The Ambulatory Medical Assistance (AMA) programme during active-phase treatment in patients with haematological malignancies: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

CONTEXT: The need for patient navigator is growing, and there is a lack of cost evaluation, especially during survivorship. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an Ambulatory Medical Assistance (AMA) programme in patients with haematological malignancies (HM). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis of the AMA programme was performed compared to a simulated control arm. SETTING: An interventional, single-arm and prospective study was conducted in a French reference haematology-oncology centre between 2016 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients were enrolled with histologically documented malignant haematology, during their active therapy phase, and treated either by intravenous chemotherapy or oral therapy. METHODS: An extrapolation of the effectiveness was derived from a similar nurse monitoring programme (CAPRI study). Cost effectiveness of the programme was evaluated through adverse events of Grade 3 or 4 avoided in different populations. RESULTS: Included patient (n = 797) from the AMA programme were followed during 125 days (IQR: 0-181), and adverse events (Grade 3/4) were observed in 10.1% of patients versus 13.4% in the simulated control arm. The overall cost of AE avoided was estimated to €81,113, leading to an ICER of €864. CONCLUSION: The AMA programme was shown to be cost-effective compared to a simulated control arm with no intervention.

Evaluation of the effects of the French pay-for-performance program-IFAQ pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies showed no or little effect of pay-for-performance (P4P) programs on different outcomes. In France, the P4P program IFAQ was generalized to all acute care hospitals in 2016. A pilot study was launched in 2012 to design, implement and assess this program. This article aims to assess the immediate impact of the 2012-14 pilot study. DESIGN AND SETTING: From nine process quality indicators (QIs), an aggregated score was constructed as the weighted average, taking into account both achievement and improvement. Among 426 eligible volunteer hospitals, 222 were selected to participate. Eligibility depended on documentation of QIs and results of hospital accreditation. Hospitals with scores above the median received a financial reward based on their ranking and budget. Several characteristics known to have an influence on P4P results (patient age, socioeconomic status, hospital activity, casemix and location) were used to adjust the models. INTERVENTION: To assess the effect of the program, comparison between the 185 eligible selected hospitals and the 192 eligible not selected volunteers were done using the difference-in-differences method. RESULTS: Whereas all hospitals improved from 2012 to 2014, the difference-in-differences effect was positive but not significant both in the crude (2.89, P = 0.29) and adjusted models (4.07, P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: These results could be explained by several reasons: low level of financial incentives, unattainable goals, too short study period. However, the lack of impact for the first year should not undermine the implementation of other P4P programs. Indeed, the pilot study helped to improve the final model used for generalization.

Impacts of a navigation program based on health information technology for patients receiving oral anticancer therapy: the CAPRI randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of oral delivery in cancer therapeutics is expected to result in an increased need for better coordination between all treatment stakeholders, mainly to ensure adequate treatment delivery to the patient. There is significant interest in the nurse navigation program's potential to improve transitions of care by improving communication between treatment stakeholders and by providing personalized organizational assistance to patients. The use of health information technology is another strategy aimed at improving cancer care coordination that can be combined with the NN program to improve remote patient follow-up. However, the potential of these two strategies combined to improve oral treatment delivery is limited by a lack of rigorous evidence of actual impact. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a large scale randomized controlled trial designed to assess the impact of a navigation program denoted CAPRI that is based on two Nurse Navigators and a web portal ensuring coordination between community and hospital as well as between patients and navigators, versus routine delivery of oral anticancer therapy. The primary research aim is to assess the impact of the program on treatment delivery for patients with metastatic cancer, as measured by Relative Dose Intensity. The trial involves a number of other outcomes, including tumor response, survival, toxic side effects, patient quality of life and patient experience An economic evaluation adopting a societal perspective will be conducted, in order to estimate those health. care resources' used. A parallel process evaluation will be conducted to describe implementation of the intervention. DISCUSSION: If the CAPRI program does improve treatment delivery, the evidence on its economic impact will offer important knowledge for health decision-makers, helping develop new follow-up services for patients receiving oral chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy. The process evaluation will determine the best conditions in which such a program might be implemented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT 02828462 . Registered 29 June 2016.

Evaluating iatrogenic prescribing: development of an oncology-focused trigger tool.

BACKGROUND: Drug-related iatrogenic effects are common in oncology because chemotherapy is toxic. The evaluation of the application of the guidelines may be a way to understand the occurrence of adverse drug-related event (ADE). There is no specific method for identifying ADEs and measuring harm to patients in oncology. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop and test an Oncology Trigger Tool (OTT) for ADEs and to describe ADE characteristics and incidence. METHODS: A clinical advisory panel identified situations at high risk of ADE occurrence and built 22 triggers with, in each case, an analysis flowchart to confirm or refute occurrence. The OTT was used to review 288 random admissions (Oct. 2010-Sept. 2011) and measure ADE incidence and severity (CTCAE 4.03 - Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). Tool feasibility (time required), inter-rater (IR) reproducibility and positive predictive value (PPV) were measured. RESULTS: Overall, 884 triggers were detected and 122 ADEs, with 42.4 ADEs/100 admissions or 46.0 ADEs/1000 patient-days, and a 31.1% rate of severe ADEs. The most common ADEs were hyperglycaemia (14.5%), unplanned drug-related admission within 30 days (13.7%) and opiate-induced constipation (12.1%). Unplanned drug-related admission was the most serious (82.4% incidence of severe harm). Mean time for OTT implementation was 21.8 min; IR reproducibility was high (κ=0.965 (trigger); κ=0.935 (ADE); κ=0.853 (harm)); PPV 22-trigger version was 20.7%. CONCLUSIONS: ADE analysis flowcharts coupled with standardised grading of harm considerably reduced IR variability, thus providing a robust oncology-focused trigger tool for use in ADE audits and hospital comparisons. The involvement of a clinical advisory panel in tool development should help drive changes for improving practice. Further research on the OTT is warranted.