Wearable Digital Health Technologies (WDHTs) can support and enhance self-management by giving individuals with chronic conditions more control over their health, safety and wellbeing. Involving patients early on in the design of these technologies facilitates the development of person-centered products. It may increase the potential uptake of (and adherence to) any intervention they are designed to deliver. This research aims to elicit chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients’ preferences for WDHTs that may help patients manage their conditions.

We used discrete choice experiments (DCE) to elicit preferences for WDHTs characterized by their generalizable characteristics. The study design was informed by a multi-stage mixed-method approach (MSMMA). This included a review of the published literature, focus group interviews and one-to-one interactions with CKD patients to identify relevant characteristics (that is, attributes and levels) associated with wearable DHTs. We collected the data from 113 patients (age ≥18 years) with stage 3 or above CKD. The analysis started with a conventional multinomial logit model and was extended by investigating heterogeneity in preferences via latent class models.

Our MSMMA yielded ten potential attributes for consideration in a choice task. The final list included five attributes, cross-checked and validated by the research team, and patient representatives. The most preferred attributes of WDHTs were device appearance, format and type of information provided, and mode of engagement with patients. Respondents preferred a discreet device, which offered options that individuals could choose from and provided medical information.

We show how to use MSMMA to elicit user preferences in (and to inform the) early stages of the development of WDHTs. Individuals with CKD preferred specific characteristics that would make them more likely to engage with the self-management support WDHT. Our results provide valuable insights that can be used to inform the development of different WDHTs for different segments of the CKD patients population, moving away from a one-size-fits-all provision and resulting in population health gains.

Patient Support Programs (PSPs) have become a trend among pharmaceutical companies and a standard service offering to patients. The objective of the present study is to describe the status of PSPs in Lebanon and to assess the extent of knowledge and awareness among Lebanese patients about the PSPs.

A cross-sectional study was conducted between April and July 2017. A convenient sample of patients was randomly selected from outpatient clinics at four hospitals within the Greater Beirut Area. A questionnaire was used to address the study objective. Bivariate analysis was performed using the Chi-square test. Data were analyzed by using SPSS version 23.

Out of 385 patients who participated in the study, 45.45 percent were aged between 46 and 66 years. None of them indicated that they were enrolled in a PSP, and only 13 percent of the respondents were aware of the existence of such a program. In terms of adherence habits, 55.6 percent of the patients self-reported that they do not skip any dose of their medication and consume their medication as prescribed by their healthcare providers. The main reason for nonadherence reported by the majority of nonadherent participants 144 (84.2%) was simple forgetfulness.

There is a severe lack of awareness of PSPs in Lebanon. Given the important role that PSPs play in creating value for patients—in terms of healthcare follow-up practices, improved adherence habits, and cost savings—there should be a more substantial effort by pharmaceutical companies to expand and promote their PSPs in the Lebanese market.

Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC.

We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses.

Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$7,841 and a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was AU$143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent.

This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) method guide for technology appraisals (TAs) encourages medicine manufacturers to use the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in relevant clinical trials to obtain utility values; however, the EQ-5D may have low sensitivity when compared to disease-specific measures. This study investigated whether the NICE TA committee’s acceptance of manufacturer-proposed utility values is dependent on the manufacturers’ sources of the utility values.

Using publicly available data for 2011–2020, we identified 136 single TAs of cancer medicines, the health-related quality-of-life-measures used in relevant clinical trials, manufacturers’ sources of utility values, and the NICE TA committee’s acceptance of these values. Fisher’s exact tests were performed to compare the acceptability of different value sources and reasons for non-acceptance.

The number of appraisals for which the EQ-5D in the relevant clinical trials was the source of the manufacturer-proposed utility values increased continuously over time. The TA committee’s acceptance of values was not dependent on the information source. In cases where a submission for which the information source was the EQ-5D was rejected, the reason was generally related to inappropriate values for the UK population or inappropriate data adjustment, not data reliability.

Our results demonstrated that according with the NICE’s method guide regarding utility values does not guarantee acceptance by the TA committee. Manufacturers must consider in advance possible differences between their clinical trials and clinical practice in the UK and refine plans for EQ-5D measurement in order to obtain convincing evidence.

The Canadian BIA guideline was published by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) in 2007. Our initial systematic literature review of national and international BIA guidelines showed that a number of new recommendations relating to BIA model structure, input data and reporting format have been adopted in other jurisdictions such as UK, Australia, Poland, Ireland, Belgium, France and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). The main objective of the present study was to conduct a comparative review of national, international and Canadian Federal, provincial and territorial BIA guidelines and provide a list of new recommendations related to the BIA key elements which have not been discussed or included in the Canadian PMPRB BIA guidelines.

BIAs guidelines were searched in databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the gray literature including regulatory agency websites. An Excel-based data abstraction form was designed in order to highlight differences between recommendations related to the BIA key elements provided by PMPRB, provincial, and other national and international BIA guidelines.

Twelve guidelines were reviewed in detail. Sixty percent of the recommendations were new or were different from recommendations in the Canadian PMPRB BIA guidelines. They related to BIA key elements such as perspective, target population, costing, presenting results, data sources and handling the uncertainty.

The present literature review is the initial step towards updating the Canadian BIA guidelines. This study presents a comparative review of key elements in BIA among different guidelines and provides a list of relevant practical recommendations for the improvement of the Canadian BIA guidelines. The new methodologic advancements and recommendations that were identified are being presented to Canadian stakeholders for their opinion and feedback prior to the development of a proposed new set of Canadian guidelines.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia. Plasmapheresis is a procedure consisting of removing the plasma, or specific elements which are considered to be involved in pathological processes. Plasmapheresis could reduce the A beta peptides load in the brain. The objective is to study the safety and efficacy of plasmapheresis for AD.

Systematic review, with all studies published before April 2016 reviewed. Selected studies included patients with AD treated with plasmapheresis. GRADE was used to assess quality. Efficacy outcomes include: (i) Cognitive, functional and behavior status, through Mini Mental State Examination, and Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive test; (ii) Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid A beta levels; (iii) Brain-imaging and functional neuroimaging studies. Safety outcomes included side effects related to the treatment.

Two papers reporting results from three studies were selected: (i) pilot study (n = 10), (ii) its extended study (12 months more of follow-up) (n = 7), and (iii) clinical trial (n = 39). The quality of evidence was very low. About efficacy, the studies didn't report quantitative results and were inconclusive. The pilot study and its extended study reported (1): a tendency towards stabilization in cognitive status; the plasma levels of A beta peptides didn't show a clear pattern; and the brain-imaging assessment suggested a progressive volume increase in the hippocampus. The clinical trial reported in the experimental group vs control (2): a better score for the cognitive status; an increase of plasma A beta peptides; and did not find significant differences between groups for cerebrospinal fluid A beta peptides. The brain-imaging assessment showed a progressive loss of hippocampus volume in both groups. Regarding safety, the studies didn't report quantitative data. We didn't find economic evaluation studies.

The included studies had very high risk of bias and very low quality. We found no evidence on efficacy and safety of plasmapheresis treating AD. Plasmapheresis isn't a priority line in research of AD treatment.

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) program was established by Canada's provincial and territorial Ministries of Health (except Quebec) to assess cancer drug therapies and make recommendations to guide drug reimbursement decisions. The pCODR Expert Review Committee (pERC) makes reimbursement recommendations, providing a rationale for the recommendation and next steps for stakeholders. The objective of this analysis was to identify reviews and reasons pERC has requested real-world evidence (RWE) data collection.

A retrospective analysis of pERC Final Recommendations (January 2012 – May 2017) was conducted. pERC Final Recommendations include drug information, reimbursement recommendation, rationale for recommendation following pERC's Deliberative Framework (clinical benefit, patient-based values, economic evaluation, and adoption feasibility), next steps for jurisdictions to consider to support their funding decisions, summary of deliberations, and evidence in brief. Reviews were included if there was a next step advising the collection of RWE to reduce uncertainty in the drug under review.

Out of eighty-four reviews, forty-one (forty-eight percent) included a next step to collect RWE to address a gap in the available evidence. Reasons for RWE data collection, in descending order of frequency, were to inform: sequencing of available therapies; magnitude of clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness or the true cost-effectiveness; duration of treatment and cost-effectiveness; defining the population or disease progression; quality of life; and dosage.

In almost half of pERC's recommendation there is an indication that there is a gap in the existing evidence that could potentially be addressed through the collection of RWE. This reflects the rising number of new cancer drugs, limited evidence supporting submissions (for example non-comparative studies), and newer drugs such as immunotherapies which may not have a fixed treatment duration. Further research includes development of mechanisms for RWE data collection to help inform pERC recommendations and assist stakeholders with adoption feasibility of reviewed drugs.