Personalized medicine and comparative effectiveness research in an era of fixed budgets

Outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluation of communication training in oncology - a systematic literature review, an expert workshop, and recommendations for future research

BACKGROUND

Communication between health care provider and patients in oncology presents challenges. Communication skills training have been frequently developed to address those. Given the complexity of communication training, the choice of outcomes and outcome measures to assess its effectiveness is important. The aim of this paper is to 1) perform a systematic review on outcomes and outcome measures used in evaluations of communication training, 2) discuss specific challenges and 3) provide recommendations for the selection of outcomes in future studies.

METHODS

To identify studies and reviews reporting on the evaluation of communication training for health care professionals in oncology, we searched seven databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES and Web of Science). We extracted outcomes assessed and the respective assessment methods. We held a two-day workshop with experts (n = 16) in communication theory, development and evaluation of generic or cancer-specific communication training and/or outcome measure development to identify and address challenges in the evaluation of communication training in oncology. After the workshop, participants contributed to the development of recommendations addressing those challenges.

RESULTS

Out of 2181 references, we included 96 publications (33 RCTs, 2 RCT protocols, 4 controlled trials, 36 uncontrolled studies, 21 reviews) in the review. Most frequently used outcomes were participants' training evaluation, their communication confidence, observed communication skills and patients' overall satisfaction and anxiety. Outcomes were assessed using questionnaires for participants (57.3%), patients (36.0%) and observations of real (34.7%) and simulated (30.7%) patient encounters. Outcomes and outcome measures varied widely across studies. Experts agreed that outcomes need to be precisely defined and linked with explicit learning objectives of the training. Furthermore, outcomes should be assessed as broadly as possible on different levels (health care professional, patient and interaction level).

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring the effects of training programmes aimed at improving health care professionals' communication skills presents considerable challenges. Outcomes as well as outcome measures differ widely across studies. We recommended to link outcome assessment to specific learning objectives and to assess outcomes as broadly as possible.

Physicians' Perspective on Diabetes Mellitus Management within the Context of Personalized Medicine Era in Tabuk Governorate, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND:

Minimizing the number of therapy failures and decreasing the diabetic complications can be achieved by the application of personalising diabetes therapy, based on patient`s genetics, however, currently, personalised Medicine (PM) in diabetes mellitus management is not extensively applied.

AIM:

To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and willingness of physicians in practising of PM in diabetes management.

METHODS:

A cross-sectional analytical study was implemented among 126 physicians from six different governmental hospitals and 12 primary care centres selected by the stratified random sampling technique in the Tabuk region of Saudi Arabia. A structured self-administered questionnaire was utilised for data collection. A simple scoring system (scale of 5 points) was utilised to assess knowledge and willingness. Likert scale was applied to evaluate the attitudes towards practising PM in DM management by the fixed choice response formats.

RESULTS:

The majority of the participants (97.62%) claimed not receiving any PM and/or genomic medicine training. Most of them (82.54%) expressed unsatisfactory knowledge concerning personalised DM, whereas the medium level of attitudes was reported among 57.14% of them and a good level of willingness had been observed among 76.98% of the physicians.

CONCLUSION:

Emphasizing on essential personalised DM management knowledge aspects should be given a considerable priority. Fortunately, positive attitudes and goodwill of physicians towards PM are encouraging and should be supported by policymakers.

Comparative Effectiveness Research in Pediatric Respiratory Disease: Promise and Pitfalls

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has become increasing central to clinical research in medicine. CER seeks to conduct clinical trials that compare different commonly used interventions in real-world settings (pragmatic clinical trials) and use a multitude of sources of evidence (including registries and cohort studies) to inform clinical decision making. CER also ensures that stakeholders (patients, families, care providers, insurers) have a voice in the research process by integrating formal stakeholder engagement as part of the research. This innovative approach to clinical research has distinct benefits and pitfalls. This review first defines what CER is and then describes some of its benefits and then pitfalls. The focus is on the role of CER in pediatrics.

Shifting breast cancer surveillance from current hospital setting to a community based setting: a cost-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surveillance after breast cancer treatment provided in a hospital-setting versus surveillance embedded in the community-based National Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP).

METHODS

Using a decision tree, strategies were compared on effectiveness and costs from a healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Women aged 50-75 without distant metastases that underwent breast conserving surgery in 2003-2006 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 14,093). Key input parameters were mammography sensitivity and specificity, risk of loco regional recurrence (LRR), and direct healthcare costs. Primary outcome measure was the proportion true test results (TTR), expressed as the positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is defined as incremental costs per TTR forgone.

RESULTS

For the NBCSP-strategy, 13,534 TTR (8 positive; 13,526 negative), and 12,923 TTR (387 positive; 12,536 negative) were found for low and high risks respectively. For the hospital-based strategy, 26,663 TTR (13 positive; 26,650 negative) and 24,883 TTR (440 positive; 24,443 negative) were found for low and high risks respectively. For low risks, the PPV and NPV for the NBCSP-based strategy were 3.31% and 99.88%, and 2.74% and 99.95% for the hospital strategy respectively. For high risks, the PPV and NPV for the NBCSP-based strategy were 64.10% and 98.87%, and 50.98% and 99.71% for the hospital-based strategy respectively. Total expected costs of the NBCSP-based strategy were lower than for the hospital-based strategy (low risk: €1,271,666 NBCSP vs €2,698,302 hospital; high risk: €6,939,813 NBCSP vs €7,450,150 hospital), rendering ICERs that indicate cost savings of €109 (95%CI €95-€127) (low risk) and €43 (95%CI €39-€56) (high risk) per TTR forgone.

CONCLUSION

Despite expected cost-savings of over 50% in the NBCSP-based strategy, it is nearly 50% lower accurate than the hospital-based strategy, compromising the goal of early detection of LRR to an extent that is unlikely to be acceptable.

Innovative payer engagement strategies: will the convergence lead to better value creation in personalized medicine?

Background

As reimbursement authorities are gaining greater power to influence the prescription behavior of physicians, it remains critical for life science companies focusing on personalized medicine to develop “tailor-made” payer engagement strategies to secure reimbursement and assure timely patient access to their innovative products. Depending on the types of such engagement, pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies may benefit by obtaining access to medical and pharmacy claims data, getting invaluable upfront inputs on evidence requirements and clinical trial design, and strengthening trust by payers, therefore avoiding uncertainties with regards to pricing, reimbursement, and research and development reinvestment. This article aims to study the evolving trend of partnering among two interdependent, yet confronting, stakeholder groups—payers and producers—as well as to identify the most promising payer engagement strategies based on cocreation of value introduced by life science companies in the past few years. We analyzed the recent case studies from both therapeutic and diagnostic realms considered as the “best practices” in payer engagement. The last 5 years were a breakout period for deals between life science companies and reimbursement authorities in the area of personalized medicine with a number of felicitous collaborative practices established already, and many more yet to emerge. We suggest that there are many ways for producers and payers to collaborate throughout the product life cycle—from data exchange and scientific counseling to research collaboration aimed at reducing healthcare costs, addressing adherence issues, and diminishing risks associated with future launches.

Conclusions

The presented case studies provide clear insights on how successful personalized medicine companies customize their state-of-the-art payer engagement strategies to ensure closer proximity with payers and establish longer-term trust-based relationships.

Personalized management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: reflections from a Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum

In June 2012, 13 thought leaders convened in a Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum to discuss the concept of personalized medicine in the wake of a recently published American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes position statement calling for a patient-centered approach to hyperglycemia management in type 2 diabetes. This article, an outgrowth of that forum, offers a clinical translation of the underlying issues that need to be considered for effectively personalizing diabetes care. The medical management of type 2 diabetes has become increasingly complex, and its complications remain a great burden to individual patients and the larger society. The burgeoning armamentarium of pharmacological agents for hyperglycemia management should aid clinicians in providing early treatment to delay or prevent these complications. However, trial evidence is limited for the optimal use of these agents, especially in dual or triple combinations. In the distant future, genotyping and testing for metabolomic markers may help us to better phenotype patients and predict their responses to antihyperglycemic drugs. For now, a personalized ("n of 1") approach in which drugs are tested in a trial-and-error manner in each patient may be the most practical strategy for achieving therapeutic targets. Patient-centered care and standardized algorithmic management are conflicting approaches, but they can be made more compatible by recognizing instances in which personalized A1C targets are warranted and clinical circumstances that may call for comanagement by primary care and specialty clinicians.