Impact of notification policy on patient-before-clinician review of immediately released test results

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates immediate availability of test results upon request. The Cures Act does not require that patients be informed of results, but many organizations send notifications when results become available. Our medical center implemented 2 sequential policies: immediate notifications for all results, and notifications only to patients who opt in. We used over 2 years of data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center to measure the effect of these policies on rates of patient-before-clinician result review and patient-initiated messaging using interrupted time series analysis. When releasing test results with immediate notification, the proportion of patient-before-clinician review increased 4-fold and the proportion of patients who sent messages rose 3%. After transition to opt-in notifications, patient-before-clinician review decreased 2.4% and patient-initiated messaging decreased 0.4%. Replacing automated notifications with an opt-in policy provides patients flexibility to indicate their preferences but may not substantially alleviate clinicians' messaging workload.

Artificial Intelligence to Improve Patient Understanding of Radiology Reports

Diagnostic imaging reports are generally written with a target audience of other providers. As a result, the reports are written with medical jargon and technical detail to ensure accurate communication. With implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have greater and quicker access to their imaging reports, but these reports are still written above the comprehension level of the average patient. Consequently, many patients have requested reports to be conveyed in language accessible to them. Numerous studies have shown that improving patient understanding of their condition results in better outcomes, so driving comprehension of imaging reports is essential. Summary statements, second reports, and the inclusion of the radiologist's phone number have been proposed, but these solutions have implications for radiologist workflow. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to simplify imaging reports without significant disruptions. Many AI technologies have been applied to radiology reports in the past for various clinical and research purposes, but patient focused solutions have largely been ignored. New natural language processing technologies and large language models (LLMs) have the potential to improve patient understanding of their imaging reports. However, LLMs are a nascent technology and significant research is required before LLM-driven report simplification is used in patient care.

Applying real-world data from expanded-access ("compassionate use") patients to drug development

Our drug development process has produced many life-saving medications, but patients experiencing rare diseases and similar conditions often are left with limited options for treatment. For an approved treatment to be developed, research on a new candidate or existing drug must validate safety and efficacy based on contemporary research expectations. Randomized clinical trials are conducted for this purpose, but they are also costly, laborious, and time-consuming. For this reason, The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that the US Food and Drug Administration look for alternative methods for approving drugs, in particular exploring the uses of real-world data and evidence. Expanded access ("compassionate use") is a pathway for the clinical treatment of patients using drugs that are not yet approved for prescribing in the United States. Using real-world evidence generated from expanded-access patients presents an opportunity to provide critical data on patient outcomes that can serve regulatory approval in conjunction with other observational datasets or clinical trials, and in limited circumstances may be the best data available for regulatory review. In doing so, we may also support and encourage patient-centered care and a personalized medicine approach to drug development.

Understanding the Cures Act Information Blocking Rule in cancer care: a mixed methods exploration of patient and clinician perspectives and recommendations for policy makers

BACKGROUND

The 21^st Century Cures Act Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule was created to increase patient access to health information. This federally mandated policy has been met with praise and concern. However, little is known about patient and clinician opinions of this policy within cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study to understand patient and clinician reactions to the Information Blocking Rule in cancer care and what they would like policy makers to consider. Twenty-nine patients and 29 clinicians completed interviews and surveys. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Interview and survey data were analyzed separately, then linked to generate a full interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

Overall, patients felt more positive about the policy than clinicians. Patients wanted policy makers to understand that patients are unique, and they want to individualize their preferences for receiving health information with their clinicians. Clinicians highlighted the uniqueness of cancer care, due to the highly sensitive information that is shared. Both patients and clinicians were concerned about the impact on clinician workload and stress. Both expressed an urgent need for tailoring implementation of the policy to avoid unintended harm and distress for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide suggestions for optimizing the implementation of this policy in cancer care. Dissemination strategies to better inform the public about the policy and improve clinician understanding and support are recommended. Patients who have serious illness or diagnoses such as cancer and their clinicians should be included when developing and enacting policies that could have a significant impact on their well-being. Patients with cancer and their cancer care teams want the ability to tailor information release based on individual preferences and goals. Understanding how to tailor implementation of the Information Blocking Rule is essential for retaining its benefits and minimizing unintended harm for patients with cancer.

Attitudes and Experiences of Clinicians After Mandated Implementation of Open Notes by the 21st Century Cures Act: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2016, the US Congress enacted the 21st Century Cures Act (hereafter the Cures Act), which contained the Final Rule mandate that took effect on April 5, 2021. Since then, health systems have been required to provide patients digital access to their eHealth information "without delay" and without charge.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess clinicians' initial experiences with, and attitudes toward, sharing visit notes with patients after being mandated to do so by the Cures Act and to determine clinician preferences regarding instant record release.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey study was conducted between June 10, 2021, and August 15, 2021, at the University of Kansas Health System, a large academic medical center in Kansas City, Kansas, United States. Participants included clinicians currently employed by the health system, including resident and attending physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and critical care and emergency medicine registered nurses.

RESULTS

A total of 1574 attending physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, as well as 506 critical care and emergency medicine nurses, were sent invitations; 538 (34.18%) and 72 (14.2%), respectively, responded. Of 609 resident physicians, 4 (response rate not applicable because it was unknown how many residents viewed the website while the link was available) responded. The majority of respondents were attending physicians (402/614, 65.5%) and within the department of internal medicine (160/614, 26.1%). Most agreed that sharing visit notes was a good idea (355/613, 57.9%) and that it is important to speak with the patients before they accessed their records (431/613, 70.3%). Those who agreed that sharing visit notes is a good idea tended to view the practice as a useful tool for engaging patients ("Agree": 139/355, 39.2%; "Somewhat agree": 161/355, 45.4%; P<.001) and experience no change in the clinical value of their notes for other clinicians (326/355, 91.8%; P<.001). Those who disagreed (or were neutral) tended not to encourage patients to read their notes (235/258, 91.1%; P<.001) and were more likely to experience a change in their charting practice (168/257, 65.4%; P<.001) and increased time charting (99/258, 38.4%; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study may be generalizable to institutions similar to the University of Kansas Health System, and the clinician testimonies gathered in this study may provide valuable insight into the initial opinions and experiences of clinicians at these institutions. In addition, these clinician experiences collected early in the transition period may be used to guide future health policy implementation and to understand how best to prepare clinicians for these changes in practice.

The 21st Century Cures Act and Multiuser Electronic Health Record Access: Potential Pitfalls of Information Release

Although the Office of The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONC) Information Blocking Provision in the Cures Act Final Rule is an important step forward in providing patients free and unfettered access to their electronic health information (EHI), in the contexts of multiuser electronic health record (EHR) access and proxy access, concerns on the potential for harm in adolescent care contexts exist. We describe how the provision could erode patients' (both adolescent and older patients alike) trust and willingness to seek care. The rule's preventing harm exception does not apply to situations where the patient is a minor and the health care provider wishes to restrict a parent's or guardian's access to the minor's EHI to avoid violating the minor's confidentiality and potentially harming patient-clinician trust. This may violate previously developed government principles in the design and implementation of EHRs for pediatric care. Creating legally acceptable workarounds by means such as duplicate "shadow charting" will be burdensome (and prohibitive) for health care providers. Under the privacy exception, patients have the opportunity to request information to not be shared; however, depending on institutional practices, providers and patients may have limited awareness of this exception. Notably, the privacy exception states that providers cannot "improperly encourage or induce a patient's request to block information." Fearing being found in violation of the information blocking provisions, providers may feel that they are unable to guide patients navigating the release of their EHI in the multiuser or proxy access setting. ONC should provide more detailed guidance on their website and targeted outreach to providers and their specialty organizations that care for adolescents and other individuals affected by the Cures Act, and researchers should carefully monitor charting habits in these multiuser or proxy access situations.

The use of real-world data in drug repurposing

Drug repurposing, or repositioning, is to identify new uses for existing drugs. Significantly reducing the costs and time-to-market of a medication, drug repurposing has been an alternative tool to accelerate drug development process. On the other hand, 'real world data (RWD)' has been also increasingly used to support drug development process owing to its better representing actual pattern of drug treatment and outcome in real world. In the healthcare domain, RWD refers to data collected from sources other than traditional clinical trials; for example, in electronic health records or claims and billing data. With the enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, which encourages the use of RWD in drug development and repurposing as well, such increasing trend in RWD use will be expedited. In this context, this review provides an overview of recent progresses in the area of drug repurposing where RWD was used by firstly introducing the increasing trend and regulatory change in the use of RWD in drug development, secondly reviewing published works using RWD in drug repurposing, classifying them in the repurposing strategy, and lastly addressing limitations and advantages of RWDs.

The Rising Cost of Insulin for Pump Users: How Policy Drives Prices

The price of insulin has increased dramatically over the past two decades. Medicare reimbursement for insulin is based on the route of administration via syringe (Part D) or via pump (Part B). Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a voluntary model for Part D enhanced plans that lower out-of-pocket costs to a co-pay of ≤$35/month. Meanwhile, the 21st Century Cures Act and manufacturer price increases raised the cost of insulin for pump users by 304% in less than 2 years. Because insulin is a life-saving necessity and unlike other Part B infused drugs, we call on CMS to determine drug reimbursement on a drug-by-drug basis and to develop a payment model that lowers out-of-pocket costs for patients using insulin delivered via pumps.

FDA Reported Use of Patient Experience Data in 2018 Drug Approvals

BACKGROUND

"Patient experience data" (PED) refers to the systematic collection of meaningful data relating to the experiences, perspectives, needs, and priorities of patients. PED can augment traditional clinical trial data in the FDA's review of product applications. Section 3001 of the 2016 21st Century Cures Act requires the FDA to make a public statement about the PED considered in the approval of a drug application. Here, we present one of the first assessments of PED consideration during drug application approval, as reported by the FDA under Sec. 3001 of the Cures Act.

METHODS

FDA reported use of PED in the Review Documentation of the 59 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved in 2018 were collected, indexed, and cross-referenced against information regarding FDA review and product regulatory designation. The data reported in the PED tables were quantitatively described and visualized.

RESULTS

Of the 59 approved NMEs in 2018, 48 include a table that summarized whether PED was or was not used during the FDA drug review. Thirty-four of those 48 approvals (70.8%) reported using PED in the drug review. Patient-reported outcomes(PROs) represented the most significant source of PED and were used in 60.4% of approved drug reviews. Additional findings, including PED use by FDA review division and by FDA regulatory designation, are described.

CONCLUSIONS

This assessment is a first step to better understanding how FDA considers PED in regulatory decision making. This analysis should help develop a baseline regarding FDA use of PED and may inform decisions to ensure patients' experiences are adequately heard in future drug development.

FDA Reported Use of Patient Experience Data in 2018 Drug Approvals

BACKGROUND

"Patient experience data" (PED) refers to the systematic collection of meaningful data relating to the experiences, perspectives, needs, and priorities of patients. PED can augment traditional clinical trial data in the FDA's review of product applications. Section 3001 of the 2016 21st Century Cures Act requires the FDA to make a public statement about the PED considered in the approval of a drug application. Here, we present one of the first assessments of PED consideration during drug application approval, as reported by the FDA under Sec. 3001 of the Cures Act.

METHODS

FDA reported use of PED in the Review Documentation of the 59 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved in 2018 were collected, indexed, and cross-referenced against information regarding FDA review and product regulatory designation. The data reported in the PED tables were quantitatively described and visualized.

RESULTS

Of the 59 approved NMEs in 2018, 48 include a table that summarized whether PED was or was not used during the FDA drug review. Thirty-four of those 48 approvals (70.8%) reported using PED in the drug review. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) represented the most significant source of PED and were used in 60.4% of approved drug reviews. Additional findings, including PED use by FDA review division and by FDA regulatory designation, are described.

CONCLUSIONS

This assessment is a first step to better understanding how FDA considers PED in regulatory decision making. This analysis should help develop a baseline regarding FDA use of PED and may inform decisions to ensure patients' experiences are adequately heard in future drug development.

The National Brain Injury Rescue and Rehabilitation Study - a multicenter observational study of hyperbaric oxygen for mild traumatic brain injury with post-concussive symptoms

The National Brain Injury Rescue and Rehabilitation Project was established as a preliminary study to test the safety and practicality of multi-center hyperbaric oxygen administration for the post-concussive symptoms of chronic mild traumatic brain injury as a precursor to a pivotal, independent, multi-center, controlled clinical trial. This report presents the results for 32 subjects who completed a preliminary trial of hyperbaric oxygen several years before the passage of the 21 ^st Century Cures Act. This study anticipated the Act and its reassessment of clinical research. Subjects received 40-82 one-hour treatments at 1.5 atmospheres absolute 100% oxygen. Outcome measures included repeated self-assessment measures and automated neurocognitive tests. The subjects demonstrated improvement in 21 of 25 neurocognitive test measures observed. The objective neurocognitive test components showed improvement in 13 of 17 measures. Earlier administration of hyperbaric oxygen post injury, younger age at the time of injury and hyperbaric oxygen administration, military status, and increased number of hyperbaric oxygen administrations were characteristics associated with improved outcomes. There were no adverse events. Hyperbaric oxygen was found to be safe, inexpensive and worthy of clinical application in the 21 ^st Century model of facile data collection provided by recent research regulatory shifts in medicine. The study was approved by the ethics review committee of the Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB; Protocol #20090761).

Impact of 21st Century Cures Act on Breakpoints and Commercial Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Systems: Progress and Pitfalls

Antimicrobial resistance is the most pressing medical challenge of the past decade. At the front line are clinical laboratories, which are responsible for accurately reporting antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) results to clinicians and public health authorities. The ability of the laboratory to detect resistance has been hampered by several factors. In 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law, marking an important step toward resolving many regulatory dilemmas that hampered development and updates to commercial AST systems (cASTs). We describe the pathway and history of U.S. regulation of cASTs and outline both the rewards and unmet needs possible from the 21st Century Cures Act.

The 21st Century Cures Act Implications for the Reduction of Racial Health Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System: a Public Health Approach

Past drug epidemics have disproportionately criminalized drug addiction among African Americans, leading to disparate health outcomes, increased rates of HIV/AIDS, and mass incarceration. Conversely, the current opioid addiction crisis in the USA focuses primarily on white communities and is being addressed as a public health problem. The 21st Century Cures Act has the potential to reduce racial health disparities in the criminal justice system through the Act's public health approach to addiction and mental health issues. The 21st Century Cures Act is a progressive step in the right direction; however, given the historical context of segregation and the criminalization of drug addiction among African Americans, the goals of health equity are at risk of being compromised. This paper discusses the implications of this landmark legislation and its potential to decrease racial health disparities, highlighting the importance of ensuring that access to treatment and alternatives to incarceration must include communities of color. In this paper, the authors explain the key components of the 21st Century Cures Act that are specific to criminal justice reform, including a key objective, which is treatment over incarceration. We suggest that without proper attention to how, and where, funding mechanisms are distributed, the 21st Century Cures Act has the potential to increase racial health disparities rather than alleviate them.

Characterizing expanded access and compassionate use programs for experimental drugs

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the characteristics of "expanded access" and "compassionate use" programs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the percentage of drugs provided through these programs that ultimately received FDA marketing approval.

RESULTS

We identified 398 expanded access and compassionate use programs (hereafter referred to as expanded access programs) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Industry funded 61% (n = 241) of programs individually or collaboratively, while NIH and the US Federal Government rarely funded programs (3% [n = 11] and 2% [n = 6], respectively). Most programs provided access to drugs (71% [n = 282]), 11% to biologics (n = 43), and 10% to medical devices (n = 40). These programs covered 460 unique conditions, the most common being HIV (n = 26), leukemia (22), and multiple myeloma (n = 14). Only 2% of programs reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Most programs (82%) were open to enrolling adults and seniors (n = 326). These programs provided access to 210 unique experimental drugs, of which 76% have received FDA approval.

Pragmatic medicine in solid cancer: a translational alternative to precision medicine

The precision medicine (PM) initiative is a response to the dismal outlook in solid cancer. Despite heterogeneity, common mechanistic denominators may exist across the spectrum of solid cancer. A shift from conventional research and development (R&D) toward PM will require conceptual and structural change. As individuals and as a society, we welcome innovation, but question change. We ask: In solid cancer, does PM identify and address the causes of prior failures, and, if so, are the proposed solutions feasible? And, when may we expect safer, more effective and affordable drugs in the clinic? Considerations that prompt a pragmatic rethink include a failure analysis of translational R&D in solid cancer suggesting that trials and regulations need to be aligned with the natural history of the disease. In successful therapeutic interventions in chronic, complex disease, surrogate markers and endpoints should be consistent with the Prentice's criteria. In solid cancer, drug induced tumor shrinkage, is a drug effect and not a disease response; tumor shrinkage does not reflect nor predict interruption of the disease. Overall, we support a pragmatic, multidisciplinary, and collaborative R&D, and suggest that direction be set by clinical need and utility, and by questions, not answers. PM will prove worthwhile if it could improve clinical outcomes. The lag in therapeutics relative to diagnostics is a cause for confusion. Overdiagnosis adds to fear and harm, especially in the absence of effective interventions. A revised initiative that prioritizes metastasis research could replicate the successful HIV/AIDS model in solid cancer. A pragmatic approach may further translational efforts toward meaningfully effective, generally available, and affordable solutions.