Comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research: enhancing uptake and use by patients, clinicians and payers

Impact of comparative effectiveness research on Medicare coverage of direct oral anticoagulants

Aim: To evaluate the association of comparative effectiveness research with Medicare coverage of direct oral anticoagulants. Materials & methods: A literature review for direct oral anticoagulants was conducted from 2011 to 2017. Monthly prescription drug plan and formulary files (n = 28) were used to conduct change-point analysis and assess each outcome variable. Results: Up to 2013, studies showed that dabigatran was more effective than rivaroxaban. In 2015, apixaban was shown to be the safest and most effective drug in comparison with all direct oral anticoagulants. In 2016-2017, dabigatran and apixaban were shown to have similar efficacy. Approximately 75% of plans covered dabigatran under tier 3 until 2015. From 2011 to 2017, less than 30% of plans required prior authorizations, 50% imposed quantity limits and mean copayment was lowest for rivaroxaban. Conclusion: Consistent with comparative effectiveness research, Medicare plans covered apixaban more favorably and edoxaban less favorably. However, discrepancies in comparative effectiveness research translation were found for rivaroxaban and dabigatran.

Patient- and 3D morphometry-based nose outcomes after skeletofacial reconstruction

Patient satisfaction with the shape and appearance of their nose after orthognathic surgery-based skeletofacial reconstruction is an important, but often overlooked, outcome. We assessed the nose-related outcomes through a recently developed patient-reported outcome instrument and a widely adopted 3D computer-based objective outcome instrument, to verify any correlation in the results produced by these tools. We collected FACE-Q nose appearance reports (2 scales) and 3D nasal morphometry (10 parameters) from patients with class III skeletal pattern and congenital cleft lip palate deformity (n = 23) or developmental dentofacial deformity (n = 23) after (>12 months) skeletofacial reconstruction. The cleft and dentofacial cohorts demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) poorer satisfaction scores with regard to the FACE-Q nostrils scale than the normal age-, gender-, and ethnicity-matched subjects (n = 107), without any significant difference in FACE-Q nose scale. The cleft cohort had significantly (p < 0.001) smaller nasal length, nasal tip projection, and columellar angle and greater nasal protrusion, alar width, and columellar-labial angle values than the dentofacial and normal cohorts; however, there were no significant differences between the dentofacial versus normal cohorts. The FACE-Q nose and nostrils scales were significantly (p < 0.001; r = -0.26-0.27) correlated to the results of the 3D morphometric analysis, with regard to nasal length, alar width, columella angle, and columellar-labial angle parameters. This study revealed differences in satisfaction with the appearance of the nose according to the type of underlying deformity, and demonstrated a significant correlation (low correlation coefficients) between the patient-reports and 3D image-based outcome measure tools, which has implications for multidisciplinary-centered research, auditing, and clinical care.

Does evidence matter? Comparative effectiveness research and prescribing of Type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs

Aim: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can help ascertain value of new drugs; however, limited research assesses the translation of CER into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between CER evidence and prescribing trends within two markets of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: A retrospective analysis to determine the prescribing trends from 2006 to 2016 and an electronic literature search to identify CER comparing different drugs was conducted. Results: In glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists market, CER showed superiority of Liraglutide. Prescribing of Exenatide twice daily dropped by 50% points as Liraglutide entered the market. In dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors market, CER did not suggest conclusive superiority. Nevertheless, Sitagliptin, the first entrant, continued to dominate throughout. Conclusion: CER evidence appeared to be associated with prescribing trends in GLP-1 agonists market; however, no associations were found in DPP4 inhibitors market. The translation of evidence into practice can be limited by the availability of superiority trials and timing of their availability.

Nine years of comparative effectiveness research education and training: initiative supported by the PhRMA Foundation

The term comparative effectiveness research (CER) took center stage with passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009). The companion US$1.1 billion in funding prompted the launch of initiatives to train the scientific workforce capable of conducting and using CER. Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) focused these initiatives on patients, coining the term ‘patient-centered outcomes research’ (PCOR). Educational and training initiatives were soon launched. This report describes the initiative of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PhRMA) Foundation. Through provision of grant funding to six academic Centers of Excellence, to spearheading and sponsoring three national conferences, the PhRMA Foundation has made significant contributions to creation of the scientific workforce that conducts and uses CER/PCOR.