Overcoming provider barriers to therapeutic drug monitoring of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative analysis.

Objective: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFi), by measuring drug levels and/or anti-drug antibodies, is being considered by various international bodies to improve patient health outcomes and the value of care for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology care providers may perceive barriers to adopting TNFi TDM within their own clinical practice, limiting the potential for patients and health care systems to benefit. This study aimed to explore the barriers perceived by rheumatologists that may reduce their uptake of TNFi TDM for rheumatoid arthritis. Method: Semi-structured one-to-one telephone interviews were performed with a convenience sample of senior rheumatologists with experience of managing people with rheumatoid arthritis. The interviews explored the rheumatologists' understanding of TDM and their beliefs about how it can be integrated into their own routine practice. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymized. Transcripts were coded inductively and barriers to using TNFi TDM were identified by thematic framework analysis. Result: A sample of eleven senior rheumatologists were interviewed. The rheumatologists described five barriers to adopting TNFi TDM in routine practice: (i) observing clinical need; (ii) understanding how testing can improve practice; (iii) insufficient clinical evidence; (iv) insufficient resources to pay for testing; and (v) insufficient capability to deliver testing. Conclusion: Barriers to adopting TNFi TDM in routine care settings will restrict the ability for patients to benefit from effective monitoring strategies as they begin to emerge. Strategies to overcome these barriers are suggested which will require a coordinated response from stakeholders across health care systems.

Survival Outcomes in Older Women with Oestrogen-Receptor-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Primary Endocrine Therapy vs. Surgery by Comorbidity and Frailty Levels.

Primary endocrine therapy (PET) offers non-surgical treatment for older women with early-stage breast cancer who are unsuitable for surgery due to frailty or comorbidity. This research assessed all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality of PET vs. surgery in older women (≥70 years) with oestrogen-receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer by frailty and comorbidity levels. This study used UK secondary data to analyse older female patients from 2000 to 2016. Patients were censored until 31 May 2019 and grouped by the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and hospital frailty risk score (HFRS). Cox regression models compared all-cause and breast cancer-specific mortality between PET and surgery within each group, adjusting for patient preferences and covariates. Sensitivity analyses accounted for competing risks. There were 23,109 patients included. The hazard ratio (HR) comparing PET to surgery for overall survival decreased significantly from 2.1 (95%CI: 2.0, 2.2) to 1.2 (95%CI: 1.1, 1.5) with increasing HFRS and from 2.1 (95%CI: 2.0, 2.2) to 1.4 (95%CI 1.2, 1.7) with rising CCI. However, there was no difference in BCSM for frail older women (HR: 1.2; 0.9, 1.9). There were no differences in competing risk profiles between other causes of death and breast cancer-specific mortality with PET versus surgery, with a subdistribution hazard ratio of 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) for high-level HFRS (p = 0.261) and CCI (p = 0.093). Given limited survival gains from surgery for older patients, PET shows potential as an effective option for frail older women with early-stage breast cancer. Despite surgery outperforming PET, surgery loses its edge as frailty increases, with negligible differences in the very frail.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of online recorded recovery narratives in improving quality of life for people with non-psychotic mental health problems: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Narratives describing first-hand experiences of recovery from mental health problems are widely available. Emerging evidence suggests that engaging with mental health recovery narratives can benefit people experiencing mental health problems, but no randomized controlled trial has been conducted as yet. We developed the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention, a web application providing self-guided and recommender systems access to a collection of recorded mental health recovery narratives (n=659). We investigated whether NEON Intervention access benefited adults experiencing non-psychotic mental health problems by conducting a pragmatic parallel-group randomized trial, with usual care as control condition. The primary endpoint was quality of life at week 52 assessed by the Manchester Short Assessment (MANSA). Secondary outcomes were psychological distress, hope, self-efficacy, and meaning in life at week 52. Between March 9, 2020 and March 26, 2021, we recruited 1,023 participants from across England (the target based on power analysis was 994), of whom 827 (80.8%) identified as White British, 811 (79.3%) were female, 586 (57.3%) were employed, and 272 (26.6%) were unemployed. Their mean age was 38.4±13.6 years. Mood and/or anxiety disorders (N=626, 61.2%) and stress-related disorders (N=152, 14.9%) were the most common mental health problems. At week 52, our intention-to-treat analysis found a significant baseline-adjusted difference of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.01-0.26, p=0.041) in the MANSA score between the intervention and control groups, corresponding to a mean change of 1.56 scale points per participant, which indicates that the intervention increased quality of life. We also detected a significant baseline-adjusted difference of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.05-0.40, p=0.014) between the groups in the score on the "presence of meaning" subscale of the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, corresponding to a mean change of 1.1 scale points per participant. We found an incremental gain of 0.0142 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% credible interval: 0.0059 to 0.0226) and a £178 incremental increase in cost (95% credible interval: -£154 to £455) per participant, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,526 per QALY compared with usual care. This was lower than the £20,000 per QALY threshold used by the National Health Service in England, indicating that the intervention would be a cost-effective use of health service resources. In the subgroup analysis including participants who had used specialist mental health services at baseline, the intervention both reduced cost (-£98, 95% credible interval: -£606 to £309) and improved QALYs (0.0165, 95% credible interval: 0.0057 to 0.0273) per participant as compared to usual care. We conclude that the NEON Intervention is an effective and cost-effective new intervention for people experiencing non-psychotic mental health problems.

Differences Between Online Trial Participants Who Have Used Statutory Mental Health Services and Those Who Have Not: Analysis of Baseline Data From 2 Pragmatic Trials of a Digital Health Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are an established element of mental health service provision internationally. Regulators have positioned the best practice standard of evidence as an interventional study with a comparator reflective of standard care, often operationalized as a pragmatic trial. DHIs can extend health provision to those not currently using mental health services. Hence, for external validity, trials might openly recruit a mixture of people who have used mental health services and people who have not. Prior research has demonstrated phenomenological differences in mental health experience between these groups. Some differences between service users and nonservice users might influence the change created by DHIs; hence, research should systematically examine these differences to inform intervention development and evaluation work. This paper analyzes baseline data collected in the NEON (Narrative Experiences Online; ie, for people with experience of psychosis) and NEON-O (NEON for other [eg, nonpsychosis] mental health problems) trials. These were pragmatic trials of a DHI that openly recruited people who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. All participants were experiencing mental health distress. NEON Trial participants had experienced psychosis in the previous 5 years. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify differences in baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with specialist mental health service use for NEON Trial and NEON-O Trial participants. METHODS: For both trials, hypothesis testing was used to compare baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants in the intention-to-treat sample who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. Bonferroni correction was applied to significance thresholds to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: Significant differences in characteristics were identified in both trials. Compared with nonservice users (124/739, 16.8%), NEON Trial specialist service users (609/739, 82.4%) were more likely to be female (P<.001), older (P<.001), and White British (P<.001), with lower quality of life (P<.001) and lower health status (P=.002). There were differences in geographical distribution (P<.001), employment (P<.001; more unemployment), current mental health problems (P<.001; more psychosis and personality disorders), and recovery status (P<.001; more recovered). Current service users were more likely to be experiencing psychosis than prior service users. Compared with nonservice users (399/1023, 39%), NEON-O Trial specialist service users (614/1023, 60.02%) had differences in employment (P<.001; more unemployment) and current mental health problems (P<.001; more personality disorders), with lower quality of life (P<.001), more distress (P<.001), less hope (P<.001), less empowerment (P<.001), less meaning in life (P<.001), and lower health status (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mental health service use history was associated with numerous differences in baseline characteristics. Investigators should account for service use in work to develop and evaluate interventions for populations with mixed service use histories. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04428-6.

Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Decision-makers need to resolve constraints on delivering cell and gene therapies to patients as these treatments move into routine care. This study aimed to investigate if, and how, constraints that affect the expected cost and health consequences of cell and gene therapies have been included in published examples of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). METHOD: A systematic review identified CEAs of cell and gene therapies. Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and by searching Medline and Embase until 21 January 2022. Constraints described qualitatively were categorised by theme and summarised by a narrative synthesis. Constraints evaluated in quantitative scenario analyses were appraised by whether they changed the decision to recommend treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-two CEAs of cell (n = 20) and gene therapies (n = 12) were included. Twenty-one studies described constraints qualitatively (70% cell therapy CEAs; 58% gene therapy CEAs). Qualitative constraints were categorised by four themes: single payment models; long-term affordability; delivery by providers; manufacturing capability. Thirteen studies assessed constraints quantitatively (60% cell therapy CEAs; 8% gene therapy CEAs). Two types of constraint were assessed quantitatively across four jurisdictions (USA, Canada, Singapore, The Netherlands): alternatives to single payment models (n = 9 scenario analyses); improving manufacturing (n = 12 scenario analyses). The impact on decision-making was determined by whether the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios crossed a relevant cost-effectiveness threshold for each jurisdiction (outcome-based payment models: n = 25 threshold comparisons made, 28% decisions changed; improving manufacturing: n = 24 threshold comparisons made, 4% decisions changed). CONCLUSION: The net health impact of constraints is vital evidence to help decision-makers scale up the delivery of cell and gene therapies as patient volume increases and more advanced therapy medicinal products are launched. CEAs will be essential to quantify how constraints affect the cost-effectiveness of care, prioritise constraints to be resolved, and establish the value of strategies to implement cell and gene therapies by accounting for their health opportunity cost.

Economics and Precision Medicine.

Introducing precision medicine strategies into routine practice will require robust economic evidence. Decision-makers need to understand the value of a precision medicine strategy compared with alternative ways to treat patients. This chapter describes health economic analysis techniques that are needed to generate this evidence. The value of any precision medicine strategy can be demonstrated early to inform evidence generation and improve the likelihood of translation into routine practice. Advances in health economic analysis techniques are also explained and their relevance to precision medicine is highlighted. Ensuring that constraints on delivery are resolved to increase uptake and implementation will improve the value of a new precision medicine strategy. Empirical methods to quantify stakeholders' preferences can be effective to inform the design of a precision medicine intervention or service delivery model. A range of techniques to generate relevant economic evidence are now available to support the development and translation of precision medicine into routine practice. This economic evidence is essential to inform resource allocation decisions and will enable patients to benefit from cost-effective precision medicine strategies in the future.

Valuing Health Gain from Composite Response Endpoints for Multisystem Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to demonstrate how to estimate the value of health gain after patients with a multisystem disease achieve a condition-specific composite response endpoint. METHODS: Data from patients treated in routine practice with an exemplar multisystem disease (systemic lupus erythematosus) were extracted from a national register (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register). Two bespoke composite response endpoints (Major Clinical Response and Improvement) were developed in advance of this study. Difference-in-differences regression compared health utility values (3-level version of EQ-5D; UK tariff) over 6 months for responders and nonresponders. Bootstrapped regression estimated the incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria, and population monetary benefit of response. RESULTS: Within the sample (n = 171), 18.2% achieved Major Clinical Response and 49.1% achieved Improvement at 6 months. Incremental health utility values were 0.0923 for Major Clinical Response and 0.0454 for Improvement. Expected incremental QALY gain at 6 months was 0.020 for Major Clinical Response and 0.012 for Improvement. Probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria was 77.6% for Major Clinical Response and 72.7% for Improvement. Population monetary benefit of response was £1 106 458 for Major Clinical Response and £649 134 for Improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Bespoke composite response endpoints are becoming more common to measure treatment response for multisystem diseases in trials and observational studies. Health technology assessment agencies face a growing challenge to establish whether these endpoints correspond with improved health gain. Health utility values can generate this evidence to enhance the usefulness of composite response endpoints for health technology assessment, decision making, and economic evaluation.

Pragmatic, feasibility randomized controlled trial of a recorded mental health recovery narrative intervention: narrative experiences online intervention for informal carers (NEON-C).

Introduction: Informal carers of people with mental health problems often have unmet support needs. Mental health recovery narratives are increasingly accessible, but their relevance to and effect on informal carers have been minimally investigated. The Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention is a first-in-field intervention that provides informal carers with access to a diverse collection of recorded mental health recovery narratives. This trial aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the NEON Intervention for informal carers. Methods: This study involved a two-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial. Carers were randomly assigned to receiving versus not receiving the NEON Intervention. The feasibility aspects investigated included the acceptability of the intervention and of randomization, trial processes, engagement rates, recruitment procedures, attrition, sample size estimation, identification of candidate primary and secondary outcomes, and the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted. Findings: A total of 121 carers were eligible, of whom 54 were randomized (intervention: 27, control: 27). Twelve-month follow-up data were available for 36 carers. Carers accessed a mean of 25 narratives over a 12-month period, and the intervention group, compared with the control group, reported a small effect on hope and a moderate effect on the presence of meaning in life. Five modifications were recommended to improve the user experience, applicability, and trial processes. Discussion: The NEON Intervention is feasible and acceptable. Significant refinement of the NEON Intervention and trial processes is required to personalize and ensure applicability to carers. Further feasibility testing is recommended prior to a definitive trial.

The impact of age on health utility values for older women with early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: An increasing number of postmenopausal women are diagnosed with breast cancer at an older age (≥ 70 years). There is a lack of synthesised health utility data to support decision-making for managing breast cancer in this older population. This study aimed to identify the availability of, and the subsequent impact of age on, health state utility values (HSUVs) measured by the EQ-5D for older women with early-stage breast cancer. METHOD: This systematic review identified EQ-5D (3L or 5L version) HSUVs for postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Studies were identified from a previous systematic review (inception to 2009) and an electronic database search (Medline and Embase; 2009 to September 2021). Mean HSUVs were summarised by health state. Quality appraisal was performed on studies reporting HSUVs for older ages (≥ 70 years). Multivariable meta-regression assessed the association between HSUVs and age, health state, treatments received, and time of measuring the utility values (greater or less than one year post-treatment). RESULTS: Fifty EQ-5D HSUVs were identified from 13 studies. Mean HSUVs decreased as health state worsened: from the stable (mean=0.83) to progression (mean=0.79) and advanced (mean=0.68) states. Two studies reported six HSUVs estimated from the sample of women with a mean age ≥ 70. Meta-regression model fit improved by including age as an independent variable and attenuated the estimated utility decrements associated with worse health states. Utility decrements for the progression and advanced states were -0.052 (95%CI: -0.097, -0.007) and -0.143 (95%CI: -0.264, -0.022) respectively. The breast cancer-specific utility decrement associated with a one-year increase in age was -0.001 (95%CI: -0.004, 0.002). CONCLUSION: Relevant and accurate HSUVs are essential to help support decision-making about the most effective and cost-effective ways to manage early-stage breast cancer in older women. Age has a vital role in determining health utility values in this population. This study provides analysts and decision-makers with HSUVs and utility decrements that reflect the disease process in this older population.

Development and delivery cost of digital health technologies for mental health: Application to the Narrative Experiences Online Intervention.

Background: The increasing development and use of digital health interventions requires good quality costing information to inform development and commissioning choices about resource allocation decisions. The Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention is a web-application that delivers recorded mental health recovery narratives to its users. Two randomized controlled trials are testing the NEON Intervention in people with experience of psychosis (NEON) and people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O). Aim: This study describes and estimates the cost components and total cost of developing and delivering the NEON Intervention. Materials and methods: Total costs for the NEON Trial (739 participants) and NEON-O Trial (1,024 participants) were estimated by: identifying resource use categories involved in intervention development and delivery; accurate measurement or estimation of resource use; and a valuation of resource use to generate overall costs, using relevant unit costs. Resource use categories were identified through consultation with literature, costing reporting standards and iterative consultation with health researchers involved in NEON Intervention development and delivery. Sensitivity analysis was used to test assumptions made. Results: The total cost of developing the NEON Intervention was £182,851. The largest cost components were software development (27%); Lived Experience Advisory Panel workshops (23%); coding the narratives (9%); and researchers' time to source narratives (9%). The total cost of NEON Intervention delivery during the NEON Trial was £118,663 (£349 per NEON Intervention user). In the NEON-O Trial, the total delivery cost of the NEON Intervention was £123,444 (£241 per NEON Intervention user). The largest cost components include updating the narrative collection (50%); advertising (19%); administration (14%); and software maintenance (11%). Uncertainty in the cost of administration had the largest effect on delivery cost estimates. Conclusion: Our work shows that developing and delivering a digital health intervention requires expertise and time commitment from a range of personnel. Teams developing digital narrative interventions need to allocate substantial resources to curating narrative collections. Implications for practice: This study identifies the development and delivery resource use categories of a digital health intervention to promote the consistent reporting of costs and informs future decision-making about the costs of delivering the NEON Intervention at scale. Trial registration: NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837, registered 13 August 2018, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11152837. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153, registered 9 January 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN63197153.

Does coprescribing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral anticoagulants increase the risk of major bleeding, stroke and systemic embolism?

AIMS: To examine the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, major bleeding, stroke and systemic embolism associated with prescribing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to adults receiving oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study in adults receiving OAC therapy using linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD) and hospital (Hospital Episodes Statistics) electronic health records. We used cause-specific Cox regression models with time-dependent NSAID treatment in a propensity score matched population to estimate the increased risk of GI bleeding, stroke, major bleeding and systemic embolism associated with NSAID use. RESULTS: The matched cohort contained 3177 patients with OAC therapy alone and 3177 with at least 1 concomitant NSAID prescription. Compared with OAC therapy alone, concomitant prescription of NSAIDs with OACs was associated with increased risk of GI bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.63 to 5.55), stroke (HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.96) and major bleeding (HR 2.77, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.19). The association with systemic embolism did not reach statistical significance (HR 3.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 11.07). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in exclusion criteria and the choice of potential confounding variables. CONCLUSION: When OACs are coprescribed with NSAIDs, the risk of adverse bleeding events increases and, simultaneously, the protective effect of OACs to prevent strokes reduces. There is a need for interventions that reduce hazardous prescribing of NSAIDs in people receiving OAC therapy.

Systematic review of the evidence sources applied to cost-effectiveness analyses for older women with primary breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To appraise the sources of evidence and methods to estimate input parameter values in decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for primary breast cancer (PBC) in older patients (≥ 70 years old). METHODS: Two electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE) were searched (inception until 5 September-2021) to identify model-based full economic evaluations of treatments for older women with PBC as part of their base-case target population or age-subgroup analysis. Data sources and methods to estimate four types of input parameters including health-related quality of life (HRQoL); natural history; treatment effect; resource use were extracted and appraised. Quality assessment was completed by reference to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. RESULTS: Seven model-based economic evaluations were included (older patients as part of their base-case (n = 3) or subgroup (n = 4) analysis). Data from younger patients (< 70 years) were used frequently to estimate input parameters. Different methods were adopted to adjust these estimates for an older population (HRQoL: disutility multipliers, additive utility decrements; Natural history: calibration of absolute values, one-way sensitivity analyses; Treatment effect: observational data analysis, age-specific behavioural parameters, plausible scenario analyses; Resource use: matched control observational data analysis, age-dependent follow-up costs). CONCLUSION: Improving estimated input parameters for older PBC patients will improve estimates of cost-effectiveness, decision uncertainty, and the value of further research. The methods reported in this review can inform future cost-effectiveness analyses to overcome data challenges for this population. A better understanding of the value of treatments for these patients will improve population health outcomes, clinical decision-making, and resource allocation decisions.

The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Technological progress has led to changes in the antenatal screening programmes, most significantly the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). The availability of a new type of testing changes the type of information that the parent(s) require before, during and after screening to mitigate anxiety about the testing process and results. OBJECTIVES: To identify the extent to which economic evaluations of NIPT have accounted for the need to provide information alongside testing and the associated costs and health outcomes of information provision. METHODS: A systematic review of economic evaluations of NIPTs (up to February 2018) was conducted. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO were searched using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter (from NHS economic evaluations database) with terms related to NIPT and screening-related technologies. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards framework and the results were summarised as part of a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 12 economic evaluations were identified. The majority of evaluations (n = 10; 83.3%) involved cost effectiveness analysis. Only four studies (33.3%) included the cost of providing information about NIPT in their economic evaluation. Two studies considered the impact of test results on parents' quality of life by allowing utility decrements for different outcomes. Some studies suggested that the challenges of valuing information prohibited their inclusion in an economic evaluation. CONCLUSION: Economic evaluations of NIPTs need to account for the costs and outcomes associated with information provision, otherwise estimates of cost effectiveness may prove inaccurate.

Assessing the Joint Value of Genomic-Based Diagnostic Tests and Gene Therapies.

Gene therapy is an emerging type of treatment that may aim to provide a cure to individuals with a genetic mutation known to be causative of a specific disease. A diagnosis of the causative mutation must precede treatment with a in vivo gene therapy. Both achieving a genomic-based diagnosis and treatment with a gene therapy may result in substantial expenditures for health care systems. Uncertainties around the health care costs, risks, and benefits derived from diagnosis and treatment with a subsequent gene therapy suggests a need for developing an evidence base, underpinned by opportunity cost, to inform if, and how, these health technologies should be introduced into health care systems funded by finite budgets. This article discusses why current methods to evaluate health technologies (decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a health care system over a lifetime time horizon) are appropriate to quantify the costs and consequences of using genomic-based diagnostic tests and gene therapies in combination, rather than as separate interventions, within clinical practice. Evaluating the economic impact of test-and-treatment strategies will ensure that the opportunity cost of these health technologies is quantified fully for decision-makers who are responsible for allocating limited resources in health care systems.

Factors that influence rheumatologists' anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha prescribing decisions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for any disease are usually informed by reference to published clinical guidelines or recommendations. These recommendations can be developed to improve the relative cost-effectiveness of health care and to reduce regional variation in clinical practice. Anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) treatments are prescribed for people with rheumatoid arthritis according to specific recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Evidence of regional variation in clinical practice for rheumatoid arthritis may indicate that different factors have an influence on routine prescribing decisions. The aim of this study was to understand the factors that influence rheumatologists' decisions when prescribing anti-TNF treatments for people with rheumatoid arthritis in England. METHODS: Semi-structured one-to-one telephone interviews were performed with senior rheumatologists in different regions across England. The interview schedule addressed recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, prescribing behavior, and perceptions of anti-TNF treatments. Interviews were recorded digitally, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized. Data were analyzed by thematic framework analysis that comprised six stages (familiarization; coding; developing the framework; applying the framework; generating the matrix; interpretation). RESULTS: Eleven rheumatologists (regional distribution - north 36%; midlands: 36%; south: 27%) participated (response rate: 24% of the sampling frame). The mean duration of the interviews was thirty minutes (range: 16 to 56 min). Thirteen factors that influenced anti-TNF prescribing decisions were categorized by three nested primary themes; specific influences were defined as subthemes: (i) External Environment Influences (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Recommendations; Clinical Commissioning Groups; Cost Pressures; Published Clinical Evidence; Colleagues in Different Hospitals; Pharmaceutical Industry); (ii) Internal Hospital Influences (Systems to Promote Compliance with Clinical Recommendations; Internal Treatment Pathways; Hospital Culture); (iii) Individual-level Influences (Patient Influence; Clinical Autonomy; Consultant Experience; Perception of Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) Outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Factors that influenced anti-TNF prescribing decisions were multifaceted, seemed to vary by region, and may facilitate divergence from published clinical recommendations. Strategic behavior appeared to illustrate a conflict between uniform treatment recommendations and clinical autonomy. These influences may contribute to understanding sources of regional variation in clinical practice for rheumatoid arthritis.

The economic case for precision medicine.

Introduction: The advancement of precision medicine into routine clinical practice has been highlighted as an agenda for national and international health care policy. A principle barrier to this advancement is in meeting requirements of the payer or reimbursement agency for health care. This special report aims to explain the economic case for precision medicine, by accounting for the explicit objectives defined by decision-makers responsible for the allocation of limited health care resources. Areas covered: The framework of cost-effectiveness analysis, a method of economic evaluation, is used to describe how precision medicine can, in theory, exploit identifiable patient-level heterogeneity to improve population health outcomes and the relative cost-effectiveness of health care. Four case studies are used to illustrate potential challenges when demonstrating the economic case for a precision medicine in practice. Expert commentary: The economic case for a precision medicine should be considered at an early stage during its research and development phase. Clinical and economic evidence can be generated iteratively and should be in alignment with the objectives and requirements of decision-makers. Programmes of further research, to demonstrate the economic case of a precision medicine, can be prioritized by the extent that they reduce the uncertainty expressed by decision-makers.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of genetic and genomic diagnostic tests.

Developments in next-generation sequencing technologies have driven the clinical application of diagnostic tests that interrogate the whole genome, which offer the chance to diagnose rare inherited diseases or inform the targeting of therapies. New genomic diagnostic tests compete with traditional approaches to diagnosis, including the genetic testing of single genes and other clinical strategies, for finite health-care budgets. In this context, decision analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful method to help evaluate the costs versus consequences of introducing new health-care interventions. This Perspective presents key methodological, technical, practical and organizational challenges that must be considered by decision-makers responsible for the allocation of health-care resources to obtain robust and timely information about the relative cost-effectiveness of the increasing numbers of emerging genomic tests.