RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study systematically reviewed interventions mitigating financial hardship in patients with cancer and assessed effectiveness using a meta-analytic method. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English during January 2000-April 2023. Two independent reviewers selected prospective clinical trials with an intervention targeting and an outcome measuring financial hardship. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers using a quality assessment tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Reporting followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses guidelines. RESULTS: Eleven studies (2211 participants; 55% male; mean age, 59.29 years) testing interventions including financial navigation, financial education, and cost discussion were included. Financial worry improved in only 27.3% of 11 studies. Material hardship and cost-related care nonadherence remained unchanged in the two studies measuring these outcomes. Four studies (373 participants; 37% male, mean age, 55.88 years) assessed the impact of financial navigation on financial worry using the comprehensive score of financial toxicity (COST) measure (score range, 0-44; higher score = lower financial worry) and were used for meta-analysis. There was no significant change in the mean of pooled COST score between post- and pre-intervention (1.21; 95% confidence interval, -6.54 to 8.96; p = .65). Adjusting for pre-intervention COST, mean change of COST significantly decreased by 0.88 with every 1-unit increase in pre-intervention COST (p = .02). The intervention significantly changed COST score when pre-intervention COST was ≤14.5. CONCLUSION: A variety of interventions have been tested to mitigate financial hardship. Financial navigation can mitigate financial worry among high-risk patients.
RESUMO
Current guidelines for air sampling for bacteria and fungi in compounding pharmacies require the use of a medium for each type of organism. U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) chapter <797> (http://www.pbm.va.gov/linksotherresources/docs/USP797PharmaceuticalCompoundingSterileCompounding.pdf) calls for tryptic soy agar with polysorbate and lecithin (TSApl) for bacteria and malt extract agar (MEA) for fungi. In contrast, the Controlled Environment Testing Association (CETA), the professional organization for individuals who certify hoods and clean rooms, states in its 2012 certification application guide (http://www.cetainternational.org/reference/CAG-009v3.pdf?sid=1267) that a single-plate method is acceptable, implying that it is not always necessary to use an additional medium specifically for fungi. In this study, we reviewed 5.5 years of data from our laboratory to determine the utility of TSApl versus yeast malt extract agar (YMEA) for the isolation of fungi. Our findings, from 2,073 air samples obtained from compounding pharmacies, demonstrated that the YMEA yielded >2.5 times more fungal isolates than TSApl.
