Can requests for real-world evidence by the French HTA body be planned? An exhaustive retrospective case-control study of medicinal products appraisals from 2016 to 2021.

OBJECTIVES: In France, decisions for pricing and reimbursement for medicinal products are based on appraisals performed by the National authority for health (Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)). During the appraisal process, additional real-world evidence can be requested as "Post-Registration Studies" (PRS) when there are uncertainties in evidence that could be resolved by additional data collection. To facilitate PRS planning, a retrospective exploratory analysis was conducted to identify the characteristics of medicinal products associated with a PRS request. METHODS: This analysis encompassed all appraisals finalized between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021 and compared products for which the appraisal led to a PRS request with those that did not. RESULTS: Six hundred positive opinions for reimbursement were identified, with a PRS request present in 17 percent (n = 103) of cases. The independent characteristics associated with a PRS request were a mild or moderate clinical benefit score, a major to moderate or minor clinical added value score, previous availability under an early access program, and certain therapeutic areas (neurology, pulmonology, and endocrinology). These findings suggest two different profiles of PRS requests: (i) products for which there is uncertainty in the size of the clinical benefit and (ii) innovative products for which a substantial benefit is expected but uncertainties persist. CONCLUSIONS: These results will assist health technology developers to better anticipate data generation to promptly address uncertainties identified by HAS. It may also help HAS and other assessment agencies to work together to improve postlaunch evidence generation according to the characteristics of the medicinal products.

Medicine misuse: A systematic review and proposed hierarchical terminology.

AIMS: Although medicine misuse is a public health issue, it has multiple meanings in the medical literature. This study aimed to characterize, classify and identify the most appropriate definitions of medicine misuse. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in Medline, ISI Web of Science, SocINDEX, PsycInfo, PsycArticles and Psychological and Behavioral Sciences Collection, using keywords related to "misuse", "appropriateness" and "medicine" between 1 November 2008 and 25 August 2020. Additional searches were conducted in websites of regulatory agencies and public health institutions. Two authors independently selected studies providing both definitions and examples of misuse, while a third resolved disagreements. Definitions were used to propose a hierarchical classification based on initiator, intent, purpose and context of medicine misuse. The study is registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018115789. RESULTS: Of 3404 identified records, 51 were included. A total of 71 definitions and 74 examples of misuse were retrieved. When the prescriber is initiator and according to intent, potential medicine misuse referred to "intentional or unintentional prescribing not in line with clinical evidence". Based on context, they could prescribe medicines not clinically justified, i.e. overprescribing, or prescribe indicated medicines incorrectly, i.e. misprescribing. Among other groups of definitions, those overlapping with drug abuse or medication use errors were considered out-of-scope. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the terms and definitions used to characterize medicine misuse and could serve as a basis for a terminology that makes clear distinctions between misuse, abuse and errors.

Added Therapeutic Value of Medicinal Products for French and German Health Technology Assessment Organizations: A Systematic Comparison.

OBJECTIVES: Determining the price and reimbursement of a new medicine is a national competence within the Member States of the European Union that is carried out by health technology authorities and is based mainly on the added therapeutic value (ATV). The primary objective of this study was to compare the ATVs granted by the French (Haute Autorité de Santé, HAS) and the German (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWIG) authorities. The secondary objective was to analyze the reasons for the discrepancies observed. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of all ATVs assigned by HAS and IQWIG for the period 2011 to 2017. ATV assessments were classified as major, considerable, minor, no benefit, or not quantifiable. The concordance between the authorities was evaluated, and a qualitative analysis of highly discordant assessments was performed. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-one drugs were evaluated by both agencies. The overall percentage of agreement was 50.3%. It was 73.1% for no benefit of ATVs, 37.5% for minor ATVs, 31.2% for considerable ATVs, and 5% for major ATVs. Highly conflicting assessments (n = 35) mainly concerned antineoplastic drugs (n = 14) and anti-infectives (n = 14). The main reasons for inconsistency concerned the following: a different appreciation of the subgroup analysis of efficacy data (n = 15), the appropriateness of comparators (n = 15), the surrogate endpoints (n = 10), methodological differences (n = 8), and the benefit/risk criteria that were used (n = 6). CONCLUSION: In the context of the common assessment of ATVs promoted by the European Commission, the harmonization between member states regarding the way evaluation criteria are assessed deserves to be addressed.

Misuse of benzodiazepines: Prevalence and impact in an inpatient population with psychiatric disorders.

AIMS: Use and misuse of benzodiazepine might be very prevalent in patients with acute psychiatric symptoms, whereas they might be associated with specific adverse events in this population. The study investigated their prevalence in these patients. Secondary objectives were to identify risk factors for misuse of benzodiazepines, and its impact. METHODS: A cohort study was based on the hospital's electronic patient records and conducted in patients aged 18 years and over and admitted to a psychiatric hospital. They were followed up for 84 days or until the end of hospitalisation. Four variables of misuse were built: excessive duration of treatment, type of product, excessive dosage and concomitant benzodiazepines. Backward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess risk factors for each misuse criterion, on the 1 hand, and impact of benzodiazepine misuse, on the other. RESULTS: In total, 511 psychiatric inpatients were included with 89.0% of them exposed to benzodiazepine. Discharge prescription included no benzodiazepine or a dosage lower than the maximum dosage prescribed during hospitalisation for 78.2% of patients exposed to benzodiazepine during their stay. Of benzodiazepine treatments, 31.4% were associated with at least 1 misuse criterion. Excessive dosage was associated with age ≥65 years (OR 11.57; 95% confidence interval 4.92-27.17), substance/alcohol use disorders (3.35; 95% confidence interval 1.70-6.62) and parenthood (0.49; 0.25-0.97). Some criteria of benzodiazepine misuse were associated with a higher frequency of adverse events occurring after treatment initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Misuse of benzodiazepines is very common in inpatients with psychiatric disorders. These findings should alert clinicians to comply with clinical recommendations.

Appropriateness of psychotropic drug prescriptions in the elderly: structuring tools based on data extracted from the hospital information system to understand physician practices.

BACKGROUND: The appropriateness of psychotropic prescriptions in the elderly is a major quality-of-care challenge at hospital. Quality indicators have been developed to prevent inappropriate psychotropic prescriptions. We aimed to select and automatically calculate such indicators, from the Bordeaux University Hospital information system, and to analyze the appropriateness of psychotropic prescription practices, in an observational study. METHODS: Experts selected indicators of the appropriateness of psychotropic prescriptions in hospitalized elderly patients, according to guidelines from the French High Authority for Health. The indicators were reformulated to focus on psychotropic administrations. The automated calculation of indicators was analyzed by comparing their measure to data collected from a clinical audit. In elderly patients hospitalized between 2014 and 2015, we then analyzed the evolution of the appropriateness of psychotropic prescription practices during hospital stay, using methods of visualization, and described practices by considering patients' characteristics. RESULTS: Two indicators were automated to detect overuse and misuse of psychotropic drugs. Indicators identified frequent inappropriate drug administrations, but practices tended to become more appropriate after quality-of-care improvement actions. In the majority of patients (85%), there was no inappropriate administration of psychotropic drugs during hospital stay; for the remaining 15% with at least one inappropriate administration, physicians tended to limit overuse or misuse during hospital stay. Inappropriate administrations were more frequent in patients suffering from psychiatric disorders, dependence and associated complications or morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The automated indicators are structuring tools for the development of a drug prescription monitoring system. Inappropriate psychotropic administrations were limited by physicians during hospital stay; some inappropriate prescriptions might be explained by clinical characteristics of patients.

Requests for post-registration studies (PRS), patients follow-up in actual practice: Changes in the role of databases.

Early market access of health products is associated with a larger number of requests for information by the health authorities. Compared with these expectations, the growing expansion of health databases represents an opportunity for responding to questions raised by the authorities. The computerised nature of the health system provides numerous sources of data, and first and foremost medical/administrative databases such as the French National Inter-Scheme Health Insurance Information System (SNIIRAM) database. These databases, although developed for other purposes, have already been used for many years with regard to post-registration studies (PRS). The use thereof will continue to increase with the recent creation of the French National Health Data System (SNDS [2016 health system reform law]). At the same time, other databases are available in France, offering an illustration of "product use under actual practice conditions" by patients and health professionals (cohorts, specific registries, data warehouses, etc.). Based on a preliminary analysis of requests for PRS, approximately two-thirds appeared to have found at least a partial response in existing databases. Using these databases has a number of disadvantages, but also numerous advantages, which are listed. In order to facilitate access and optimise their use, it seemed important to draw up recommendations aiming to facilitate these developments and guarantee the conditions for their technical validity. The recommendations drawn up notably include the need for measures aiming to promote the visibility of research conducted on databases in the field of PRS. Moreover, it seemed worthwhile to promote the interoperability of health data warehouses, to make it possible to match information originating from field studies with information originating from databases, and to develop and share algorithms aiming to identify criteria of interest (proxies). Methodological documents, such as the French National Authority for Health (HAS) recommendations on "Les études post-inscription sur les technologies de santé (médicaments, dispositifs médicaux et actes). Principes et méthodes" [Post-registration studies on health technologies (medicinal products, medical devices and procedures). Principles and methods] should be updated to incorporate these developments.

Off-label prescriptions: how to identify them, frame them, announce them and monitor them in practice?

Following the Mediator crisis and the passage of the Health and Safety Law of December 2011, off-label prescriptions are a real concern shared by all those involved in healthcare system. Off-label, in the strictest sense of the term, is defined as all prescriptions that do not correspond to the summary of product characteristics (SPC), particularly those that fail to comply with the indications and dosage regimens defined by the marketing authorization (MA) for clear safety reasons. There are various rasons for off-label prescriptions, both conscious and unconscious. They are intended to respond to unmet medical needs, the needs of poorly studied populations or not studied at all in trials, but in relation to whom it is reasonable to extrapolate that MA would be given (common-sense prescriptions) and, additionally, to urgent public health needs (such as baclofen, pregnant women, and HIV drugs). All these prescriptions would deserve to be studied for a potential MA. However, there are off-label prescriptions that need to be restricted or even penalized in the case of compassionate prescriptions or unjustified prescriptions or prescriptions not based on any scientific grounds. Off-label prescriptions are not easy to track down because if the prescriber has to write "off-label" on his prescription, then clearly, in practice, he will only do so in exceptional cases. Neither the pharmacists who dispense the drug nor the Social Security that reimburses it, have access to the diagnosis (or targeted indication). Thus, in order to identify the off-label prescription, we must be able to cross reference the available databases (such as pharmacovigilance database, medicalized information system program [programme de médicalisation des systèmes d'information, PMSI], hospital drug formularies, general sample of beneficiaries [échantillon généraliste de bénéficiaires, EGB] or national inter-regional Health Insurance Information System [système national d'informations inter-régions d'Assurance maladie, SNIIRAM], sales data, and data from market surveys). The shared computerized patient file may resolve this problem. The temporary use recommendation (TUR) proposed by the Drug Safety Law will only partially deal with this problem for recently marketed molecules. This temporary and exceptional mechanism will authorize a recognized off-label prescription, which may be reimbursed and monitored for 3 years. These TURs will only concern a small portion of "off-label" drugs having yet a positive risk/benefit ratio (conditional MA) but this is far from matching with majority of off-label prescriptions. As such, and in order to improve the use of drugs, it is important to propose a control system for all "off-label" prescriptions with a dedicated committee: the "off-label" committee which would determine the frame of the "off-label" prescriptions.