Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices

Background Internationally, many health care interventions were diffused prior to the standard use of assessments of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Disinvestment from ineffective or inappropriately applied practices is a growing priority for health care systems for reasons of improved quality of care and sustainability of resource allocation. In this paper we examine key challenges for disinvestment from these interventions and explore potential policy-related avenues to advance a disinvestment agenda. Results We examine five key challenges in the area of policy driven disinvestment: 1) lack of resources to support disinvestment policy mechanisms; 2) lack of reliable administrative mechanisms to identify and prioritise technologies and/or practices with uncertain clinical and cost-effectiveness; 3) political, clinical and social challenges to removing an established technology or practice; 4) lack of published studies with evidence demonstrating that existing technologies/practices provide little or no benefit (highlighting complexity of design) and; 5) inadequate resources to support a research agenda to advance disinvestment methods. Partnerships are required to involve government, professional colleges and relevant stakeholder groups to put disinvestment on the agenda. Such partnerships could foster awareness raising, collaboration and improved health outcome data generation and reporting. Dedicated funds and distinct processes could be established within the Medical Services Advisory Committee and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to, a) identify technologies and practices for which there is relative uncertainty that could be the basis for disinvestment analysis, and b) conduct disinvestment assessments of selected item(s) to address existing practices in an analogous manner to the current focus on new and emerging technology. Finally, dedicated funding and cross-disciplinary collaboration is necessary to build health services and policy research capacity, with a focus on advancing disinvestment research methodologies and decision support tools. Conclusion The potential over-utilisation of less than effective clinical practices and the potential under-utilisation of effective clinical practices not only result in less than optimal care but also fragmented, inefficient and unsustainable resource allocation. Systematic policy approaches to disinvestment will improve equity, efficiency, quality and safety of care, as well as sustainability of resource allocation.Adam G Elshaug, Janet E Hiller, Sean R Tunis and John R Mos

Against pragmatism: on efficacy, effectiveness and the real world

Explanatory and pragmatic trials represent ends of a continuum of attitudes about clinical trial design. Recent literature argues that pragmatic trials are more informative about clinical care in the real world. Although there is place for more pragmatic studies to inform clinical practice and health policy decision-making, we are concerned that it is generally under-appreciated that extrapolating the results of broadly inclusive pragmatic trials to the care of real patients may often be as problematic as extrapolating the results of narrowly focused explanatory or efficacy trials. Simplistic interpretation of pragmatic trials runs the risk of driving harmful policies

Clinical and economic ramifications of switching antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Switching between antipsychotic medications is common in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, data on clinical and economic outcomes from antipsychotic switching, in particular acute care service use, is fairly limited. The goal of this research was to assess the clinical and economic ramifications of switching antipsychotics during outpatient management of schizophrenia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from a 1-year randomized, open-label cost-effectiveness study involving typical and atypical antipsychotics were assessed. The study protocol permitted switching of antipsychotics when clinically warranted. The risk of crisis-related events, use of acute-care services, and the time to the initial use of such services were determined in outpatients who switched antipsychotics compared with those who continued with their initial medications. Health care resource utilization data were abstracted from medical records and other sources (e.g., patient self-report), and direct costs were estimated using previously published benchmarks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Almost one-third of patients (29.3%) underwent a switch from their initial antipsychotic agent, with an average duration of 100 days before such treatment alterations. Compared with their counterparts who remained on their initial therapies, individuals who switched antipsychotics experienced a significantly higher risk of acute-care services, including hospitalization (p = .013) and crisis services (p = .011). Patients undergoing medication switches also used acute-care services significantly sooner (p = .004) and accrued an additional $3,000 (a 25% increase) in annual total health care costs per patient, most of which was due to acute-care expenditures.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Switching antipsychotic medications was found to be associated with considerably poorer clinical and economic outcomes, as reflected by, more frequent and more rapid use of acute-care services compared with persons remaining on their initial treatments.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Trial ID 2325 in LillyTrials.com (also accessible via ClinicalStudyResults.org).</p

Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice

Predictors of switching antipsychotic medications in the treatment of schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify patient characteristics and early changes in patients' clinical status that best predict subsequent switching of antipsychotic agents in the long-term treatment of schizophrenia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This post-hoc analysis used data from a one-year randomized, open-label, multisite study of antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. The study protocol permitted switching of antipsychotics when clinically warranted after the first eight weeks. Baseline patient characteristics were assessed using standard psychiatric measures and reviews of medical records. The prediction model included baseline sociodemographics, comorbid psychiatric and non-psychiatric conditions, body weight, clinical and functional variables, as well as change scores on standard efficacy and tolerability measures during the first two weeks of treatment. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify the best predictors of switching from the initially assigned antipsychotic medication.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>About one-third of patients (29.5%, 191/648) switched antipsychotics before the end of the one-year study. There were six variables identified as the best predictors of switching: lack of antipsychotic use in the prior year, pre-existing depression, female gender, lack of substance use disorder, worsening of akathisia (as measured by the Barnes Akathisia Scale), and worsening of symptoms of depression/anxiety (subscale score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) during the first two weeks of antipsychotic therapy.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Switching antipsychotics appears to be prevalent in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia and can be predicted by a small and distinct set of variables. Interestingly, worsening of anxiety and depressive symptoms and of akathisia following two weeks of treatment were among the more robust predictors of subsequent switching of antipsychotics.</p

How Well Do Randomized Trials Inform Decision Making: Systematic Review Using Comparative Effectiveness Research Measures on Acupuncture for Back Pain

Background: For Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) there is a need to develop scales for appraisal of available clinical research. Aims were to 1) test the feasibility of applying the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool and the six CER defining characteristics of the Institute of Medicine to RCTs of acupuncture for treatment of low back pain, and 2) evaluate the extent to which the evidence from these RCTs is relevant to clinical and health policy decision making. Methods: We searched Medline, the AcuTrials™ Database to February 2011 and reference lists and included full-report randomized trials in English that compared needle acupuncture with a conventional treatment in adults with non-specific acute and/or chronic low back pain and restricted to those with ≥30 patients in the acupuncture group. Papers were evaluated by 5 raters. Principal Findings: From 119 abstracts, 44 full-text publications were screened and 10 trials (4,901 patients) were evaluated. Due to missing information and initial difficulties in operationalizing the scoring items, the first scoring revealed inter-rater and inter-item variance (intraclass correlations 0.02-0.60), which improved after consensus discussions to 0.20-1.00. The 10 trials were found to cover the efficacy-effectiveness continuum; those with more flexible acupuncture and no placebo control scored closer to effectiveness. Conclusion: Both instruments proved useful, but need further development. In addition, CONSORT guidelines for reporting pragmatic trials should be expanded. Most studies in this review already reflect the movement towards CER and similar approaches can be taken to evaluate comparative effectiveness relevance of RCTs for other treatments. © 2012 Witt et al.published_or_final_versio