The evolution of adaptiveness: balancing speed and evidence

The German Fast Track Toward Reimbursement of Digital Health Applications: Opportunities and Challenges for Manufacturers, Healthcare Providers, and People With Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Digital health applications (DiGA) supporting the management of diabetes are among the most commonly available digital health technologies. However, transparent quality assurance of DiGA and clinical proof of a positive healthcare effect is often missing, which creates skepticism of some stakeholders regarding the usage and reimbursement of these applications.

METHODS

This article reviews the recently established fast-track integration of DiGA in the German reimbursement market, with emphasis on the current impact for manufacturers, healthcare providers, and people with diabetes. The German DiGA fast track is contextualised with corresponding initiatives in Europe.

RESULTS

The option of a provisional prescription and reimbursement of DiGA while proving a positive healthcare effect in parallel may expedite the adoption of DiGA in Germany and beyond. However, hurdles for a permanent prescription and reimbursement of DiGA are high and only one of 12 that have achieved this status specifically addresses people with diabetes.

CONCLUSION

The DiGA fast track needs to be further enhanced to cope with remaining skepticism and contribute even more to a value-based diabetes care.

Sustainable adoption of noninvasive telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: A qualitative study in the Netherlands

Objective

Noninvasive telemonitoring aims to improve healthcare for patients with chronic heart failure (HF) by reducing hospitalizations and improving patient experiences. Yet, sustainable adoption seems to be limited. Therefore, the goal of our study is to gain insight in the processes that support sustainable adoption of telemonitoring for patients with HF.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 stakeholders that were involved with the adoption of telemonitoring, such as healthcare professionals, policymakers and healthcare insurers. We analyzed the interviews by using a combination of open-coding and the themes of the Non-adoption or Abandonment of technology by individuals and difficulties achieving Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability framework.

Results

We found that telemonitoring projects have moved beyond initial pilot phases despite a high level of complexity on multiple topics. The patient selection, the business case, the evidence, the aims of telemonitoring, integration of telemonitoring in the care pathway, reimbursement, and future centralization were items that yielded different and sometimes contradictory opinions.

Conclusions

This study showed that the sustainable adoption of telemonitoring for HF is a complex endeavor. Different aims and perspectives play an important role in the patient selection, design, evaluations and envisioned futures of telemonitoring. High conviction among participants of the added value that telemonitoring may support further adoption of telemonitoring. Structural evaluations will be needed to guide cyclical improvement and adapt programs to employ telemonitoring in such a manner that it contributes to collectively supported aims.

Getting the Right Evidence After Drug Approval

To generate comparative evidence in a timely fashion for drugs without restricting or delaying access, value-based pricing and reimbursement could be conditioned on a prospective, post-approval evidence generation plan.

The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies

PURPOSE

The ENCePP Code of Conduct provides a framework for scientifically independent and transparent pharmacoepidemiological research. Despite becoming a landmark reference, practical implementation of key provisions was still limited. The fourth revision defines scientific independence and clarifies uncertainties on the applicability to postauthorisation safety studies requested by regulators. To separate the influence of the funder from the investigator's scientific responsibility, the Code now requires that the lead investigator is not employed by the funding institution.

METHOD

To assess how the revised Code fits the ecosystem of noninterventional pharmacoepidemiology research in Europe, we first mapped key recommendations of the revised Code against ISPE Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices and the ADVANCE Code of Conduct. We surveyed stakeholders to understand perceptions on its value and practical applicability. Representatives from the different stakeholders' groups described their experience and expectations.

RESULTS

Unmet needs in pharmacoepidemiological research are fulfilled by providing unique guidance on roles and responsibilities to support scientific independence. The principles of scientific independence and transparency are well understood and reinforce trust in study results; however, around 70% of survey respondents still found some provisions difficult to apply. Representatives from stakeholders' groups found the new version promising, although limitations still exist.

CONCLUSION

By clarifying definitions and roles, the latest revision of the Code sets a new standard in the relationship between investigators and funders to support scientific independence of pharmacoepidemiological research. Disseminating and training on the provisions of the Code would help stakeholders to better understand its advantages and promote its adoption in noninterventional research.

The Confluence of Accelerated Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Access Pathways

There is a growing interest in aligning accelerated regulatory pathways with flexible access and reimbursement pathways to expedite the equitable availability of high-quality, safe, and effective medicines that provide a value-based approach to meeting society's most important healthcare needs. The Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) identified key issues regarding the confluence of regulatory and health technology assessment processes from discussions and presentations given by international regulators, health technology assessment bodies, payers, patient representatives, and multinational pharmaceutical company representatives on this topic at CIRS workshops held in 2014 and 2017 that focused on the commonalties and differences across these pathways. Recent publications have also been highlighted. The barriers to and opportunities for aligning stakeholder expectations and needs were investigated and recommendations provided. Early dialogue among the stakeholders is the process that will likely provide the greatest return on investment of time and effort to identify, develop, review, and recommend important new medicines, especially those that address an unmet medical need.