Real World Evidence (RWE) Deborah Wyatt DIRECTOR Office +44 (0) 1252 849074 Mobile +44 (0) 7712 333 844 deborah.wyatt @talkhealthpartnership.com talkhealthpartnership.com Vaneet Nayar Marketing Director Mobile: +44 (0) 7429 592554, Office: Tel: +44 (0) 1252 848848 vaneetnayar @svmpharma.com, www.svmpharma.com Click here: Real World Evidence http:// bit.ly/svmresources
52
Embed
Real World Evidence (RWE) - SVMPharma...Real World Evidence (RWE) Deborah Wyatt DIRECTOR Office +44 (0) 1252 849074 Mobile +44 (0) 7712 333 844 [email protected]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
We will explore how the current RWE landscape must be carefully navigated to avoid the legal pitfalls – and why things aren't getting any easier
Simon Briskman
Driving Real World Evidence outcomes Vaneet Nayar
Summary & Close Vaneet Nayar
What you need to know
• Fire exit
• Refreshments
• Wash rooms
Meeting Objectives
What is the value to the NHS and Pharmaceutical industry of combining Real World Evidence and Patient Experience?
Introductions
Delegates
• Sophia Marsh
• Jane Paxton
• Stewart West
• Ingrid Omerovic-Smith
• Simona Aganovic
• David Marsden
• Mike Wakeman
Delegates
• Simon Briskman - Fieldfisher
• Deborah Wyatt – talkhealth partnership
• Catriona Williams - talkhealth partnership
• Vaneet Nayar - SVMPharma
• Gem Auddy- SVMPharma
• Fouad Lawal- SVMPharma
The growing importance of Real World Evidence
“It is increasingly recognised that conclusions drawn from classical clinical trials are not always a useful aid for decision making. Assessing the value of a drug or technology
requires an understanding of its impact on current managements in a practice, real life setting”
“Research conducted that professionals are becoming focussed on real world data, with over 70% of those surveyed expecting their time spent working with real world
data to increase over the next 2 years”
Real Life Data: A Growing Need - www.ispor.org/news/articles/oct07/rld.asp accessed 31 March 2014 Real World Data Report 2013
Transitioning from clinical trials to “real world” clinical practice
Clinical Trials Real Outcomes (clinical and patient)
Prospective data collection Prospective and/or retrospective
Limited population are eligible for inclusion Broader patient population
Good patient adherence and compliance
Real world patient experience
Ideal for registration of medicines Demonstrates the benefits in usual clinical practice
Limited ability to demonstrate cost effectiveness Ideal for demonstrating value within local health economy
The problem with clinical trials: The need for ‘real world’ studies
• Can only describe the efficacy of an intervention under optimal conditions
• May not demonstrate the effectiveness of an intervention in the real world
• It is increasingly recognised that conclusions drawn from classical clinical trials are not always a useful aid for decision making
• Assessing the value of a drug requires an understanding of its impact on current managements in a practice, real life setting
• Engaging with patients everyday clinical experience
Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization, Institute of MedicineRealLife Data: A Growing Need - www.ispor.org/news/articles/oct07/rld.asp accessed 31st March 2014
• What is the value of Real World Evidence to the NHS and Pharmaceutical industry?
NB: please take post-it notes and write down your definitions and value and place them on the flip charts
Definitions
RWE definition
• Clinical data outside of traditional randomised clinical trials– Clinical and patient outcomes
RWE value
• Evaluating patients outcomes in ‘every day’ clinical practice?– Determining the impact on the NHS
– Patients experience within the NHS
Patient Engagement and Experience
Deborah Wyatt
What Patient Experience
Patient experience is about considering a disease, and the challenges of living with that disease, from a new perspective; the patients or carers point of view.
Listening to patients should be seen as a powerful motivator and driver for improvement and change.
It is not enough to make assumptions that we know what it is like for patients and their carers, or listening to second or third hand feedback. It is about taking the step of actively finding out and involving patients and carers which is critical when designing or changing a service.
• Insights that support changes to patient care and outcomes
MS Case Study – patient experience
The requirement
• Understanding MS patients’ experience and the day to day challenges of living with MS
The Methodology
• Cohort of 36 patients & 10 carers providing insights through online survey
The outcomes
• 38% of respondents considered the information and support was poor or fair at diagnosis
• 26% of respondents were “somewhat dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” that information about their condition had not been shared effectively between those involved in their care
Objectives
• Develop concept of patient experience survey
• Validate methodology
• Share results with MS charities
• Publish MS survey findings
Psoriasis Case Study – patient record study
The requirement• Discover how psoriasis patients manage their condition day to day • Gather insights about treatments used to control their condition• Gather insights about treatments patients wish they could have• Contact those who consented for general case studies
The result• 700+ patients with psoriasis completed detailed survey, providing insights • 31 patients agreed to be the subject of a case study
What did we do next?• Helped the client to evaluate their product range• Developed disease awareness programme based around education & adherence• Developed case studies – used in disease awareness campaign
Final thoughts …
“Do listen to your patients; always have them at the centre of your thinking, that’s what makes the big, big difference”1
• Patient cohort very restrictive in clinical trials and evidence is lacking for patients generally seen in clinical practice
• Duration of therapy shorter
Clinical studies and access
• Specialist commissioning England
• No funding in Wales and Scotland
• No new clinical studies in pipeline
Project overview & timeline
• Project was conducted over 24 months from January 2012 to January 2014
• Establish a ‘Steering Committee Group’ (9 centres: Ireland and UK)
• Develop online Cayston Treatment Evaluator
• Data was extracted for 1 year pre- and up to 1 year post-Cayston
Develop online treatment evaluator Identify steering group
Define data collection parameter with each centre
Data collectionData entry by centres, analysis & review by steering group
Data analysisFinal data entry by centres, analysis & review by steering
group
Abstract submission
Feb 2012
Dec 2012
Jan 2013
Jan 2014
Positive resubmission to SMCJan 2015
Patient confidentiality
• All patient data was pseudo-anonymised and a unique patient ID created by the database
• Each centre was only able to see their own (anonymised) patients details and aggregated anonymised for the other centres
• Each centre was responsible for gaining local approval to share their data with the group
• The data was owned by the steering group, and managed by a third party (SVMPharma Limited)
Positive resubmission to SMC
• The clinical data used in the analysis came from the Cayston Treatment Evaluator (CTE), a retrospective database which collected data from 53 patients across nine cystic fibrosis centres in Ireland and the UK
• It should be noted that a subgroup analysis was also conducted in 31 patients who were not obtaining satisfactory therapeutic benefit with an inhaled tobramycin based regimen.
• SMC restriction: When inhaled colistimethate sodium and inhaled tobramycin are not tolerated or not providing satisfactory therapeutic benefit (measured as ≥2% decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]).
Xiapex: Postive NHS outcomes
Real World Evidence
Xiapex (Collagenase) Timeline
2011 Xiapex Licenced in EU
Minimal Use in UK
Most decision makers awaiting
further advice
2011 ELHT performs Cost Analysis and Commissions Drug
18 Month RWE Data Collection of
Use Begins
AWMSG Approval
SMC Approval
2014 Findings of RWE Data Collection
Presented
Data contributed to NICE Review
Background
• Xiapex (Collagenase) is the only non-surgical treatment for Dupuytren’s Contracture
• It is administered directly via injection
• It was licensed for use in the EU in 2011.
• Dupuytren’s contracture is a condition that affects the hands and fingers. It causes one or more fingers or the thumb to permanently bend into the palm of the hand.
Xiapex (Collagenase) Timeline
2011 Xiapex Licenced in EU
Minimal Use in UK
Most decision makers awaiting
further advice
2011 ELHT PCT Cost Analysis and Commissions Drug
18 Month RWE Data Collection of
Use Begins
AWMSG Approval
SMC Approval
2014 Findings of RWE Data Collection
Presented
Data contributed to NICE Review
Local commissioning body takes the lead
• East Lancashire PCT undertook a cost analysis in 2011 which found that Xiapex pathway was more cost-effective than surgery (£1700 versus £3000)
• They implemented a change in their policy for the purposes of: – Promotion of innovation and efficiency
– Encouraging emerging outcomes
– Supporting positive patient experience
• They initiated a 18 month Real World Evidence (RWE) data collection process for all patients using Xiapex
• Following this both AWMSG and SMC both approved use in 2012
Xiapex (Collagenase) Timeline
2011 Xiapex Licenced in EU
Minimal Use in UK
Most decision makers awaiting
further advice
2011 ELHT PCT Cost Analysis and Commissions Drug
18 Month RWE Data Collection of
Use Begins
AWMSG Approval
SMC Approval
2014 Findings of RWE Data Collection
Presented
Data contributed to NICE Review
Results of RWE Data collection
• Results of RWE data collection programme was presented in 2014
• Collagenase (Xiapex) injection has been the treatment option of choice for 68 patients since 2011 approval
• Results demonstrate – Significant improvements in the extension of the digits
– Quicker return to normal function
– A shorter period of hand therapy
• The results are “very promising” with high patient satisfaction.
• Results part of the NICE HTA
Xiapex (Collagenase) Timeline
2011 Xiapex Licenced in EU
Minimal Use in UK
Most decision makers awaiting
further advice
2011 East Lancashire PCT Cost Analysis and Commissions Drug
18 Month RWE Data Collection of
Use Begins
AWMSG Approval
SMC Approval
2014 Findings of RWE Data Collection
Presented
Data contributed to NICE Review
Visualisation In Big Data & Healthcare Analytics
A Cystic Fibrosis Case Study
Why do we need visualisation tools?
• Traditional written, tabular and graphical formats can be inadequate in conveying the findings
• Key details can be lost in summarising and aggregating the data.
• There a number of visualisation tools and solutions which have been proven to be valuable in identifying relationships and conveying information.
Cytoscape Gephi Nodebox
Tableau Circos
Cystic Fibrosis visualisation using Gephi
• SVMPharma carried out a data visualisation exercise using Gephi to show the multi-disciplinary nature of Cystic Fibrosis (CF) by highlighting its co-morbidities and associated health problems.
• 15,000 Cystic Fibrosis patients who visited hospital from 2010-2014 were selected by their ICD-10 code (diagnosis code) from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset.
• This provided 3,800 different ICD-10 codes and 25,000 different connections between them. The data was entered into Gephi, with each ICD-10 code represented by a node, and each different connection between them via a line.