A value-based healthcare model for initiating and switching psoriasis therapies-Results from the prospective multicentre IMPROVE study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the therapeutic benefits of a value-based healthcare model compared to a traditional activity-based incentive model in psoriasis (PsO).

OBJECTIVES

This prospective non-interventional study evaluated an outcome-based, patient-centred management model for patients with PsO.

METHODS

In total, 49 patients with a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≥3 who were starting or switching between treatments were included. Patients were assessed at baseline, 3 and 9 months. The patient benefit index (PBI) was calculated using predefined questionnaires. An expected PBI was calculated and adjusted for risk factors known to complicate treatment, that is overweight and smoking. The model remunerated the department on whether the observed PBI exceeded the expected PBI to incentivize over-performance.

RESULTS

In total, 40 patients (80%) completed all three visits; 32.7% were smokers and 73.5% were overweight. Mean PASI at baseline was 11.5 (SD 9.1); PASI improved significantly from baseline through 3 months: mean reduction, 8.0 (SD 9.2), p < 0.001 and was maintained until 9 months: mean further reduction, 0.1 (SD 3.3), p = 0.893. The mean PBI was 2.5 (SD 1.3) and 2.8 (SD 1.1) at 3 and 9 months, respectively. A PBI ≥1 was achieved by 87.8% at 3 and 95.1% at 9 months. Overall, the department was remunerated a mean 2721.1 DKK (SD 4472.8) per patient. In subgroup analysis, the department was remunerated a mean of, respectively, 2428.6 (SD 5089.5), 2636.6 (SD 4471.3) and 3196.5 (SD 4497.1) DKK for patients with none, 1 or 2 risk factors, that is smoking or/and overweight.

CONCLUSIONS

The model evaluated herein is the first value-based model to calculate remuneration from patient reported outcomes and showed to successfully predict the expected PBI and remunerate treatment based on whether the expected treatment goal was met or exceeded. This can be utilized in the patient-centred management of PsO.

The potential of iodinated contrast reduction in dual-energy CT thoracic angiography; an evaluation of image quality

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare a dual energy CT (DECT) protocol with 50% reduction of iodinated contrast to a single energy CT (SECT) protocol using standard contrast dose in imaging of the thoracic aorta.

METHODS

DECT with a 50% reduction in iodinated contrast was compared with SECT. For DECT, monoenergetic images at 50, 55, 60, 65, 68, 70, and 74 keV were reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR-V) of 50% and 80%. Objective image quality parameters included intravascular attenuation (HU), image noise (SD), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Two independent radiologists subjectively assessed the image quality for the 55 and 68 keV DECT reconstructions and SECT on a five-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Across 14 patients, the intravascular attenuation at 50-55 keV was comparable to SECT (p > 0.05). The CNRs were significantly lower for DECT with ASIR-V 50% compared to SECT for all keV-values (p < 0.05 for all). For ASIR-V 80%, CNR was comparable to SECT at energies below 60 keV (p > 0.05). The subjective image quality was comparable between DECT and SECT independent of keV level.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that a 50% reduction in iodinated contrast may result in adequate image quality using DECT with monoenergetic reconstructions at lower energy levels for the imaging of the thoracic aorta. The best image quality was obtained for ASiR-V 80% image reconstructions at 55 keV.

IMPLICATIONS OF PRACTICE

Dual energy CT with a reduction in iodinated contrast may result in adequate image quality in imaging of the thoracic aorta. However, increased radiation dose may limit the use to patients in which a reduction in fluid and iodinated contrast volume may outweigh this risk.

Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives

BACKGROUND

The number of new technologies for risk assessment available in health care is increasing. These technologies are intended to contribute to both improved care practices and improved patient outcomes. To do so however, there is a need to study how new technologies are understood and interpreted by users in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore patient and physician perspectives on the usefulness of a new technology to detect Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) in a specialist diabetes clinic. The technology is a handheld device that measures resting heart rate and conducts three cardiac autonomic reflex tests to evaluate heart rate variability.

METHODS

The study relied on three sources of data: observations of medical consultations where results of the CAN test were reported (n = 8); interviews with patients who had received the CAN test (n = 19); and interviews with physicians who reported results of the CAN test (n = 9). Data were collected at the specialist diabetes clinic between November 2013 and January 2014. Data were analysed using the concept of technological frames which is used to assess how physicians and patients understand and interpret the new technology.

RESULTS

Physicians generally found it difficult to communicate test results to patients in terms that patients could understand and to translate results into meaningful implications for the treatment of patients. Results of the study indicate that patients did not recall having done the CAN test nor recall receiving the results. Furthermore, patients were generally unsure about the purpose of the CAN test and the implications of the results.

DISCUSSION

Involving patients and physicians is essential when a new technology is introduced in clinical practice. This particularly includes the interpretation and communication processes related to its use.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of a new risk assessment technology into clinical practice can be accompanied by several challenges. It is suggested that more information about the CAN test be provided to patients and that a dialogue-based approach be used when communicating test results to patients in order to best support the use of the technology in clinical practice.