Comparative Effectiveness Research and Policy: Experiences Conducting a Coverage With Evidence Development Study of a Therapeutic Device

A review of spinal cord stimulation systems for chronic pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) applications and technologies are fast advancing. New SCS technologies are being used increasingly in the clinical environment, but often there is a lag period between the clinical application and the publishing of high-quality evidence on safety and efficacy. Recent developments will undoubtedly expand the applicability of SCS, allowing more effective and individualized treatment for patients, and may have the potential to salvage patients who have previously failed neuromodulation. Already, high-level evidence exists for the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness (Level I–II) of traditional SCS therapies in the treatment of chronic refractory low back with predominant limb pain (regardless of surgical history). More than half of all patients with chronic painful conditions experience sustained and significant levels of pain reduction following SCS treatment. Although only limited evidence exists for burst stimulation, there is now Level I evidence for both dorsal root ganglion SCS and high-frequency SCS that demonstrates compelling results compared with traditional therapies. The body of evidence built on traditional SCS research may be redundant, with newer iterations of SCS therapies such as dorsal root ganglion SCS, high-frequency SCS, and burst SCS. A number of variables have been identified that can affect SCS efficacy: implanter experience, appropriate patient selection, etiologies of patient pain, existence of comorbidities, including psychiatric illness, smoking status, and delay to SCS implant following pain onset. Overall, scientific literature demonstrates SCS to be a safe, effective, and drug-free treatment option for many chronic pain etiologies.

Neuropathic pain: a pathway for care developed by the British Pain Society

Neuropathic pain is a common chronic pain condition that can be challenging to treat, particularly for non-specialists. The development of the Map of Medicine care pathway for the management of neuropathic pain was led by the British Pain Society. Focusing on treatment by non-specialists, this pathway is based on new evidence, consensus, and the interests of service users. This paper presents the care pathway and accompanying evidence base, highlighting its salient features, and discussing important treatment points. After initial assessment, the pathway progresses through first-, second-, and third-line drug treatment, includes advice on topical treatment and opioids (in specific circumstances), and describes non-pharmacological approaches. Importantly, timely review of patients and referral to specialist secondary or tertiary care must be considered as vital components of the pathway. Although the emphasis was not on specialist treatment, advice is given on existing interventions, including neural stimulation and multi-disciplinary care. These, and other steps on the pathway, will be subject to further review as more evidence becomes available. In the meantime, the pathway represents a straightforward, valuable and accessible approach for healthcare professionals managing the distress and impact of neuropathic pain.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force

There is a significant and growing interest among both payers and producers of medical products for agreements that involve a "pay-for-performance" or "risk-sharing" element. These payment schemes-called "performance-based risk-sharing arrangements" (PBRSAs)-involve a plan by which the performance of the product is tracked in a defined patient population over a specified period of time and the amount or level of reimbursement is based on the health and cost outcomes achieved. There has always been considerable uncertainty at product launch about the ultimate real-world clinical and economic performance of new products, but this appears to have increased in recent years. PBRSAs represent one mechanism for reducing this uncertainty through greater investment in evidence collection while a technology is used within a health care system. The objective of this Task Force report was to set out the standards that should be applied to "good practices"-both research and operational-in the use of a PBRSA, encompassing questions around the desirability, design, implementation, and evaluation of such an arrangement. This report provides practical recommendations for the development and application of state-of-the-art methods to be used when considering, using, or reviewing PBRSAs. Key findings and recommendations include the following. Additional evidence collection is costly, and there are numerous barriers to establishing viable and cost-effective PBRSAs: negotiation, monitoring, and evaluation costs can be substantial. For good research practice in PBRSAs, it is critical to match the appropriate study and research design to the uncertainties being addressed. Good governance processes are also essential. The information generated as part of PBRSAs has public good aspects, bringing ethical and professional obligations, which need to be considered from a policy perspective. The societal desirability of a particular PBRSA is fundamentally an issue as to whether the cost of additional data collection is justified by the benefits of improved resource allocation decisions afforded by the additional evidence generated and the accompanying reduction in uncertainty. The ex post evaluation of a PBRSA should, however, be a multidimensional exercise that assesses many aspects, including not only the impact on long-term cost-effectiveness and whether appropriate evidence was generated but also process indicators, such as whether and how the evidence was used in coverage or reimbursement decisions, whether budget and time were appropriate, and whether the governance arrangements worked well. There is an important gap in the literature of structured ex post evaluation of PBRSAs. As an innovation in and of themselves, PBRSAs should also be evaluated from a long-run societal perspective in terms of their impact on dynamic efficiency (eliciting the optimal amount of innovation).

POST-INTRODUCTION OBSERVATION OF HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES AFTER COVERAGE: THE SPANISH PROPOSAL

Objectives: When a new health technology has been approved by a health system, it is difficult to guarantee that it is going to be efficiently adopted, adequately used, and that effectiveness, safety, and consumption of resources and costs are in line with what was expected in preliminary investigations. Many governmental institutions promote the idea that efficient mechanisms should be established aimed at developing and incorporating continuous evidence into health technologies management. The purpose of this article is to stimulate the discussion on systematic post-introduction observation of health technologies.

Methods: Literature review and input of HTA experts.

Results: The study addresses the key issues related to post-introduction observation and presents a summary of the guide commissioned by the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Policy and Equality to the Galician HTA agency for the prioritization and implementation of systematic post-introduction observation in Spain. The manuscript describes the prioritization tool developed as part of this project and discusses the main aspects of protocol development, observation implementation, and assessment of results.

Conclusions: The observation of prioritized health technologies after they are introduced in standard clinical practice can provide useful information for health organizations. However, implementing the observation of health technologies can require specific policy frameworks, commitment from different stakeholders, and dedicated funding.