RESUMO
Introduction: Enrolling children with cancer in early phase trials is crucial to access innovative treatments, contributing to advancing pediatric oncology research and providing tailored therapeutic options. Our objective is to analyze the impact of these trials on patient outcomes and safety, and to examine the evolution and feasibility of trials in pediatric cancer over the past decade. Methods: All patients recruited in pediatric anticancer phase I/II clinical trials from January 2014 to December 2022 were included. Clinical records and trial protocols were analyzed. Results: A total of 215 patients (median age 11.2 years, range 1-29.5) were included in 52 trials (258 inclusions). Patients with extracranial solid tumors (67%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (24%), and leukemia (9%) were included. The most common investigational drugs were small molecules (28.3%) and antibodies (20.5%). Serious adverse events were experienced by 41% of patients, 4.4% discontinued treatment because of toxicity and two had toxic deaths. Median event-free survival was 3.7 months (95%CI: 2.8-4.5), longer in phase II trials than in phase I (2 vs. 6.3 months; p ≤ 0.001). Median overall survival was 12 months (95%CI: 9-15), higher in target-specific vs. non-target-specific trials (14 vs. 6 months; p ≤ 0.001). Discussion: A significant and increasing number of patients have been included in early clinical trials, suggesting that both oncologists and families consider it valuable to be referred to specialized Units to access new therapies. Moreover, our data suggests that participation in early clinical trials, although not without potential toxicities, might have a positive impact on individual outcomes.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of treating osteoarthritis (OA) pain using combination tramadol/paracetamol tablets, Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Agents (NSAID) alone or NSAID plus proton pump inhibitors (PPI) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: A decision-analytical model was constructed to analyze the cost associated with three treatment strategies over 6 months. A cost-minimization approach was used, which considered data related to resource use, medication costs and costs for the treatment of adverse events. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, costs for 6 months of treatment of OA pain using tramadol/paracetamol were 232.86, compared with 274.60 for NSAID + PPI and 133.75 for NSAID alone. This provided a savings of 41.74 per patient over 6 months for tramadol/paracetamol compared with NSAID + PPI and a cost increase of 99.11 compared with NSAID alone. When renal adverse events associated with NSAID were considered, tramadol/paracetamol was cost saving compared with all NSAID-based regimens (saving 140.02 vs NSAID alone, 280.86 vs NSAID + PPI). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of a theoretical decision-analytic model, the data obtained may suggest that tramadol/paracetamol is cost saving compared with NSAID + PPI for the treatment of OA pain over a period of 6 months. Tramadol/paracetamol is also cost saving compared with treatment with NSAID alone if considering renal adverse events.