Access to Thalidomide for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma in Canada: Physician Behaviours and Ethical Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is an incurable malignancy. Since the late 1990s, its management has changed with the introduction of novel agents. Thalidomide, which is often called a "novel" therapy, has significantly prolonged survival in multiple myeloma and is considered worldwide to be part of standard of care in this disease. However, thalidomide is not approved in Canada, leading to problems with drug access for patients. METHODS: Our study surveyed Canadian hematologists on their thalidomide prescribing practices and difficulties with drug access. We address some of the ethical issues facing patients and their doctors who are unable to obtain or afford the drug, and who therefore resort to alternative means such as illegal importation. RESULTS: Of the 411 Canadian hematologists contacted, 122 completed the survey, 97 reported that they did not treat myeloma, and 192 did not respond. Assuming that all non-responders treat myeloma, our estimated overall response rate from physicians who treat this disease was 39%. Survey participants indicated that, in Canada, access to thalidomide is a major issue for physicians and myeloma patients alike, and that 81% of respondents are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the drug access process. Many physicians felt that the special access process for thalidomide is unduly onerous, influences treatment decisions, and invades patient privacy. We found that 20% of physicians were unaware of the legal implications of obtaining thalidomide from other countries and that at least 23% overtly or covertly support patients in obtaining the drug from a non-Health-Canada-approved source. CONCLUSIONS: The current lack of access to thalidomide in Canada is a concerning problem for patients and health care providers dealing with myeloma. Regulatory changes at the federal level (Health Canada) need to be re-examined to promptly resolve this issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".