Patient and Physician Decisional Factors Regarding Hypercalcemia of Malignancy Treatment: A Novel Mixed-Methods Study
Authors' conclusion
Using mixed methods, CPG developers can obtain meaningful information regarding evidence to decision criteria. In the case of HCM CPGs, this approach has provided the required contextual information and supported the development of evidence-based recommendations.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM) and physicians; adults with HCM
- Outcome
- Values, preferences, costs and outcome prioritization for HCM treatment
Methodological detailssystematic review (5 databases), cost data from different countries, outcome prioritization by CPG Working Group and patients, patient questionnaire
- Systematic review (5 databases)
- Cost data from different countries
- Outcome prioritization by CPG Working Group and patients
- Patient questionnaire
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Systematic review: 2 cross-sectional surveys of the same physician population; physicians agreed treating HCM alleviates symptoms and improves quality of life, but harms and benefits should be considered when deciding treatment duration
- 2 cost studies: Intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate more cost-effective than IV bisphosphonate plus calcitonin; IV zoledronic acid at home more cost-effective than other IV bisphosphonates
- Cost of zoledronic acid, denosumab and cinacalcet varied widely among countries and types (brand vs generic)
- CPG Working Group and patients agreed the most important outcomes were survival and resolution of HCM; some variability in ratings of other outcomes
Original publication
Patient and Physician Decisional Factors Regarding Hypercalcemia of Malignancy Treatment: A Novel Mixed-Methods Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Published 21 December 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →