PMH25 REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE INVESTIGATION ON HEALTHCARE UTILIZATION AND COST AMONG NEGATIVE SYMPTOM PATIENTS AND NON-NEGATIVE SYMPTOM PATIENTS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA IN THE US

e18248 Background: Taxanes-induced neuropathy is common in BC patients receiving taxanes, forcing dose reductions and treatment delays and posing serious challenges for the long-term patient QoL. Discovering neuropathy predictors in patients could guide better treatment decisions, improved QoL and reduce healthcare costs. Belong digital PPN is a social network for cancer patients and caregivers that supports disease management. In this study we used our artificial intelligence (AI) engine to classify the prevalence, characteristics and taxanes-induced neuropathy status of BC patients. Methods: We analyzed real-world patient-reported outcomes provided voluntarily and anonymously from users on the Belong PPN. Data from BC patients reporting treatment with taxanes was extracted and additional analysis segmented the data to those who experienced neuropathy and those who did not. Further validation of the data was performed by our research team to assure accuracy. Results: We evaluated 169 BC cancer patients from the US treated with taxanes. In the cohort 72% were Paclitaxel-treated and 28% Docetaxel-treated at various disease stages: 68% at early stage BC (0-2) and 32% at the advanced/metastatic stages (3-4). 83% of Paclitaxel-treated patients and 67% of Docetaxel-treated patients reported experiencing neuropathy in the Belong platform. These real-world reports indicated significantly higher incidence of taxane-induced neuropathy in comparison to literature summarizing data from clinical trials, suggesting neuropathy incidence of 27% for paclitaxel and 16% for docetaxel (grades 2-4). Conclusions: Real-world patient-reported outcomes from the Belong PPN captured the prevalence of taxanes-induced neuropathy in BC patients and correlated it to the specific drug in use. Evidence for higher incidence of taxanes-induced neuropathy may lead to lower patient QoL and higher healthcare costs and should stimulate better treatment decisions. Further exploration of the gap between controlled clinical studies and real-world evidence is urgently needed to understand the true patient outcomes and optimize healthcare accordingly.

Download Full-text

OP03 Optimizing The Use Of RWE In HTA: Lessons From The ICER Summit

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462318000703 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 34 (S1) ◽

pp. 1-2

Author(s):

Grace Hampson ◽

Chris Henshall ◽

Adrian Towse ◽

Bill Dreitlein ◽

Steven Pearson

Keyword(s):

Real World ◽

Policy Decision ◽

Drug Effectiveness ◽

Real World Evidence ◽

Coverage With Evidence Development ◽

The Us ◽

Policy Decision Making ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Study Designs

Introduction:Real world evidence (RWE) is changing the overall data landscape and it has potential to advance the evaluation of real world performance (comparative effectiveness) of healthcare technologies by providing a greater quantity and quality of evidence. However, many are concerned that non-randomized RWE may be substituted for RCT data and thus increase uncertainty about effectiveness. This presentation sets out the opportunities and challenges for use of RWE by payers and HTA bodies to evaluate health care technologies.Methods:Current uses, opportunities and challenges were identified via a literature review and interviews with nine experts. Interim results were discussed at the 2017 ICER Policy Summit, which brought together leaders from payer and life sciences organizations, to develop specific and actionable recommendations for the use of RWE in drug coverage and policy decision-making.Results:RWE is utilized for multiple purposes in the US and globally, including: aiding design of drug development pathways; supporting regulatory approval decisions; monitoring safety; and informing HTA assessments and payer coverage decisions. Some stakeholders see great value in RWE and want to make greater use of these data sources, including for: drug effectiveness evaluations (including supplementing network meta-analyses); innovative study designs (including pragmatic trials); real time patient monitoring; and adaptive pathways or coverage with evidence development. However, others see numerous challenges, many of which are related to the quality and reliability of RWE sources. Acceptance of an expanded future role for RWE is not universal, and payers and developers must work together to find mutually beneficial strategies for progressing the development and use of RWE.Conclusions:Specific and actionable recommendations will be presented which highlight the role that each stakeholder group can play in overcoming the challenges and realizing the potential for RWE.

Download Full-text