Real-World Evidence: Useful in the Real World of US Payer Decision Making? How? When? And What Studies?

被引:55
作者
Malone, Daniel C. [1 ]
Brown, Mary [1 ]
Hurwitz, Jason T. [2 ]
Peters, Loretta [1 ]
Graff, Jennifer S. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Arizona, Coll Pharm, 1295 N Martin,POB 210202, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
[2] Univ Arizona, Ctr Hlth Outcomes & Pharmacoecon Res, Tucson, AZ USA
[3] Natl Pharmaceut Council, Washington, DC USA
关键词
health care decision making; observational research; payer; real-world evidence; TASK-FORCE REPORT; SECONDARY DATA SOURCES; RETROSPECTIVE DATABASE; PERSPECTIVES; CHECKLIST; QUALITY; FUTURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.3013
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives: To examine how real-world evidence (RWE) is currently perceived and used in managed care environments, especially to inform pharmacy and therapeutic (P&T) committee decisions, to assess which study factors (e.g., data, design, and funding source) contribute to RWE utility in decisions, and to identify barriers to consideration of RWE studies in P&T decision making. Methods: We conducted focus groups/telephone-based interviews and surveys to understand perceptions of RWE and assess awareness, quality, and relevance of two high-profile examples of published RWE studies. A purposive sample comprised 4 physicians, 15 pharmacists, and 1 researcher representing 18 US health plans and health system organizations. Results: Participants reported that RWE was generally used, or useful, to inform safety monitoring, utilization management, and cost analysis, but less so to guide P&T decisions. Participants were not aware of the two sample RWE studies but considered both studies to be valuable. Relevant research questions and outcomes, transparent methods, study quality, and timely results contribute to the utility of published RWE. Perceived organizational barriers to the use of published RWE included lack of skill, training, and timely study results. Conclusions: Payers recognize the value of RWE, but use of such studies to inform P&T decisions varies from organization to organization and is limited. Relevance to payers, timeliness, and transparent methods were key concerns with RWE. Participants recognized the need for continuing education on evaluating and using RWE to better understand the study methods, findings, and applicability to their organizations.
引用
收藏
页码:326 / 333
页数:8
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014, METHODS GUIDE EFFECT
[2]  
AMCP partnership forum, 2016, J MANAG CARE SPEC PH, V22, P826
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, LANCET, V375, P348, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60148-1
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2010, BMJ BRIT MED J, DOI DOI 10.1136/BMJ.C950
[5]  
[Anonymous], PCORI METH REP
[6]   A Questionnaire to Assess the Relevance and Credibility of Observational Studies to Inform Health Care Decision Making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report [J].
Berger, Marc L. ;
Martin, Bradley C. ;
Husereau, Don ;
Worley, Karen ;
Allen, J. Daniel ;
Yang, Winnie ;
Quon, Nicole C. ;
Mullins, C. Daniel ;
Kahler, Kristijan H. ;
Crown, William .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2014, 17 (02) :143-156
[7]   Good Research Practices for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Defining, Reporting and Interpreting Nonrandomized Studies of Treatment Effects Using Secondary Data Sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part I [J].
Berger, Marc L. ;
Mamdani, Muhammad ;
Atkins, David ;
Johnson, Michael L. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 (08) :1044-1052
[8]   Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence [J].
Chalmers, Iain ;
Glasziou, Paul .
LANCET, 2009, 374 (9683) :86-89
[9]   A New Initiative on Precision Medicine [J].
Collins, Francis S. ;
Varmus, Harold .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2015, 372 (09) :793-795
[10]  
Concannon Thomas W, 2016, Rand Health Q, V6, P3