The role of INTERCheckWEB digital innovation in supporting polytherapy management

The study aims at defining the factors affecting the clinicians' decision of changing or confirming the treatment options for frail patients in polytherapy, supporting prescribing patterns, thus also figuring out if the inclination of the clinicians towards digital solutions (INTERCheckWEB) and specific guidelines, could play a role in their decision. A literature review was performed, revealing the main individual, organizational and decisional factors, impacting on the clinicians' propensity to change the current patients' therapy: the clinician perceptions of support in case of clinical guidelines use or INTERCheckWEB use were studied. A qualitative approach was implemented, and thirty-five clinicians completed a questionnaire, aimed at evaluating fifteen different clinical cases, defining if they would change the patient's current therapy depending on the level of information received. Three methodological approaches were implemented. (1) Bivariate correlations to test the relationships between variables. (2) Hierarchical sequential linear regression model to define the predictors of the clinician propensity to change therapy. (3) Fuzzy Qualitative Comparative Analysis-fsQCA, to figure out the combination of variables leading to the outcome. Patient's age and autonomy (p value = 0.000), as well as clinician's perception regarding IT ease of use (p value = 0.043) and seniority (p value = 0.009), number of drugs assumed by the patients (p value = 0.000) and number of concomitant diseases (p value = 0.000) are factors influencing a potential change in the current therapy. The fsQCA-crisp confirms that the clinical conditions of the patients are the driving factors that prompt the clinicians towards a therapy change.

High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica)

BACKGROUND

The present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices.

METHODS

A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from - 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures' savings.

RESULTS

The literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to - 5.25/-9.02% of operating room time and to - 5.03/-30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals' perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers' quality-of-life emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

The results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.

HTA and Gastric Cancer: Evaluating Alternatives in Third- and Fourth-Line Patients

Metastatic gastric cancer (mGC) represents an economic and societal burden worldwide. The present study has two aims. Firstly, it evaluates the benefits and the added value of the introduction of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in the Italian clinical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles with respect to the other available treatment options (represented by the best supportive care (BSC) and FOLFIRI (5-FU, irinotecan, and leucovorin) regimens). Secondly, it assesses the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, focusing on third- and fourth-line treatments. For the achievement of the above objective, a health technology assessment study was conducted in 2021, assuming the NHS perspective within a 3-month time horizon. The literature reported a better efficacy of FTD/TPI with respect to both BSC and FOLFIRI regimens. From an economic perspective, despite the additional economic resources that would be required, the investment could positively impact the overall survival rate for the patients treated with the FTD/TPI strategy. However, the innovative molecule would lead to a decrease in hospital accesses devoted to chemotherapy infusion, ranging from a minimum of 34% to a maximum of 44%, strictly dependent on FTD/TPI penetration rate, with a consequent opportunity to take on a greater number of oncological patients requiring drug administration for the treatment of any other cancer diseases. According to experts' opinions, lower perceptions of FTD/TPI emerged concerning equity aspects, whereas it would improve both individuals' and caregivers' quality of life. In conclusion, the results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to the introduction of FTD/TPI regarding the coverage of an important unmet medical need of patients with metastatic gastric cancer who were refractory to at least two prior therapies, with important advantages for patients and hospitals, thus optimizing the clinical pathway of such frail patients.