R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 15.

In this latest update we discuss real-world evidence (RWE) guidance from the leading oncology professional societies, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the PRINCIPLED practical guide on the design and analysis of causal RWE studies.

A framework for monitoring of new drugs in Sweden.

In order to monitor the net public health benefit of new drugs, especially in the light of recent stepwise approval approaches, there is a need to optimize real-time post-marketing evaluation of new drugs using data collected in routine care. Sweden, with its unique possibilities for observational research, can provide these data. We herein propose a framework for continuous monitoring of the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of new drugs, using prospectively determined protocols designed in collaboration between all relevant stakeholders. We believe that this framework can be a useful tool for healthcare authorities and reimbursement agencies in the introduction of new drugs.

Are Publicly Funded Health Databases Geographically Detailed and Timely Enough to Support Patient-Centered Outcomes Research?

Emerging health care research paradigms such as comparative effectiveness research (CER), patient-centered outcome research (PCOR), and precision medicine (PM) share one ultimate goal: constructing evidence to provide the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. We argue that to succeed at this goal, it is crucial to have both timely access to individual-level data and fine geographic granularity in the data. Existing data will continue to be an important resource for observational studies as new data sources are developed. We examined widely used publicly funded health databases and population-based survey systems and found four ways they could be improved to better support the new research paradigms: (1) finer and more consistent geographic granularity, (2) more complete geographic coverage of the US population, (3) shorter time from data collection to data release, and (4) improved environments for restricted data access. We believe that existing data sources, if utilized optimally, and newly developed data infrastructures will both play a key role in expanding our insight into what treatments, at what time, work for each patient.

Early cost-effectiveness modeling for better decisions in public research investment of personalized medicine technologies.

Millions of dollars are spent on the development of new personalized medicine technologies. While these research costs are often supported by public research funds, many diagnostic tests and biomarkers are not adopted by the healthcare system due to lack of evidence on their cost-effectiveness. We describe a stepwise approach to conducting cost-effectiveness analyses that are performed early in the technology's development process and can help mitigate the potential risks of investment. Decision analytic modeling can identify the key drivers of cost effectiveness and provide minimum criteria that the technology needs to meet for adoption by public and private healthcare systems. A value of information analysis can quantify the added value of conducting more research to provide further evidence for policy decisions. These steps will allow public research funders to make better decisions on their investments to maximize the health benefits and to minimize the number of suboptimal technologies.

Health technology assessment process of a cardiovascular medical device in four different settings.

AIM: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool to help the decision-making process. The aim is to describe methods and processes used in the reimbursement decision making for drug-eluting stents (DES) in four different settings. METHODS: DES as a technology under study was selected according to different criteria, all of them agreed by a working group. A survey of key informants was designed. RESULTS: DES was evaluated following well-structured HTA processes. Nonetheless, scope for improvement was observed in relation to the data considered for the final decision, the transparency and inclusiveness of the process as well as in the methods employed. CONCLUSION: An attempt to describe the HTA processes of a well-known medical device.

Patterns and Drivers of Costs for Neuroendocrine Tumor Care: A Comparative Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about resource use in the care of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). This study defined patterns of costs in NET management and compared them with those of a more common malignancy, colon cancer (CC). METHODS: Using a provincial cancer registry (2004-2012), NET patients were identified and matched at a ratio of 1-3 with CC patients. Four phases of care were examined: pre-diagnostic (PreDx: -2 years to -181 days), diagnostic (Dx: -180 days to +180 days), postdiagnostic (PostDx: +181 days to +3 years), and prolonged post-diagnostic (PPostDx: +181 days to +9 years). The mean costs per patient were compared, and cost predictors were analyzed with quintile regression. RESULTS: Of 3827 NETs, 3355 were matched with 9320 CCs. The PreDx mean NET costs were higher than the CC costs ($5877 vs $5368; p = 0.06), driven by nondrug costs. They were lower in the Dx and PostDx phases (both p < 0.01). For PPostDx, the drug costs were higher for NETs ($26,788 vs $7827; p < 0.01), representing 41% of the costs versus 16% of the costs for CC. Older age and comorbidities predicted higher NET costs in all phases. Lower socioeconomic status (SES) predicted higher costs in the initial phases and higher SES costs in the PPost-Dx phase. Gastroenteric NETs were associated with lower costs in the Dx phase [parameter estimate (PE), -$13,644] and pancreatic NETs with higher costs in PostDx phase (PE, $3348). CONCLUSION: Currently, NETs represent a potential important health care burden. The NET cost patterns differed from those for CC, with the highest costs during the PPostDx phase. The SES and primary NET site affected costs differently at different time points. These data can inform resource allocation tailored to the needs for NETs.

Is Real-World Evidence Used in P&T Monographs and Therapeutic Class Reviews?

BACKGROUND: Payers are faced with making coverage and reimbursement decisions based on the best available evidence. Often these decisions apply to patient populations, provider networks, and care settings not typically studied in clinical trials. Treatment effectiveness evidence is increasingly available from electronic health records, registries, and administrative claims. However, little is known about when and what types of real-world evidence (RWE) studies inform pharmacy and therapeutic (P&T) committee decisions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence sources cited in P&T committee monographs and therapeutic class reviews and assess the design features and quality of cited RWE studies. METHODS: A convenience sample of representatives from pharmacy benefit management, health system, and health plan organizations provided recent P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews (or references from such documents). Two investigators examined and grouped references into major categories (published studies, unpublished studies, and other/unknown) and multiple subcategories (e.g., product label, clinical trials, RWE, systematic reviews). Cited comparative RWE was reviewed to assess design features (e.g., population, data source, comparators) and quality using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist. RESULTS: Investigators evaluated 565 references cited in 27 monographs/therapeutic class reviews from 6 managed care organizations. Therapeutic class reviews mostly cited published clinical trials (35.3%, 155/439), while single-product monographs relied most on manufacturer-supplied information (42.1%, 53/126). Published RWE comprised 4.8% (21/439) of therapeutic class review references, and none (0/126) of the monograph references. Of the 21 RWE studies, 12 were comparative and assessed patient care settings and outcomes typically not included in clinical trials (community ambulatory settings [10], long-term safety [8]). RWE studies most frequently were based on registry data (6), conducted in the United States (6), and funded by the pharmaceutical industry (5). GRACE Checklist ratings suggested the data and methods of these comparative RWE studies were of high quality. CONCLUSIONS: RWE was infrequently cited in P&T materials, even among therapeutic class reviews where RWE is more readily available. Although few P&T materials cited RWE, the comparative RWE studies were generally high quality. More research is needed to understand when and what types of real-world studies can more routinely inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. DISCLOSURES: This project was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Hurwitz, Brown, Peters, and Malone have nothing to disclose. Graff is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council Part of this study was presented as a poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 2016 Annual Meeting; April 19-22, 2016; San Francisco, CA. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Malone and Graff, along with Hurwitz and Brown. All authors participated in data collection, and data interpretation was performed by Malone, Hurwitz, and Graff, with assistance from Brown and Peters. The manuscript was written primarily by Hurwitz and Malone, along with Graff, Brown, and Peters, and revised by Malone, Brown, Peters, Hurwitz, and Graff.

Policies for Use of Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): A Comparative Study of Six HTA Agencies.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials provide robust data on the efficacy of interventions rather than on effectiveness. Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies worldwide are thus exploring whether real-world data (RWD) may provide alternative sources of data on effectiveness of interventions. Presently, an overview of HTA agencies' policies for RWD use in relative effectiveness assessments (REA) is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To review policies of six European HTA agencies on RWD use in REA of drugs. A literature review and stakeholder interviews were conducted to collect information on RWD policies for six agencies: the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (Sweden), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (Germany), the High Authority for Health (France), the Italian Medicines Agency (Italy), and the National Healthcare Institute (The Netherlands). The following contexts for RWD use in REA of drugs were reviewed: initial reimbursement discussions, pharmacoeconomic analyses, and conditional reimbursement schemes. We identified 13 policy documents and 9 academic publications, and conducted 6 interviews. RESULTS: Policies for RWD use in REA of drugs notably differed across contexts. Moreover, policies differed between HTA agencies. Such variations might discourage the use of RWD for HTA. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate the use of RWD for HTA across Europe, more alignment of policies seems necessary. Recent articles and project proposals of the European network of HTA may provide a starting point to achieve this.

Comparative effectiveness research for the clinician researcher: a framework for making a methodological design choice.

Comparative effectiveness research compares two active forms of treatment or usual care in comparison with usual care with an additional intervention element. These types of study are commonly conducted following a placebo or no active treatment trial. Research designs with a placebo or non-active treatment arm can be challenging for the clinician researcher when conducted within the healthcare environment with patients attending for treatment.A framework for conducting comparative effectiveness research is needed, particularly for interventions for which there are no strong regulatory requirements that must be met prior to their introduction into usual care. We argue for a broader use of comparative effectiveness research to achieve translatable real-world clinical research. These types of research design also affect the rapid uptake of evidence-based clinical practice within the healthcare setting.This framework includes questions to guide the clinician researcher into the most appropriate trial design to measure treatment effect. These questions include consideration given to current treatment provision during usual care, known treatment effectiveness, side effects of treatments, economic impact, and the setting in which the research is being undertaken.

Comparative Assessment of Medical Resource Use and Costs Associated with Patients with Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern about appropriate disease management for peripheral artery disease (PAD) because of the rapidly expanding population at risk for PAD and the high burden of illness associated with symptomatic PAD. A better understanding of the potential economic impact of symptomatic PAD relative to a matched control population may help improve care management for these patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare the medical resource utilization, costs, and medication use for patients with symptomatic PAD relative to a matched control population. METHODS: In this retrospective longitudinal analysis, the index date was the earliest date of a symptomatic PAD record (symptomatic PAD cohort) or any medical record (control cohort), and a period of 1 year pre-index and 3 years post-index was the study time frame. Symptomatic PAD patients and control patients (aged ≥ 18 years) enrolled in the MarketScan Commercial and Encounters database from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2010, were identified. Symptomatic PAD was defined as having evidence of intermittent claudication (IC) and/or acute critical limb ischemia requiring medical intervention. Symptomatic PAD patients were selected using an algorithm comprising a combination of PAD-related ICD-9-CM diagnostic and diagnosis-related group codes, peripheral revascularization CPT-4 procedure codes, and IC medication National Drug Code numbers. Patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding complications, or contraindications to antiplatelet therapy were excluded from the symptomatic PAD group but not the control group. A final 1:1 symptomatic PAD to control population with an exact match based on age, sex, index year, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was identified. Descriptive statistics comparing patient demographics, comorbidities, medical resource utilization, cost, and medication use outcomes were generated. Generalized linear models were developed to compare the outcomes while controlling for residual difference in demographics, comorbidities, pre-index resource use, and pre-index costs. RESULTS: 3,965 symptomatic PAD and 3,965 control patients were matched. In both cohorts, 54.7% were male, with a mean age (SD) of 69.0 (12.9) years and a CCI score of 1.3 (0.9). Symptomatic PAD patients had more cardiovascular comorbidities than control patients (27.7% vs. 12.6% coronary artery disease, 27.1% vs. 15.9% hyperlipidemia, and 49.8% vs. 28.2% hypertension) in the pre-index period. Post-index rates of ischemic stroke, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and cardiovascular- or PAD-related procedures (limb amputations, endovascular procedures, open surgical procedures, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft) were higher among symptomatic PAD patients versus control patients. All-cause annualized inpatient admissions (0.46 vs. 0.22 admissions), emergency department/urgent care days (0.27 vs. 0.22 days), and office visit days (12.5 vs. 10.2 days) were higher among symptomatic PAD versus control patients post-index. Annualized all-cause inpatient costs ($8,494 vs. $3,778); outpatient costs ($8,459 vs. $5,692); and total costs ($20,880 vs. $12,501) were higher among symptomatic PAD versus control patients post-index. Only 17.8% of symptomatic PAD patients versus 6.6% of control patients were on clopidogrel pre-index. In the post-index period, clopidogrel prescriptions in the symptomatic PAD population increased to 38.0%. Results were consistent in the regression models with the symptomatic PAD population having a higher number of all-cause post-index inpatient admissions, emergency department/urgent care days, office visit days, inpatient costs, outpatient costs, and total costs versus control patients (P ≤ 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic PAD patients have significantly higher medical resource use and costs when compared with a matched control population. As the prevalence of symptomatic PAD increases, there will be a significant impact on the population and health care system. The rates of use of evidence-based secondary prevention therapies, such as antiplatelet medication, were low. Therefore, greater effort must be made to increase utilization rates of appropriate treatments to determine if the negative economic and clinical impacts of symptomatic PAD can be minimized. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Merck & Co., Kenilworth, New Jersey. Chase and Heithoff are employees of Merck & Co., Kenilworth, New Jersey, and Upper Gwynedd, Pennsylvania. Friedman and Navaratnam are paid consultants for Merck & Co. Simpson is a paid consultant for Merck, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received speaker's fees from Merck and Pfizer. Study concept and design were contributed by Chase, Navaratnam, and Heilhoff, along with Simpson and Friedman. Friedman collected the data, which was interpreted by Simpson and Navaratnam, along with Friedman. The manuscript was written by Navaratnam and Friedman, along with Chase, Heilhoff and Simpson, and revised by all of the authors.

Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in the PCORI Pilot Projects: Description and Lessons Learned.

BACKGROUND: Patients and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly becoming engaged in the planning and conduct of biomedical research. However, limited research characterizes this process or its impact. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize patient and stakeholder engagement in the 50 Pilot Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and identify early contributions and lessons learned. DESIGN: A self-report instrument was completed by researchers between 6 and 12 months following project initiation. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven principal investigators or their designees (94 % response rate) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES Self-report of types of stakeholders engaged, stages and levels of engagement, facilitators and barriers to engagement, lessons learned, and contributions from engagement were measured. KEY RESULTS: Most (83 %) reported engaging more than one stakeholder in their project. Among those, the most commonly reported groups were patients (90 %), clinicians (87 %), health system representatives (44 %), caregivers (41 %), and advocacy organizations (41 %). Stakeholders were commonly involved in topic solicitation, question development, study design, and data collection. Many projects engaged stakeholders in data analysis, results interpretation, and dissemination. Commonly reported contributions included changes to project methods, outcomes or goals; improvement of measurement tools; and interpretation of qualitative data. Investigators often identified communication and shared leadership strategies as "critically important" facilitators (53 and 44 % respectively); lack of stakeholder time was the most commonly reported challenge (46 %). Most challenges were only partially resolved. Early lessons learned included the importance of continuous and genuine partnerships, strategic selection of stakeholders, and accommodation of stakeholders' practical needs. CONCLUSIONS: PCORI Pilot Projects investigators report engaging a variety of stakeholders across many stages of research, with specific changes to their research attributed to engagement. This study identifies early lessons and barriers that should be addressed to facilitate engagement. While this research suggests potential impact of stakeholder engagement, systematic characterization and evaluation of engagement at multiple stages of research is needed to build the evidence base.

The Value of Imaging Part II: Value beyond Image Interpretation.

Although image interpretation is an essential part of radiologists' value, there are other ways in which we contribute to patient care. Part II of the value of imaging series reviews current initiatives that demonstrate value beyond the image interpretation. Standardizing processes, reducing the radiation dose of our examinations, clarifying written reports, improving communications with patients and providers, and promoting appropriate imaging through decision support are all ways we can provide safer, more consistent, and higher quality care. As payers and policy makers push to drive value, research that demonstrates the value of these endeavors, or lack thereof, will become increasingly sought after and supported.

Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based program for introduction of new health technologies and clinical practices in a local healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: This paper reports the process of establishing a transparent, accountable, evidence-based program for introduction of new technologies and clinical practices (TCPs) in a large Australian healthcare network. Many countries have robust evidence-based processes for assessment of new TCPs at national level. However many decisions are made by local health services where the resources and expertise to undertake health technology assessment (HTA) are limited and a lack of structure, process and transparency has been reported. METHODS: An evidence-based model for process change was used to establish the program. Evidence from research and local data, experience of health service staff and consumer perspectives were incorporated at each of four steps: identifying the need for change, developing a proposal, implementation and evaluation. Checklists assessing characteristics of success, factors for sustainability and barriers and enablers were applied and implementation strategies were based on these findings. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used for process and outcome evaluation. An action research approach underpinned ongoing refinement to systems, processes and resources. RESULTS: A Best Practice Guide developed from the literature and stakeholder consultation identified seven program components: Governance, Decision-Making, Application Process, Monitoring and Reporting, Resources, Administration, and Evaluation and Quality Improvement. The aims of transparency and accountability were achieved. The processes are explicit, decisions published, outcomes recorded and activities reported. The aim of ascertaining rigorous evidence-based information for decision-making was not achieved in all cases. Applicants proposing new TCPs provided the evidence from research literature and local data however the information was often incorrect or inadequate, overestimating benefits and underestimating costs. Due to these limitations the initial application process was replaced by an Expression of Interest from applicants followed by a rigorous HTA by independent in-house experts. CONCLUSION: The program is generalisable to most health care organisations. With one exception, the components would be achievable with minimal additional resources; the lack of skills and resources required for HTA will limit effective application in many settings. A toolkit containing details of the processes and sample materials is provided to facilitate replication or local adaptation by those wishing to establish a similar program.

Impact of Postapproval Evidence Generation on the Biopharmaceutical Industry.

PURPOSE: Meeting marketplace demands for proving the value of new products requires more data than the industry has routinely produced. These data include evidence from comparative effectiveness research (CER), including randomized, controlled trials; pragmatic clinical trials; observational studies; and meta-analyses. METHODS: We designed and conducted a survey to examine the industry's perceptions on new data requirements regarding CER evidence, the acceptability of postapproval study types, payer-specific issues related to CER, communication of data being generated postapproval, and methods used for facilitating postapproval evidence generation. FINDINGS: CER is being used by payers for most types of postapproval decisions. Randomized, controlled trials were indicated as the most acceptable form of evidence. At the same time, there was support for the utility of other types of studies, such as pragmatic clinical trials and observational studies. Respondents indicated the use of multiple formats for communicating postapproval data with many different stakeholders including regulators, payers, providers, and patients. Risk-sharing agreements with payers were unanimously supported by respondents with regard to certain products with unclear clinical and economic outcomes at launch. In these instances, conditional reimbursement through coverage with evidence development was considered a constructive option. The Food and Drug Administration's initiative called Regulatory Science was considered by the respondents as having the most impact on streamlining the generation of postapproval research-related evidence. IMPLICATIONS: The biopharmaceutical industry is faced with a broad and complex set of challenges related to evidence generation for postapproval decisions by a variety of health care system stakeholders. Uncertainty remains as to how the industry and payers use postapproval studies to guide decision making with regard to pricing and reimbursement status. Correspondingly, there is uncertainty regarding whether the industry's investment in CER will have a positive return on investment in terms of reimbursement and market access.

Innovative designs of point-of-care comparative effectiveness trials.

One of the provisions of the health care reform legislation in 2010 was for funding pragmatic clinical trials or large observational studies for comparing the effectiveness of different approved medical treatments, involving broadly representative patient populations. After reviewing pragmatic clinical trials and the issues and challenges that have made them just a small fraction of comparative effectiveness research (CER), we focus on a recent development that uses point-of-care (POC) clinical trials to address the issue of "knowledge-action gap" in pragmatic CER trials. We give illustrative examples of POC-CER trials and describe a trial that we are currently planning to compare the effectiveness of newly approved oral anticoagulants. We also develop novel stage-wise designs of information-rich POC-CER trials under competitive budget constraints, by using recent advances in adaptive designs and other statistical methodologies.