Uncertainties in real-world decisions on medical technologies

Defining the clinician's role in early health technology assessment during medical device innovation - a systematic review

Background

Early Health Technology Assessment (EHTA) is an evolving field in health policy which aims to provide decision support and mitigate risk during early medical device innovation. The clinician is a key stakeholder in this process and their role has traditionally been confined to assessing device efficacy and safety alone. There is however, no data exploring their role in this process and how they can contribute towards it. This motivated us to carry out a systematic review to delineate the role of the clinician in EHTA as per the PRISMA guidelines.

Methods

A systematic search of peer reviewed literature was undertaken across PUBMED, OVID Medline and Web of science up till June 2018. Studies that were suitable for inclusion focused on clinician input in health technology assessment or early medical device innovation. A qualitative approach was utilised to generate themes on how clinicians could contribute in general and specific areas of EHTA. Data was manually extracted by the authors and themes were agreed in consensus using a grounded theory framework. The specific stages included: All stages of EHTA, Basic research on mechanisms, Targeting for specific product, Proof of principle and Prototype and product development. Bias was assessed utilising the NICE Qualitative checklist.

Results

A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Areas identified in which the clinicians could contribute to EHTA included: i) needs driven problem solving, ii) conformity assessment of MDs, iii) economic evaluation of MDs and iv) addressing the conflicts in interest. For clinicians’ input across the various specific areas of EHTA, an innovation framework was generated based on the subthemes extracted.

Conclusions

The following review has identified the various segments in which clinicians can contribute to EHTA to inform stakeholders and has also proposed an innovation framework.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4305-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Projecting the Potential Effect of Using Paliperidone Palmitate Once-Monthly and Once-Every-3-Months Long-Acting Injections Among Medicaid Beneficiaries with Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Once-monthly and once-every-3-months long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of paliperidone palmitate (PP1M and PP3M, respectively) are available for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. However, information on the comparative effectiveness and costs of using these LAIs versus oral antipsychotics (OAs) is not available. The population effectiveness of using these treatments is also not known.

OBJECTIVE

To project the effect of using PP1M and PP3M LAIs on psychiatric (Psych) and all-cause (AC) hospitalization rates over 18 months in patients with schizophrenia receiving Medicaid and treated with OAs.

METHODS

A decision model, informed by data from 3 randomized controlled trials (PRIDE [NCT01157351], 3001 [NCT00111189], and 3012 [NCT01529515]), was developed to compare 3 strategies: (a) initiating OA and switching only to OA; (b) initiating with PP1M and continuing PP1M if the patient was stable at 6 months (or switching to OA if unstable; PP1M→PP1M); and (c) initiating with PP1M and switching to PP3M if the patient was stable at 6 months (or switching to OA if unstable; PP1M→PP3M). PRIDE data were used to inform the first 6-month outcomes; 3001 and 3012 data were used to inform outcomes in stable patients over the following 12 months. The primary outcome for this decision model study was Psych hospitalizations. AC hospitalizations and time to discontinuation were also assessed. Outcomes from each arm and time portions within an arm were reweighted to reflect the distribution of patient characteristics found in the real-world Medicaid sample with PRIDE trial inclusion/exclusion criteria applied. Several validation exercises were carried out to ensure that the reweighted results could reproduce observed outcomes in the Medicaid sample.

RESULTS

Our final target real-world sample size was N=4,609. We found that in the Medicaid sample, compared with initiating treatments with OA, the PP1M→PP1M strategy was projected to produce a per patient decrease of 0.27 (95% CI = -0.43-0.97) and 0.28 (95% CI = -0.28-0.84) in Psych- and AC-related hospitalizations, respectively. Similarly, the PP1M→PP3M strategy was projected to produce a per patient decrease of 0.31 (95% CI = -0.27-0.87) in both Psych- and AC-related hospitalizations over OA. Validation exercises ensured that the reweighting methodology used could replicate observed outcomes in the Medicaid sample. These incremental reductions in hospitalization rates are worth about $3.4-$3.8 billion over an 18-month period in patients with schizophrenia receiving Medicaid.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that using PP1M and PP3M treatment strategies for patients with schizophrenia receiving Medicaid could result in reduced hospitalizations. This finding, along with improvement to patients' health, should be considered when assessing the value of these LAIs.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs and by unrestricted funds from a consortium of 12 biomedical life sciences companies to the University of Washington. Janssen Scientific Affairs was responsible for the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Basu received financial support from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and his time on this project was also partly covered through unrestricted gift funds from the consortium of biomedical life sciences companies. Benson and Alphs are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs and are stockholders of Johnson & Johnson. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Washington. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 2017 Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO.

A proposed approach to accelerate evidence generation for genomic-based technologies in the context of a learning health system

Genomic technologies should demonstrate analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility prior to wider adoption in clinical practice. However, the question of clinical utility remains unanswered for many genomic technologies. In this paper, we propose three building blocks for rapid generation of evidence on clinical utility of promising genomic technologies that underpin clinical and policy decisions. We define promising genomic tests as those that have proven analytical and clinical validity. First, risk-sharing agreements could be implemented between payers and manufacturers to enable temporary coverage that would help incorporate promising technologies into routine clinical care. Second, existing data networks, such as the Sentinel Initiative and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) could be leveraged, augmented with genomic information to track the use of genomic technologies and monitor clinical outcomes in millions of people. Third, endorsement and engagement from key stakeholders will be needed to establish this collaborative model for rapid evidence generation; all stakeholders will benefit from better information regarding the clinical utility of these technologies. This collaborative model can create a multipurpose and reusable national resource that generates knowledge from data gathered as part of routine care to drive evidence-based clinical practice and health system changes.

Can genomic medicine improve financial sustainability of health systems?

Recent years have seen increased use of genomic technologies in a variety of research and clinical settings. Genomic medicine is not a cost-containment measure per se, but is viewed as having the potential to bend the healthcare cost curve. Currently, it is unknown how systematic adoption of genomic medicine in clinical practice will impact healthcare costs. This article discusses the potential economic impact of genomic medicine and the challenges that lie ahead.

Differentiating between detrimental and beneficial interruptions: a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Efforts to understand interruptions now span much of the last decade and a half. Often thought to negatively impact patient safety, some now acknowledge that interruptions may be beneficial and actually necessary for safety and high quality care. This study seeks a framework for differentiating between interruptions that are detrimental and those that are beneficial.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach at a US Level 1 trauma centre included direct observation of 13 registered nurses (RNs), survey of 47 RNs, retrospective observation of hands-free communication devices, and modelling of observed interruptions to key performance measures.

RESULTS

On average, RNs were interrupted every 11 min, with 20.3% of their workload triggered by interruptions. While 85% of RNs agreed that interruptions place their patients at risk, only 21% agreed that all should be eliminated. During one 90-min period, 18 original events spawned 68 interruptions, 50 of these repeat messages. A statistical model, with patient measures of time and comfort, revealed that alarms and call lights returning RN's attention to the patient outside the patient room are beneficial, while interruptions in the patient room are generally detrimental. Triangulating the results, we present an emerging framework for differentiating between beneficial and detrimental interruptions based on the impact of interruptions on the RN's steady treatment and attention to the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

A mixed-methods approach can help distinguish between detrimental and beneficial interruptions. While interruptions breaking the delivery of steady treatment and attention to the patient are detrimental, those returning the RN's focus to the patient, as well as those supporting patient-clinician and clinician-clinician communications are beneficial. This insight may be helpful to healthcare delivery teams tasked with improving interruption-laden processes.

Patient access schemes in Asia-pacific markets: current experience and future potential

Objectives

Patient access (or risk-sharing) schemes are alternative market access agreements between healthcare payers and medical product manufacturers for conditional coverage of promising health technologies. This study aims to identify and characterize patient access schemes to date in the Asia-Pacific region.

Methods

We reviewed the literature on patient access schemes over the last two decades using publicly available databases, Internet, and grey literature searches. We extracted key features of each scheme identified, including the drug, clinical indication, stakeholders involved, and details of the scheme. We categorized schemes according to a previously published taxonomy of scheme types and by country.

Results

We identified 3 schemes in South Korea, 5 in New Zealand, and 98 in Australia. Most (97.2%; n = 103) schemes focused on pharmaceuticals, few on medical technologies. More than half of the schemes related to treatments for cancer and inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. The majority (77.4%; n =82) involved pricing arrangements. Evidence generation schemes were rarely used. About half (41.8%; n = 41) of schemes in Australia were hybrid by nature, consisting of pricing arrangements with a conditional treatment continuation component.

Conclusions

Australia has the most experience with patient access schemes and its experience may provide useful insights for other Asia-Pacific countries. The main targets are pharmaceuticals likely to have high budget impact (due to high per-patient costs and/or large volumes of use), and pharmaceuticals that may be adopted more widely than indicated. With the proliferation of high-cost medicines, the use of schemes may increase to address rising cost pressures, consumer demands, and uncertainties, while attempting to provide patient access to innovative care within finite budgets. Future research is warranted to evaluate the performance of patient access schemes.