproportionality analysis and proportionality test to assess the safety profile of ICM-related HSRs and compare the frequency ratio of specific HSRs in diverse age, sex, and country subgroups. We used reports downloaded from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and data on the national use of individual ICM for this analysis. RESULTS: A total of 11,343,365 adverse event reports were collected from the first quarter of 2013 to the first quarter of 2021, among which 5,432 cases were identified as ICM-induced HSRs. All of the studied ICMs were associated with overreporting frequencies of HSRs, in which iomeprol showed the highest reporting odds ratio (ROR) of 24.75 (95% CI, 19.61-31.24). Iopromide (ROR = 22.29; 95% CI, 20.18-24.62) and ioversol (ROR = 20.85; 95% CI, 18.54-23.44) were more likely to cause angioedema than other ICMs, particularly in the group aged 45 to 64 years. Iomeprol was associated with the largest disproportionality for severe cutaneous adverse reactions (ROR = 127.90; 95% CI, 103.32-159.88), whereas iodixanol exhibited maximal incidence when total use cases were considered. Regarding anaphylactic shock, iopamidol presented the highest disproportionality (ROR = 31.11; 95% CI, 27.15-35.65), especially in males or seniors aged greater than 65 years, whereas iopromide resulted in the maximum frequency in China and the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Different ICMs exhibited diverse profiles regarding HSRs, which could be further affected by age, sex, or geographic area. Prospective studies are required for patient safety.

Benefits of Mobile Apps for Cancer Pain Management: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Pain ratings reported by patients with cancer continue to increase, and numerous computer and phone apps for managing cancer-related pain have been developed recently; however, whether these apps effectively alleviate patients' pain remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the role of mobile apps in the management of cancer pain. METHODS: Literature on the use of apps for cancer pain management and interventions, published before August 2019, was retrieved from the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO. The effects of apps on cancer pain were evaluated using RevMan5.3 software, and the rates of adverse drug reactions were analyzed using the R Statistical Software Package 3.5.3. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were selected for the analysis: 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 before-after studies, 2 single-arm trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 1 prospective descriptive study. The 5 RCTs reported data for 487 patients (240 patients in the intervention group and 247 patients in the control group), and the remaining studies reported data for 428 patients. We conducted a meta-analysis of the RCTs. According to the meta-analysis, apps can significantly reduce pain scores (mean difference [MD]=-0.50, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.07, I2=62%, P=.02). We then used apps that have an instant messaging module for subgroup analysis; these apps significantly reduced patients' pain scores (MD=-0.67, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.28, I2=57%, P<.01). Patients using apps without an instant messaging module did not see a reduction in the pain score (MD=0.30, 95% CI -1.31 to 1.92, I2=70%, P=.71). Overall, patients were highly satisfied with using apps. Other outcomes, such as pain catastrophizing or quality of life, demonstrated greater improvement in patients using apps with instant messaging modules compared with patients not using an app. CONCLUSIONS: The use of apps with instant messaging modules is associated with reduced pain scores in patients with cancer-related pain, and patient acceptance of these apps is high. Apps without instant messaging modules are associated with relatively higher pain scores. The presence of an instant messaging module may be a key factor affecting the effect of an app on cancer pain.

Development and Testing of a Mobile App for Pain Management Among Cancer Patients Discharged From Hospital Treatment: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of cancer pain increases in discharged patients because of discontinued standard treatments and reductions in medication adherence. Motivated by the need for better pain management in discharged patients, we developed a mobile phone app (Pain Guard) to provide continuous treatment information and feedback to discharged cancer patients suffering from pain. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to design, construct, and test the Pain Guard app in patients managing cancer pain, evaluate the total remission rate of pain and the improvement in quality of life (QoL) to improve pain management for cancer pain patients, and assess patient acceptance of the app. METHODS: This randomized controlled double-arm study involved 58 patients with cancer pain symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned to a group receiving care through the Pain Guard app (n=31) or to a control group (n=27) who received only traditional pharmaceutical care. In a pretest, participants were rated using a baseline cancer pain assessment and QoL evaluation. During treatment, the consumption levels of analgesic drugs were recorded every week. After a 4-week study period, another round of cancer pain assessment and QoL evaluation was conducted. The system's usability, feasibility, app compliance, and satisfaction were also assessed. Our primary outcome was remission rate of pain, and secondary outcomes were medication adherence, improvements in QoL, frequency of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP), incidence of adverse reactions, and satisfaction of patients. RESULTS: All participants (N=58) successfully completed the study. There were no significant differences in baseline pain scores or baseline QoL scores between groups. At the end of the study, the rate of pain remission in the trial group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<.001). The frequency of BTcP in the app group was considerably lower than that in the control group (P<.001). The rate of medication adherence in the trial group was considerably higher than that in the control group (P<.001). Improvements in global QoL scores in the trial group were also significantly higher than those in the control group (P<.001). The incidence of adverse reactions in the trial group (7/31) was lower than that in the control group (12/27), especially constipation, with significant differences (P=.01). The 31 participants in the trial group completed a satisfaction survey regarding Pain Guard: 23 (74%) indicated that they were satisfied with receiving pharmaceutical care by Pain Guard, 5 (16%) indicated that they were somewhat satisfied, 2 (6%) indicated neutral feelings, and 1 (3%) indicated that they were somewhat dissatisfied; no participants indicated that they were very dissatisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Pain Guard was effective for the management of pain in discharged patients with cancer pain, and its operability was effective and easily accepted by patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry ChiCTR1800016066; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27153.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib as First-line Treatment and Sequential Therapy for EGFR Mutation-positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib with gefitinib or erlotinib as first-line and sequential therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. METHODS: The Markov model was used, and the study included 3 health states over a 10-year period. Transition probabilities and safety data were collected from the FLAURA (AZD9291 versus gefitinib or erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer) trial. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges and literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability. FINDINGS: The strategy with gefitinib or erlotinib first-line therapy and second-line gene-guided osimertinib therapy (GE-T790M) resulted in a gain of 0.31 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a cost of $15,200.95 per patient compared with the gefitinib or erlotinib first-line therapy and second-line chemotherapy (GE-chemotherapy). The incremental QALY and incremental cost values for first-line osimertinib therapy compared with GE-chemotherapy was 0.96 and $69,420.76, respectively. Compared with the GE-T790M strategy (0.96 QALY and $29,223.33), first-line osimertinib was estimated to be more effective (1.61 QALYs) and more costly ($83,443.14). Relative to the GE-chemotherapy strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $47,873.96 and $71,954.08 per QALY gained with GE-T790M and the osimertinib first-line strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for first-line osimertinib versus GE-T790M was estimated to be $83,766.61. The results were found to be robust for univariate and multivariable sensitivity analyses. IMPLICATIONS: Gefitinib or erlotinib first-line and chemotherapy second-line strategies were the most cost-effective first-line treatments for EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC. Gefitinib or erlotinib first-line and gene-guided osimertinib second-line strategies were more cost-effective than osimertinib first-line treatment for patients who preferred osimertinib administration in China.

Cost Effectiveness of Imatinib, Dasatinib, and Nilotinib as First-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have obvious effects on chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), but they are expensive in China. Moreover, the overall cost of treatment of CML is high and the medical economic burden of patients with CML on the government is heavy. This study tested the cost effectiveness of imatinib, nilotinib, and dasatinib as first-line treatment in Chinese patients who were first diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CML-CP). METHODS: A state-transition Markov model combining clinical effectiveness, utility, and cost data was used. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: The imatinib-first, dasatinib-first, and nilotinib-first strategy offered patients 9.76, 9.87, and 9.72 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of US$303,502.42, US$381,681.03, and US$305,509.92 over 20 years, respectively. The nilotinib-first strategy exhibited the lowest utility and highest price and was thus eliminated. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of the imatinib-first strategy and the dasatinib-first strategy showed that the dasatinib-first strategy yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICER) of 710,714.64 $/QALY compared with the imatinib-first strategy, which exceeded the threshold; hence, the dasatinib-first strategy was not cost effective and was eliminated. The results were robust for multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Chinese medical system, imatinib is likely to be more cost effective than dasatinib and nilotinib for patients who were first diagnosed with CML-CP.