How do initial signals of quality influence the diffusion of new medical products? The case of new cancer drug treatments

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Implementation and uptake of novel and cost-effective medicines can improve patient health outcomes and healthcare efficiency. However, the uptake of new medicines into practice faces a wide range of obstacles. Earlier reviews provided insights into determinants for new medicine uptake (such as medicine, prescriber, patient, organization, and external environment factors). However, the methodological approaches used had limitations (e.g., single author, narrative review, narrow search, no quality assessment of reviewed evidence). This systematic review aims to identify barriers and facilitators affecting the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice and identify areas for future research.

METHOD

A systematic search of literature was undertaken within seven databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO. Included in the review were qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies focused on adult participants (18 years and older) requiring or taking new medicine(s) for any condition, in the context of healthcare organizations and which identified factors affecting the uptake of new medicines. The methodological quality was assessed using QATSDD tool. A narrative synthesis of reported factors was conducted using framework analysis and a conceptual framework was utilised to group them.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies were included. Most studies (n = 62) were quantitative and used secondary data (n = 46) from various databases, e.g., insurance databases. The identified factors had a varied impact on the uptake of the different studied new medicines. Differently from earlier reviews, patient factors (patient education, engagement with treatment, therapy preferences), cost of new medicine, reimbursement and formulary conditions, and guidelines were suggested to influence the uptake. Also, the review highlighted that health economics, wider organizational factors, and underlying behaviours of adopters were not or under explored.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has identified a broad range of factors affecting the uptake of new medicines within healthcare organizations, which were grouped into patient, prescriber, medicine, organizational, and external environment factors. This systematic review also identifies additional factors affecting new medicine use not reported in earlier reviews, which included patient influence and education level, cost of new medicines, formulary and reimbursement restrictions, and guidelines.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (CRD42018108536).

Speed of Adoption of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors of Programmed Cell Death 1 Protein and Comparison of Patient Ages in Clinical Practice vs Pivotal Clinical Trials

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is increasing its pace of approvals for novel cancer therapeutics, including for immune checkpoint inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 protein (anti-PD-1 agents). However, little is known about how quickly anti-PD-1 agents agents reach eligible patients in practice or whether such patients differ from those studied in clinical trials that lead to FDA approval (pivotal clinical trials).

Objectives

To assess the speed with which anti-PD-1 agents agents reached eligible patients in practice and to compare the ages of patients treated in clinical practice with the ages of those treated in pivotal clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study, performed from January 1, 2011, through August 31, 2016, included patients from the Flatiron Health Network who were eligible for anti-PD-1 agents treatment of selected cancer types, which included melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cumulative proportions of eligible patients receiving anti-PD-1 agents treatment and their age distributions.

Results

The study identified 3089 patients who were eligible for anti-PD-1 agents treatment (median age, 66 [interquartile range, 56-75] years for patients with melanoma, 66 [interquartile range, 58-72] years for patients with RCC, and 67 [interquartile range, 59-74] years for patients with NSCLC; 1742 male [56.4%] and 1347 [43.6%] female; 2066 [66.9%] white). Of these patients, 2123 (68.7%) received anti-PD-1 agents treatment, including 439 eligible patients with melanoma (79.1%), 1417 eligible patients with NSCLC (65.6%), and 267 eligible patients with RCC (71.2%). Within 4 months after FDA approval, greater than 60% of eligible patients in each cohort had received anti-PD-1 agents treatment. Overall, similar proportions of older and younger patients received anti-PD-1 agents treatment during the first 9 months after FDA approval. However, there were significant differences in age between clinical trial participants and patients receiving anti-PD-1 agents treatment in clinical practice, with more patients being older than 65 years in clinical practice (range, 327 of 1365 [60.6%] to 46 of 72 [63.9%]) than in pivotal clinical trials (range, 38 of 120 [31.7%] to 223 of 544 [41.0%]; all P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Anti-PD-1 agents rapidly reached patients in clinical practice, and patients treated in clinical practice differed significantly from patients treated in pivotal clinical trials. Future actions are needed to ensure that rapid adoption occurs on the basis of representative trial evidence.

Prevalence of off-label use and spending in 2010 among patent-protected chemotherapies in a population-based cohort of medical oncologists

PURPOSE

The prevalence of off-label anticancer drug use is not well characterized. The extent of off-label use is a policy concern because the clinical benefits of such use to patients may not outweigh costs or adverse health outcomes.

METHODS

Prescribing data from IntrinsiQ Intellidose data systems, a pharmacy software provider maintaining a population-based cohort database of medical oncologists, was analyzed. Use of the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs ("chemotherapies") that were patent protected and administered intravenously to patients in 2010 was examined. Use was classified as "on-label" if the cancer site, stage, and therapy line met the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indication. All other use was "off-label." Off-label use was divided by whether it conformed to National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) Compendium recommendations, a basis of insurer coverage policies. IMS Health National Sales Perspectives was used to estimate national spending by use category.

RESULTS

Ten chemotherapies met inclusion criteria. On-label use amounted to 70%, and off-label use amounted to 30%. Fourteen percent of use conformed to an NCCN-supported off-label indication, and 10% of off-label use was associated with an FDA-approved cancer site, but an NCCN-unsupported cancer stage and/or line of therapy. Total national spending on these chemotherapies amounted to $12 billion (B; $7.3B on-label, $2B off-label and NCCN supported; $2.5B off-label and NCCN unsupported).

CONCLUSION

Commonly used, novel chemotherapies are more often used on-label than off-label in contemporary practice. Off-label use is composed of a roughly equal mix of chemotherapy applied in clinical settings supported by the NCCN and those that are not.