Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial to assess safety of teleconsultation compared with face-to-face consultation: the ECASeT study.

BACKGROUND: The use of remote consultation modalities has exponentially grown in the past few years, particularly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although a huge body of the literature has described the use of phone (tele) and video consultations, very few of the studies correspond to randomized controlled trials, and none of them has assessed the safety of these consultation modalities as the primary objective. The primary objective of this trial was to assess the safety of remote consultations (both video and teleconsultation) in the follow-up of patients in the hospital setting. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial being conducted in four centers of an administrative healthcare area in Catalonia (North-East Spain). Participants will be screened from all individuals, irrespective of age and sex, who require follow-up in outpatient consultations of any of the departments involved in the study. Eligibility criteria have been established based on the local guidelines for screening patients for remote consultation. Participants will be randomly allocated into one of the two study arms: conventional face-to-face consultation (control) and remote consultation, either teleconsultation or video consultation (intervention). Routine follow-up visits will be scheduled at a frequency determined by the physician based on the diagnostic and therapy of the baseline disease (the one triggering enrollment). The primary outcome will be the number of adverse reactions and complications related to the baseline disease. Secondary outcomes will include non-scheduled visits and hospitalizations, as well as usability features of remote consultations. All data will either be recorded in an electronic clinical report form or retrieved from local electronic health records. Based on the complications and adverse reaction rates reported in the literature, we established a target sample size of 1068 participants per arm. Recruitment started in May 2022 and is expected to end in May 2024. DISCUSSION: The scarcity of precedents on the assessment of remote consultation modalities using randomized controlled designs challenges making design decisions, including recruitment, selection criteria, and outcome definition, which are discussed in the manuscript. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05094180. The items of the WHO checklist for trial registration are available in Additional file 1. Registered on 24 November 2021.

Implementing Risk-Sharing Arrangements for Innovative Medicines: The Experience in Catalonia (Spain).

OBJECTIVES: Publications assessing health and economic outcomes of risk-sharing arrangements (RSAs) are limited. Better knowledge of these outcomes would shed light on the pertinence of such arrangements, informing design improvements for the future. The aim of the study is to describe the different types of RSAs implemented in Catalonia and their health and economic outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive analysis of RSAs implemented from January 2016 to December 2019 in the Catalan Health Service, CatSalut. Individual RSAs were reviewed and categorized according to standard RSA guidelines. Relevant health and economic outcomes pertaining to the RSAs were analyzed using aggregate data recorded in Catalan central registries. RESULTS: A total of 15 RSAs were implemented over the study period (10 of which are still ongoing). A total of 8 consisted of performance-linked reimbursements (PLRs) and 7 of cost-sharing arrangements (CSAs). The arrangements were implemented in the oncohematology (n = 11), rare disease (n = 3), and neurology (n = 1) areas. A total of 951 patients were included in PLR and 73% achieved the target health outcomes. Total medication costs were €9 295 755 of which 11% were refunded to CatSalut. CSAs involved 2066 patients and resulted in overall refunds of €1 349 564 (2.61%) for CatSalut. CONCLUSIONS: Both PLRs and CSAs were used to manage the different uncertainties related to accessing innovative medicines in Catalonia. The data generated provide relevant information to inform decision-making, allowing an adaptation of the initial recommendation for use and access. Additional efforts are required to increase the RSA assessments and their publication.

Early Access to Medicines: Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a Decision Tool in Catalonia (Spain).

Early access to medicines allows the prescription of a medicine before it is available in the public formulary to patients with severe or rare diseases with high unmet needs who have no authorised therapeutic alternatives available. In this context, consistent decision making is difficult, and a systematic assessment procedure could be useful to tackle complex situations and guarantee the equity of medicines' access. A multidisciplinary panel (MP) conducted four workshops to develop an early access framework based on a reflective multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). A set of 12 criteria was agreed: eight quantitative (severity of disease, urgency, efficacy, safety, internal and external validity, therapeutic benefit and plausibility) and four qualitative (therapeutic alternative, existence of precedents, management impact and costs). Quantitative criteria were weighted using a five-point scale. The relative importance of quantitative criteria had mean weights from 4.7 to 3.6, showing its relevance in the decisions. The framework was tested using two case studies, and reliability was assessed by re-test. The re-test revealed no statistical differences, indicating the consistency and replicability of the framework developed. MCDA may help to structure discussions for heterogeneous treatment requests, providing predictability and robustness in decision making involving sensitive and complex situations.

Financial consequences of a payment-by-results scheme in Catalonia: gefitinib in advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2011 the first payment-by-results (PbR) scheme in Catalonia was signed between the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), the Catalan Health Service, and AstraZeneca (AZ) for the introduction of gefitinib in the treatment of advanced EGFR-mutation positive non-small-cell lung cancer. The PbR scheme includes two evaluation points: at week 8, responses, stabilization and progression were evaluated, and at week 16 stabilization was confirmed. AZ was to reimburse the total treatment cost of patients that failed treatment, defined as progression at weeks 8 or 16. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the financial consequences of this PbR reimbursement model and determine the perception of the stakeholders involved in the agreement. METHODS: Differential drug costs between two scenarios, with and without the PbR, were calculated. A qualitative investigation of the organizational elements was performed by interviewing the parties involved in the agreement. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included from June 2011 to October 2013 and assessed at two evaluation points. Clinical results were comparable to those observed in the pivotal studies of gefitinib. The difference in the cost of gefitinib using the PbR compared to the traditional purchasing scenario was 6.17% less at 8 weeks, 11.18% at 16 weeks and 4.15% less for the overall treatment. The PbR resulted in total savings of around €36,000 (€880 per patient). From an operational and organizational perspective, the availability of adequate data systems to measure outcomes and monitor accountability and the involvement of healthcare professionals were acknowledged as crucial. CONCLUSIONS: Tangible and intangible benefits were identified with respect to the interests of the parties involved. This has led to the incorporation of innovation for patients under acceptable conditions.