WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION MAKING? A CASE STUDY OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU

Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of epidural morphine/ropivacaine treatment in patients with cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is one of the main causes of human suffering, which can generate disabilities and compromise quality of life, giving rise to several psychosocial and economic consequences.

AIMS

This quantitative study sought to perform a cost-effectiveness pharmacoeconomic analysis to assess the impact of implanting epidural morphine associated with ropivacaine treatment in gastrointestinal cancer patients with pain that is difficult clinical control, compared with conventional oral treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population consisted of 24 patients with gastrointestinal neoplasia who underwent treatment for cancer pain that was difficult to clinically control. 12 patients each were recruited into the control and intervention groups, respectively. While patients in the control group were administered drug treatment orally, patients in the intervention group underwent a surgical procedure for subcutaneous implantation of a catheter that allowed epidural administration of morphine and ropivacaine. For pain assessment, the Visual Analogue Scale was applied. Data analysis had a descriptive character of costs, taking into account the costs for the year 2021. The study perspective was the Brazilian public healthcare provider, referred to as the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de-SUS in Portuguese). Costs were computed over the time horizon corresponding to the duration of treatment, from the first medical consultation (when the treatment was defined) to the end (end of treatment, disease progression, or death). Treatment duration was divided into three phases (first 60 days, support with palliative care, and end-of-life care). To assess the robustness of the economic analysis, sensitivity analyses were performed, considering the effectiveness of pain reduction on the Visual Analogue Scale, and a comparison of results using the median prices of pharmaceutical components used in the study.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 59.3 years. The results from the cost-effectiveness analysis showed the epidural morphine/ropivacaine treatment to be more effective with regard to pain reduction on the pain scale, particularly for end-of-life care, when compared to the conventional oral treatment, however, at a significantly higher cost.

DISCUSSION

From the accomplishment of this research, it was observed that the application of the pain assessment scale is a way to better interpret and understand the patient's pain, facilitating care planning and decision-making by health professionals, as well as monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed new treatment.

CONCLUSION

To present a better cost-effectiveness ratio, a reduction in the cost of the new epidural technology or an increase in the value of the existing oral intervention would be required. However, the latter is not feasible and unlikely to occur. A value judgement to decide whether the incremental benefit associated with the use of the new intervention is worth the extra cost will have to be made by the healthcare provider. Interventions that can relieve cancer pain symptoms should be investigated continuously, in search of evidence to support clinical practice and promote better quality of life for patients.

Health preference research: An overview for medical radiation sciences

Understanding preferences of key stakeholders including patients, clinicians and policymakers can inform clinical practice, workforce and policy. It also allows health services to evaluate existing clinical practices, policies and procedures. This commentary aims to introduce medical radiation professionals to health preference research by describing commonly used preference methodologies, with a particular focus on discrete choice experiments. Relevant examples of health preference research will be highlighted to demonstrate the application of health preference research in medical radiation sciences.