Interventions to alleviate financial toxicity among patients with cancer: A systematic review.

Asad Arastu,Andrew Hamilton,Emerson Yu-sheng Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e18841

IF: 45.3

2021-05-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e18841 Background: Financial toxicity (FT) has become a recognized side effect associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment; however, there is little data on what interventions have proven to be effective at mitigating the financial burden patients might face. Methods: A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Met-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. Broad terminology to capture FT and all possible interventions was used to identify articles published through June 25, 2020 in MEDLINE and July 31, 2020 in Embase and PsycInfo. We excluded systematic reviews, studies not conducted in the United States, with non-adult participants, or those that did not examine an intervention to directly alleviate FT. Two independent reviewers (AA and EYC) reviewed all abstracts to identify which articles met inclusion criteria. An inductive approach was used to thematically categorize unique intervention strategies. Results: A total of 1126 abstracts were identified from the initial search strategy, and 9 met final inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 12 distinct strategies were reported in 27 unique occurrences. They were mapped into four broad domains: 1) patient assistance programs (PAPs) through pharmaceutical company and/or charity sponsored programs, 2) financial navigators who provide counseling and community resources, 3) direct coverage through free medications or payments, and 4) indirect coverage for related services (e.g. transportation). Direct coverage was most commonly proposed, 15/27 (56%) of interventions, followed by PAPs 5/27 (18%), financial navigators 4/27 (15%), and indirect costs 3/27 (11%). These interventions led to outcomes including: cost savings to patients in 5/9 studies (56%), alleviated fears surrounding cost of treatment in 2/9 (22%), earlier medication fills in 1/9 (11%), and decreased anxiety on a self-reported Likert scale in 1/9 (11%). Conclusions: While potential solutions to FT from cancer care remain unclear, this systematic review demonstrates that particular implemented strategies have lessened patient expenses, improved therapy adherence, or helped patients live better. Additional resources could help equip providers and institutions on how to use existing infrastructure (PAPs) or how to deploy additional workforce to diminish FT.

oncology