A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of results from REDUCE and RESPECT-two randomized trials on patent foramen ovale closure devices to prevent recurrent cryptogenic stroke.

AIMS: Two randomized clinical trials, REDUCE and RESPECT, demonstrated that patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in combination with antithrombotic therapy was more effective for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke compared with antithrombotic therapy alone. The aim of this study was to determine the relative efficacy and safety of the PFO closure devices used in REDUCE (HELEX and CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders) compared with the device used in RESPECT (Amplatzer PFO Occluder). METHODS: An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the PFO closure arms of the REDUCE and RESPECT trials was performed using patient-level data from REDUCE weighted to match baseline characteristics from RESPECT. Comparisons of the following outcomes were made between the devices assessed in the trials: risk of recurrent ischemic stroke; recurrent ischemic stroke one year after randomization; any serious adverse event (SAE) related to the procedure or device; and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as an SAE related to the procedure or device. RESULTS: After conducting the MAIC, baseline characteristics were well-matched between the two trials. Compared to RESPECT, PFO closure using the devices from REDUCE resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-1.43; p = 0.17) for the risk of recurrent stroke. For the recurrence of stroke after one year, SAE related to the procedure or device, and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as SAE related to the procedure or device, the MAIC resulted in a rate difference of -0.68 (95%CI -2.06 to 0.70; p = .34), -1.29 (95%CI -3.82 to 1.25; p = .32), and -0.19 (95%CI -1.16 to 0.78; p = .71), respectively. These findings were consistent across scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This MAIC analysis found no statistically significant differences in efficacy and safety outcomes between PFO closure with the HELEX and CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders versus the Amplatzer PFO Occluder, as used in the REDUCE and RESPECT trials.

The individual efficacy and safety of medical devices used for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in patients with stroke of unknown origin has been demonstrated in two independent trials: REDUCE (using the HELEX Septal Occluder and the CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder) and RESPECT (using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder). In the absence of a direct head-to-head trial for these devices, indirect treatment comparisons offer an alternative to assess their relative efficacy and safety. This study used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison to demonstrate that there were no significant differences between the devices used for PFO closure in the REDUCE and RESPECT trials in terms of safety outcomes.

Application of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to Evaluate New Laboratory Tests in a Health System: A Case Study of Bladder Cancer Testing.

We describe the methods and decision from a health technology assessment of a new molecular test for bladder cancer (Cxbladder), which was proposed for adoption to our send-out test menu by urology providers. The Cxbladder health technology assessment report contained mixed evidence; predominant concerns were related to the test's low specificity and high cost. The low specificity indicated a high false-positive rate, which our laboratory formulary committee concluded would result in unnecessary confirmatory testing and follow-up. Our committee voted unanimously to not adopt the test system-wide for use for the initial diagnosis of bladder cancer but supported a pilot study for bladder cancer recurrence surveillance. The pilot study used real-world data from patient management in the scenario in which a patient is evaluated for possible recurrent bladder cancer after a finding of atypical cytopathology in the urine. We evaluated the type and number of follow-up tests conducted including urine cytopathology, imaging studies, repeat cystoscopy evaluation, biopsy, and repeat Cxbladder and their test results. The pilot identified ordering challenges and suggested potential use cases in which the results of Cxbladder affected a change in management. Our health technology assessment provided an objective process to efficiently review test performance and guide new test adoption. Based on our pilot, there were real-world data indicating improved clinician decision-making among select patients who underwent Cxbladder testing.

Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM version 1.4): Ceiling and Floor Effects, Reliability, and Known-Group Validity in Brazilian Outpatients With Hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the acceptability, ceiling and floor effects, reliability, and known-group validity of the Brazilian version of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 in patients with hypertension. METHODS: The sample consisted of 300 hypertensive patients undergoing treatment in an outpatient department. The acceptability was evaluated from the items not answered in the TSQM. The reliability of the TSQM was estimated through Cronbach's alpha. Known-group validity tested whether the TSQM discriminates satisfaction between different stages of hypertension, diagnoses of left ventricular hypertrophy, medication adherence, and occurrence of side effects. RESULTS: The TSQM had high acceptability (99% of participants answered all items). A substantial ceiling effect was found in the side effect (89%) and global satisfaction (29%) subscales. Reliability evaluated with Cronbach's alpha showed values >0.76 in all subscales. Known-group validity was supported with a statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction effectiveness between the hypertension groups and those without left ventricular hypertrophy. Regarding medication adherence, the TSQM was able to discriminate satisfaction in the side effect and global satisfaction subscales. A significantly higher satisfaction was found in all subscales of the TSQM in those patients without side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The TSQM is a reliable and valid questionnaire to be used in Brazilians with hypertension.

Integrating Formal Technology Assessment into an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System: Smart Innovation.

OBJECTIVES: We designed, developed, and implemented a new hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) program called Smart Innovation. Smart Innovation is a decision framework that reviews and makes technology adoption decisions. Smart Innovation was meant to replace the fragmented and complex process of procurement and adoption decisions at our institution. Because use of new medical technologies accounts for approximately 50 percent of the growth in healthcare spending, hospitals and integrated delivery systems are working to develop better processes and methods to sharpen their approach to adoption and management of high cost medical innovations. METHODS: The program has streamlined the decision-making process and added a robust evidence review for new medical technologies, aiming to balance efficiency with rigorous evidence standards. To promote system-wide adoption, the program engaged a broad representation of leaders, physicians, and administrators to gain support. RESULTS: To date, Smart Innovation has conducted eleven HB-HTAs and made clinician-led adoption decisions that have resulted in over $5 million dollars in cost avoidance. These are comprised of five laboratory tests, three software-assisted systems, two surgical devices, and one capital purchase. CONCLUSIONS: Smart Innovation has achieved cost savings, avoided uncertain or low-value technologies, and assisted in the implementation of new technologies that have strong evidence. The keys to its success have been the program's collaborative and efficient decision-making systems, partnerships with clinicians, executive support, and proactive role with vendors.

EXPANDING EVIDENCE-BASED TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR COVERAGE IN WASHINGTON STATE.

OBJECTIVES: We describe a new evidence-based method for screening and evaluating emerging medical technologies. Washington State agencies, under legislative direction, have granted authority to its agency Medical Directors and policy leaders to make coverage decisions on medical technologies using a "dossier" process. The dossier process is employed when technology advocates or manufacturers request Washington State healthcare purchasers to pay for new and emerging technologies. This offers the advocate an opportunity to submit scientific evidence and information classically associated with a more formal health technology assessment. METHODS: The submitted information is independently reviewed and summarized for Washington State's public healthcare purchasers allowing a more standardized coverage decision for all public purchasers in Washington State. RESULTS: This process has allowed Washington State to make twelve evidence-based coverage decisions at a fraction of the cost of classic technology assessment. To date, of twelve reviews over 6 years, one health technology was approved for coverage, ten were not covered and one did not require a coverage decision. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence-based dossier process has yielded high-value coverage decisions of new and emerging medical technologies for public healthcare purchasers in Washington State.