Incentivizing appropriate prescribing in primary care: Development and first results of an electronic health record-based pay-for-performance scheme.

OBJECTIVE: Part of the funding of Dutch General Practitioners (GPs) care is based on pay-for-performance, including an incentive for appropriate prescribing according to guidelines in national formularies. Aim of this paper is to describe the development of an indicator and an infrastructure based on prescription data from GP Electronic Health Records (EHR), to assess the level of adherence to formularies and the effects of the pay-for-performance scheme, thereby assessing the usefulness of the infrastructure and the indicator. METHODS: Adherence to formularies was calculated as the percentage of first prescriptions by the GP for medications that were included in one of the national formularies used by the GP, based on prescription data from EHRs. Adherence scores were collected quarterly for 2018 and 2019 and subsequently sent to health insurance companies for the pay-for-performance scheme. Adherence scores were used to monitor the effect of the pay-for-performance scheme. RESULTS: 75% (2018) and 83% (2019) of all GP practicesparticipated. Adherence to formularies was around 85% or 95%, depending on the formulary used. Adherence improved significantly, especially for practices that scored lowest in 2018. DISCUSSION: We found high levels of adherence to national formularies, with small improvements after one year. The infrastructure will be used to further stimulate formulary-based prescribing by implementing more actionable and relevant indicators on adherence scores for GPs.

Development and Evaluation of a Real-World Outcomes-Based Tool to Support Informed Clinical Decision Making in the Palliative Treatment of Patients With Metastatic NSCLC.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a tool for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and their thoracic oncologists (TOs) that provides insight into real-world effectiveness of systemic treatments to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative setting. METHODS: A participatory design approach was used to acquire insights from patients and TOs into preferences regarding the content and design of the web-based tool. Implementation was investigated by means of an adoption and usage rate. The appreciation of the tool was evaluated through a telephone survey with patients and a questionnaire for TOs. RESULTS: From clinical data of 2,989 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed in one of the Santeon hospitals, an interface was developed to show treatments plus both real-world outcomes and clinical trial results after selecting patient characteristics (patients like me). This prototype of the tool was finalized after discussion in a focus group with four TOs and semi-structured interviews with six patients. The tool was implemented and used by TOs in three of six Santeon hospitals (50% adoption rate). The tool was used in 48 patients (29% usage rate), of which 17 participated in the telephone survey. Ten TOs responded to the questionnaire. The responses varied from positive reactions on the clear overview of treatment outcomes to statements that the tool rarely changed treatment decisions. Overall, the majority of patients and TOs scored the tool as of added value (71% and 83%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our real-world data tool in metastatic lung cancer was appreciated in clinical practice by both patients and TOs. However, the efficacy of the implementation can be improved.

Real-world outcomes versus clinical trial results of immunotherapy in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Netherlands.

This study aims to assess how clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in real-world (effectiveness) correspond to outcomes in clinical trials (efficacy) and to look into factors that might explain an efficacy-effectiveness (EE) gap. All patients diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2015-2018 in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were identified and followed-up from date of diagnosis until death or end of data collection. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from first-line (1L) pembrolizumab and second-line (2L) nivolumab were compared with clinical trial data by calculating hazard ratios (HRs). From 1950 diagnosed patients, 1005 (52%) started with any 1L treatment, of which 83 received pembrolizumab. Nivolumab was started as 2L treatment in 141 patients. For both settings, PFS times were comparable between real-world and trials (HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.75-1.55), and HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.74-1.14), respectively). OS was significantly shorter in real-world for 1L pembrolizumab (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.07-2.25). Receiving subsequent lines of treatment was less frequent in real-world compared to trials. There is no EE gap for PFS from immunotherapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC. However, there is a gap in OS for 1L pembrolizumab. Fewer patients proceeding to a subsequent line of treatment in real-world could partly explain this.

'Care for Outcomes': systematic development of a set of outcome indicators to improve patient-relevant outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Measuring quality of care is important, however many of the quality indicators used do not focus on outcome of treatment and aspects which are valuable for patients and physicians. The project 'Care for Outcomes' aims to establish a relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer. SETTING: Network of seven large, non-university teaching hospitals in the Netherlands (Santeon). METHODS: By reviewing the literature, a list of potential outcome indicators for patients with lung cancer was composed and subsequently prioritised by expert's opinion. Three external parties, with expertise on lung cancer, clinical management and public health, evaluated and reduced the list of indicators to a working set. Finally, the resulting selection of outcome indicators was tested for feasibility and discrimination in patient data, by collecting retrospective data and performing regression and survival analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Development of the indicator set in six Santeon hospitals. Retrospective cohort study in 5922 patients diagnosed with lung cancer (all types and stages). RESULTS: Selected outcome indicators were divided into three levels of outcome (tiers). The first tier about survival and the process of recovery include mortality, survival, positive resection margins, rethoracotomy after resection and quality of life at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. Tier 2 concerning the sustainability of the recovery include complications after resection and toxicity after chemotherapy and/or radiation. Tier 3 about sustainability of health revealed no measurable outcomes. The retrospective data collection showed differences between hospitals and variation in case mix. CONCLUSION: A relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer was systematically developed. This set has the potential to compare quality of care between hospitals and inform patients with lung cancer about outcomes. The project is ongoing in the current Santeon Value-Based Health Care programme through quality and improvement cycles.

Trends in Drug Costs and Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in The Netherlands Diagnosed from 2008 Through 2014.

BACKGROUND: The Value-Based Health Care concept defines patient value as patient-relevant outcomes divided by costs. The aim of the present study was to assess the development of systemic treatment costs over the years compared with changes in overall survival (OS) at the level of a diagnosis of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: All patients diagnosed (in 2008-2014) with stage IV NSCLC and treated with systemic treatment in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were included. We collected data on OS and amounts of drug units (milligrams) for every drug in the applied systemic cancer treatments, until death. These amounts were multiplied by Dutch unit costs (Euros/mg) expressed in 2018 Euros to construct total drug costs per line of treatment per patient. Costs for day care visits were added for drugs requiring parenteral administration. RESULTS: Data were collected from 1214 patients. Median OS and mean total drug costs showed no significant variation over the years (p = 0.437 and p = 0.693, respectively). Mean total drug costs per 1 year of survival ranged from €20,665 to €26,438 during the period under study. Costs for first-line systemic treatment were significantly higher in 2011-2014 compared with 2008-2010. CONCLUSION: This study shows that overall drug costs were stable over the years, despite a relative increase in first-line treatment costs. Median OS remained at around 8 months from year to year. These trend data are very relevant as background for the assessment of costs and achieved outcomes in the more recent years.

Systematic evaluation of the efficacy-effectiveness gap of systemic treatments in extensive disease small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess how clinical outcomes in real-world (effectiveness) correspond to the outcomes in clinical trials (efficacy) of systemic treatments for extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC). METHODS: All patients diagnosed with ED SCLC between 2008 and 2014 in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were identified and followed-up from date of diagnosis until death or end of data collection. For every patient, an efficacy-effectiveness factor (EE factor) was calculated by dividing individual patients' overall survival (OS) by the pooled median OS assessed from clinical trials with the respective treatment. RESULTS: From 792 diagnosed patients, 568 (72%) started with first-line treatment. Overall, the median EE factor was 0.79 (P < .001 from 1.00). Poor performance status (ECOG≥2) and a higher age at diagnosis (age ≥ 65 years) were independent predictors for a lower EE factor. The EE gap was 43% in patients with both age ≥ 65 years and ECOG ≥2 (EE factor 0.57). The mean age and the proportion of patients with ECOG≥2 in real-world were different from those in clinical trials (mean age of 66 versus 62 years, and ECOG≥2 25% versus 17%; both P < .001). CONCLUSION: OS of patients with ED SCLC treated with systemic therapy in real-world practice is 21% shorter than for patients included in trials. Age at diagnosis and performance status partly explain this gap.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical outcome data on patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC) treated in routine practice is limited. The aim of this retrospective study is to present data on treatment patterns and survival in an unselected patient population with ED SCLC. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with ED SCLC between 2008 and 2014 in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were included. We collected data on patient characteristics, systemic treatments, overall survival (OS), dose reductions (<80% of initial dose) and early discontinuation (<4 cycles). RESULTS: From 792 diagnosed patients, 568 (72%) started with first-line treatment. Of these patients, 41% received second-line treatment. Only 68 patients received third-line treatment. For all treated patients, the mean age was 66 years. The majority (72%) had a performance status (ECOG) of 0 or 1 at diagnosis. Median OS of treated patients was 7.4 months. Of all patients with first-line treatment, 26% received <4 cycles and dose reductions were observed in 29%. CONCLUSION: After first-line systemic treatment in ED SCLC the fraction of patients receiving subsequent lines of treatment is rapidly decreasing. This information is necessary as background for evaluation of the added value of future drugs under study for ED SCLC.

Communication about Drug-Related Problems (DRPs) during Patients' Visits to Dutch Physicians and Pharmacies.

The objective of this study is to assess the frequency and type of drug-related problems (DRPs) (1) raised and discussed (2) raised but not discussed or (3) not raised during patients' visits to healthcare practitioners (HCPs). In this cross-sectional study in Dutch outpatient clinics, GP practices and pharmacies, verbal cues from patients and HCPs indicating DRPs were inventoried by an observer during visits. It was also observed whether raised DRPs were discussed between patient and HCP. Post-encounter interviews (HCPs) were conducted and post-encounter questionnaires (patient) were distributed to identify DRPs not raised. In total, 431 patients were observed during a single visit. In 42.2% of these visits, 311 DRPs were raised (weighted mean (SD) 0.7 (±1.1) DRP/patient). Of these 311 DRPs, 82.0% were discussed between HCP and patient. HCPs did not raise existing DRPs in 3.9% of the 431 visits; in 6.3% of the 176 questionnaires the patient reported an existing DRP that had not been raised. In conclusion, almost one in six of the DRPs raised during visits are not discussed between HCP and patient. Furthermore, existing DRPs are not even raised in 4-6% of the visits. HCPs and patients should be aware that, although patients often have DRPs, these are not always discussed or not even raised during patients' visits.

Systematic evaluation of the efficacy-effectiveness gap of systemic treatments in metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer.

The divergence between clinical trial results and real-world outcomes is largely unknown for many cancer types. The present study aims overall to assess the efficacy-effectiveness gap (difference between outcomes in clinical trials and the real world) in systemic treatment for metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).All patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC between 2008 and 2014 within a network of seven Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon) were studied. For every patient, an efficacy-effectiveness (EE) factor was calculated by dividing individual patients' overall survival (OS) by the pooled median OS assessed from clinical trials with the respective treatment.From 2989 diagnosed patients, 1214 (41%) started with first-line treatment. For all studied regimens, real-world OS was shorter than OS reported in clinical trials. Overall, the EE factor was 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.85; p<0.001). Real-world patients completed their treatment plan less often and proceeded less frequently to further lines of treatment. These parameters together with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status explained 35% of the variation in EE factor.Survival of patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapy in real-world practice is nearly one-quarter shorter than for patients included in trials. Patients' performance status, earlier discontinuation and fewer subsequent lines of treatment partly explained this difference.