Using Expert Elicitation to Adjust Published Intervention Effects to Reflect the Local Context.

Background. Local health services make limited use of economic evaluation to inform decisions to fund new health service interventions. One barrier is the relevance of published intervention effects to the local setting, given these effects can strongly reflect the original evaluation context. Expert elicitation methods provide a structured approach to explicitly and transparently adjust published effect estimates, which can then be used in local-level economic evaluations to increase their local relevance. Expert elicitation was used to adjust published effect estimates for 2 interventions targeting the prevention of inpatient hypoglycemia. Methods. Elicitation was undertaken with 6 clinical experts. They were systematically presented with information regarding potential differences in patient characteristics and quality of care between the published study and local contexts, and regarding the design and application of the published study. The experts then assessed the intervention effects and provided estimates of the most realistic, most pessimistic, and most optimistic intervention effect sizes in the local context. Results. The experts estimated both interventions would be less effective in the local setting compared with the published effect estimates. For one intervention, the experts expected the lower complexity of admitted patients in the local setting would reduce the intervention's effectiveness. For the other intervention, the reduced effect was largely driven by differences in the scope of implementation (hospital-wide in the local setting compared with targeted implementation in the evaluation). Conclusions. The pragmatic elicitation methods reported in this article provide a feasible and acceptable approach to assess and adjust published intervention effects to better reflect expected effects in the local context. Further development and application of these methods is proposed to facilitate the use of local-level economic evaluation. Highlights: Local health services make limited use of economic evaluation to inform their decisions on the funding of new health service interventions. One barrier to use is the relevance of published intervention evaluations to the local setting.Expert elicitation methods provide a structured way to consider differences between the evaluation and local settings and to explicitly and transparently adjust published effect estimates for use in local economic evaluations.The pragmatic elicitation methods reported in this article offer a feasible and acceptable approach to adjusting published intervention effects to better reflect the effects expected in the local context. This increases the relevance of economic evaluations for local decision makers.

Prescribing of antivirals for COVID-19 in a South Australian local health network according to statewide guidelines.

Antiviral drugs were rapidly implemented into clinical practice for the treatment of high-risk patients with COVID-19, prompting the development of statewide guidelines. This South-Australian study reviewed guideline adherence, assessed prescribing patterns and highlighted the inappropriate management of relative drug-drug interactions and dosing for renal function. Additionally, it evaluated the impact of inappropriate antiviral drug use and suggested methods to improve quality use of medicines.

A framework for local-level economic evaluation to inform implementation decisions: health service interventions to prevent hospital-acquired hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVES: Published evidence on health service interventions should inform decision-making in local health services, but primary effectiveness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses are unlikely to reflect contexts other than those in which the evaluations were undertaken. A ten-step framework was developed and applied to use published evidence as the basis for local-level economic evaluations that estimate the expected costs and effects of new service intervention options in specific local contexts. METHODS: Working with a multidisciplinary group of local clinicians, the framework was applied to evaluate intervention options for preventing hospital-acquired hypoglycemia. The framework included: clinical audit and analyses of local health systems data to understand the local context and estimate baseline event rates; pragmatic literature review to identify evidence on relevant intervention options; expert elicitation to adjust published intervention effect estimates to reflect the local context; and modeling to synthesize and calibrate data derived from the disparate data sources. RESULTS: From forty-seven studies identified in the literature review, the working group selected three interventions for evaluation. The local-level economic evaluation generated estimates of intervention costs and a range of cost, capacity and patient outcome-related consequences, which informed working group recommendations to implement two of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The applied framework for modeled local-level economic evaluation was valued by local stakeholders, in particular the structured, formal approach to identifying and interpreting published evidence alongside local data. Key methodological issues included the handling of alternative reported outcomes and the elicitation of the expected intervention effects in the local context.

Is there a multinational consensus of tobramycin prescribing and monitoring for cystic fibrosis? Survey of current therapeutic drug monitoring practices in USA/Canada, UK/Ireland, and Australia/New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: Sophisticated scientific methods have facilitated dose individualisation with substantial advancements in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) practice. It is unclear whether these methods have translated to the clinical setting. This study aimed to determine current TDM practice for tobramycin monitoring in cystic fibrosis (CF) centres in the USA and Canada, UK and Ireland, and Australia and New Zealand due to a high prevalence of CF. METHODS: A web-based survey was developed and circulated via CF specialist groups within the targeted geographical regions. Themes included centre demographics, tobramycin usage, dosing and infusion practices, TDM practices, and blood sampling methods. RESULTS: In total 77 responses were received from 75 different CF centres over the 3-month evaluation period (October 2019-January 2020). Respondents were from the USA and Canada (60%), Australia and New Zealand (25%), and the UK and Ireland (15%). Tobramycin was used in 97% of sites, with an international variation in practice across all survey aspects including dosing and infusion practice. TDM-based dose adjustment in the UK and Ireland was most commonly based only on trough sample collection for avoidance of toxicity, where use of computer programs for targeting both efficacy and toxicity endpoints were most common in Australia and New Zealand. The underlying pharmacokinetic basis of that program was not known by 33% of sites who utilised a computer program for tobramycin dose individualisation. CONCLUSION: There remains substantial heterogeneity in tobramycin management worldwide. Despite two decades of research into TDM of tobramycin, there has been a slow uptake of new technologies and evolution of practice. An improved understanding of TDM processes is required for translation of evidence-based research into clinical practice. International guidelines require updating due to the advances in research to support confidence in the changes in clinical practice.