Place of patient-reported outcomes & experiences measurements (PROMS/PREMS) in the assessment and pricing of Health technologies in France.

In the context of health technologies assessment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become assessment criteria that are expected by evaluation agencies along with the other usual clinical criteria. PROMs instruments measure all aspects of patient experience in connection with their health: symptoms, activities of daily living (physical function, sleep, etc.), various aspects of health-related quality of life (QoL), compliance, global impression of change in wellbeing. PROMs are useful both as 1) a primary or secondary efficacy endpoints, and 2) a tolerability criterion to supplement vigilance data reported by clinicians. Measurement of PROMs must be subject to methodological rigor that is identical to that of other assessment criteria measured by an observer. Scales must be validated, suitable for the objective, and where possible specific to a disease. In addition to standard measures of quality of life, PROMs are taken into consideration in the assessments performed by the HAS, even if their impact on the conclusions is difficult to isolate, as assessments are multifactorial and take into account all data available with regard to the medical context. The CEPS will indirectly take into account PROMs in the fixing of the price or tariff only if they have contributed to the award of the ASA/ASMR by the ad hoc committee of the HAS. The working group has formulated three recommendations which aim to further the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures: (1) Better information for all parties involved in a dossier for technology assessment, (2) Systematization of the collection of PROMs for evaluation of health products, (3) Improved quality of dossiers thanks to the use of relevant and validated tools.

High rate of adefovir-lamivudine combination therapy in nucleoside-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B in France: results of a national survey in 1730 patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study describes the types of therapy used in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in France and patient characteristics according to therapy. METHODS: This was a descriptive, multicenter, retrospective study in 1730 patients (54 centers). We collected information about demographics, epidemiology, severity of hepatitis B virus-related liver disease, antiviral therapy, response (hepatitis B viral DNA and alanine aminotransferase normalization changes), dose modification, or treatment interruption. RESULTS: Approximately, 60% of patients enrolled had never been treated for CHB and 33.1% were currently receiving treatment (47% first line). Of those receiving treatment, 30% were receiving adefovir-lamivudine combination. Of those receiving first-line therapy, 40, 30, and 15% were receiving lamivudine, adefovir, or adefovir-lamivudine combination, respectively. Complete and partial virological responses were seen in 59 and 13% of patients, respectively. In patients having been treated at least once, biochemical response was seen in 45%. Lamivudine or adefovir-resistant mutants were detected in 32.6 and 22.1% of patients treated by these antiviral agents, respectively. CONCLUSION: In France, among patients with CHB, we observed that one-third were receiving therapy, and, of these, 30% were receiving first-line (15%) or second-line (15%) adefovir-lamivudine combination therapy. This observation highlights that clinical practice is influenced by available scientific data on resistance induced by monotherapy.

Clinically relevant genotype interpretation of resistance to didanosine.

We analyzed the didanosine (ddI) arm of the randomized, placebo-controlled Jaguar trial in order to define a genotypic score for ddI associated with virologic response. In this arm, 111 patients experiencing virologic failure received ddI in addition to their current combination therapy for 4 weeks. The impact of mutations in the reverse transcriptase gene on the virologic response to ddI was studied in univariate analysis. Genotypic score was constructed using step-by-step analyses first including only mutations associated to poorer virologic response (scored as +1), while secondarily, mutations associated to a better response (scored as -1) were also eligible. Eight mutations were associated with a reduced response to ddI, M41L, D67N, T69D, L74V, V118I, L210W, T215Y/F, and K219Q/E, and two mutations were associated with a better response, K70R and M184V/I. The best prediction of the virologic response to ddI was obtained with a composite score comprising mutations added and subtracted (set II, M41L + T69D + L74V+ T215Y/F + K219Q/E - K70R - M184V/I; P = 4.5 x 10(-9)) and by comparing that to only mutations added (set I, M41L + T69D + L74V + L210W + T215Y/F + K219Q/E; P = 1.2 x 10(-7)). Patients had a human immunodeficiency virus RNA reduction of 1.24, 0.84, 0.61, 0.40, and 0.07 log(10) copies/ml when they were ranked as having a genotypic score II of -2, -1, or 0 or 1 and 2 mutations or more, respectively. In conclusion, we developed and validated a genotypic score, taking into account mutations negatively and positively impacting the virologic response to ddI.