• Outcomes Research and Real-World Evidence for Women’s Health

    Outcomes Research and Real-World Evidence for Women’s Health

    Within the broader spectrum of healthcare, women represent a significant and distinct demographic with unique health needs and outcomes, underscoring the importance of focused research in this domain. The realm of women’s health research is vast and vital, addressing conditions and diseases that predominantly or exclusively affect women, such as reproductive health issues, breast and cervical cancers, and osteoporosis. Women’s health research also sheds light on how common conditions like cardiovascular diseases and autoimmune disorders present and progress differently in women compared to men. Another compelling reason to prioritize women’s health research is the significant physiological and hormonal distinctions between women and men, which can profoundly influence disease manifestation, progression, and treatment response. For example, cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death among women globally, often exhibits atypical symptoms in women, such as fatigue and shortness of breath, rather than the classic chest pain.[1]

    However, traditional research methods often overlook these gender differences. For instance, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often exclude pregnant women: even though such an exclusion is justified from the foetal viewpoint, such exclusions bring in inadequacy in women’s health research. Such inadequacies highlight the necessity for gathering research insights from real-world data (RWD), thereby complementing evidence from controlled settings. Thus, outcomes research and real-world evidence (RWE) becomes an important source of research information for women’s health.[2]

    Outcomes research and RWE play a pivotal role in addressing health disparities among women, particularly in maternal care. Preapproval clinical trials typically exclude pregnant women, necessitating reliance on post-approval controlled observational studies to gather evidence on pregnancy safety essential for drug labels. Regulatory agencies increasingly recommend complementing pregnancy registries and case-control studies with pregnancy cohorts nested within healthcare utilization databases, such as national registries, electronic medical records (e.g., Clinical Practice Research Datalink), and insurance claims. The utilization of RWE has uncovered significant disparities in maternal health outcomes, fostering health equity and improving overall outcomes for women.[3-7]

    In cancer care, RWE has been instrumental in advancing treatment strategies for women. Breast cancer, the most common cancer among women, has benefited significantly from real-world studies. RWE has been known to support clinical guidelines by providing data on specific subgroups of patients not well-represented in RCTs. For example, in early-relapsing HER2+ advanced breast cancer, RWE has provided valuable insights into treatment outcomes, helping to guide clinical decision-making and refine treatment protocols. Subsequently, RWE and outcomes research have facilitated a deeper understanding of the real-world efficacy of hormone therapies and the impact of different chemotherapy regimens on diverse patient populations. This has led to more personalized treatment plans that consider the unique needs of each patient, fostering improved communication between physicians and patients and enhancing overall care and outcomes for women with breast cancer.[7-9]

    Another critical facet of women’s health research involves the inclusion of all age groups, from adolescence to post-menopause, each life stage presenting unique health challenges. RWE serves as a cornerstone in shaping interventions tailored to these diverse needs. For instance, a 2022 study revealed the influence of social media on the mental health of young girls, emphasizing the need for interventions promoting positive body image. Conversely, for older women, real-world data has yielded insights into treatment effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes, guiding healthcare strategies to address age-specific health concerns.[9-12]

    In conclusion, the outcomes research and RWE are indispensable for advancing women’s health. By illuminating the intricacies of disease presentation, treatment outcomes, and healthcare disparities, these methodologies empower healthcare practitioners to deliver more personalized, effective, and equitable care to women across diverse demographics and life stages. From addressing cardiovascular disease manifestations to improving maternal care and refining breast cancer treatment strategies, outcomes research and RWE play a pivotal role in ensuring that healthcare solutions are truly reflective of and responsive to the needs of all women, from adolescence to post-menopause. Through these approaches, we continue to break barriers, promote health equity, and enhance the quality of care for women worldwide.

    Become A Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!

    References:

    1. Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us. 2016 Dec 8;375(23):2293-7.
    2. Siristatidis C, Karageorgiou V, Vogiatzi P. Current Issues on Research Conducted to Improve Women’s Health. Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Jan 17;9(1):92. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9010092.
    3. Why we know so little about women’s health. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/news/why-we-know-so-little-about-women-s-health.
    4. Heyrana K, Byers HM, Stratton P. Increasing the participation of pregnant women in clinical trials. Jama. 2018 Nov 27;320(20):2077-8.
    5. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide.
    6. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: establishing pregnancy exposure registries. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/75607
    7. Mitchell AA. Systematic identification of drugs that cause birth defects—a new opportunity. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003 Dec 25;349(26):2556-9.
    8. Huybrechts KF, Bateman BT, Hernández‐Díaz S. Use of real‐world evidence from healthcare utilization data to evaluate drug safety during pregnancy. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. 2019 Jul;28(7):906-22.
    9. Schettini F, Conte B, Buono G, et al. T-DM1 versus pertuzumab, trastuzumab and a taxane as first-line therapy of early-relapsed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: an Italian multicenter observational study. ESMO open. 2021 Apr 1;6(2):100099.
    10. DuBenske LL, Schrager SB, Hitchcock ME, et alKey elements of mammography shared decision-making: a scoping review of the literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2018 Oct;33:1805-14.
    11. Papageorgiou A, Fisher C, Cross D. Why don’t I look like her? How adolescent girls view social media and its connection to body image. BMC women’s health. 2022 Jun 27;22(1):261.
    12. Maruszczyk K, Aiyegbusi OL, Torlinska B, et al. Systematic review of guidance for the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes in real-world evidence generation to support regulation, reimbursement and health policy. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2022 Jun 2;6(1):57.
  • Health Economics of Personalized Medicine: Need of the Hour

    Health Economics of Personalized Medicine: Need of the Hour

    The discipline of ‘health economics’ has significantly progressed to become more inclusive, beginning with only cost-benefit analyses of public health programs, such as vaccinations, to evolving into a large area of health technology assessments (HTA). Cost-effectiveness analyses are a routine practice in HTA and are performed virtually for every new health technology. Healthcare industry as well as payers are hugely dependent on the cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the value of new technologies as well as to define their pricing and coverage decision making. (1)

    However, ‘affordability’ criterion by the payers has made the costlier options available, thus creating an overall depressed outlook towards healthcare delivery. Moreover, medical innovation happens incrementally, putting additional costs on healthcare systems. These concerns surrounding affordability and financial stability have fuelled the need for new concepts to go beyond ‘price-per-pill’ and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). This debate about rising costs of care also opens the discussion about rewarding innovation and sustaining R&D investments while balancing affordability and equitable access to innovation. Moreover, the potential value these new treatments would bring to patient as well as to the society also need to be assessed. (1) It’s time for decision makers to recognize efficient medical strategies in order to choose the right interventions for maximizing the achievable benefits for the patient within the available budgets. It is especially important when the healthcare industry is riddled with arguments regarding risk-sharing and alternative pricing models or the potential impact of radical new approaches like personalized medicine. (1)

    The approach of personalised medicine is expected to enhance the patients’ quality of life while also increasing the quality of clinical practice and targeted care pathways. Moreover, it is slated to reduce overall healthcare costs through strategies, such as early-detection, prevention, accurate risk assessments and efficiencies in care delivery. (2) However, there is lack of consensus about the definition of personalized medicine. The Personalized Medicine Special Interest Group of the ISPOR defines it as, “the use of genetic or other biomarker information to improve the safety, effectiveness, and health outcomes of patients via more efficiently targeted risk stratification, prevention, and tailored medication and treatment-management approaches”. (3) Whereas, other definitions emphasize on the aspects of “stratified medicine” among sub-populations defined in different ways, not simply by genomic information, and whose orientation is somewhat less “personalized” but more “population-based”. (4,5)

    Findings from many economic evaluations have shown personalized medicine to promise greater efficiency and effectiveness in health care. Many researchers, at both the “macro” and “micro” economic policy levels, have even shown how personalized medicine can help target appropriate patients, and also how this can yield positive net benefit to manufacturers, payers, as well as governments as a whole. These new/revamped economic evaluation methods will help the ecosystem to explore competent approaches that appropriately and successfully value new technologies. (5)

    Despite many benefits, the personalized approach faces a wide range of challenges. Consequently, significant evidence on the benefits of this approach have been recently outlined in a joint report by the European Biopharmaceutical Enterprises (EBE) and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). It provides substantial examples of enhanced efficacy of medicinal treatments, better prevention and prediction of diseases, reduced hospitalisation, thereby decreasing the costs; and more effective and ethical clinical trials. Implementing the policy recommendations from this report will certainly enable an equitable access for patients to such innovative medicines. (6) Furthermore, the manifesto of the EBE-EFPIA Personalised Medicine Working Group aims to emphasize on policy elements for ensuring that personalised medicines and the respective diagnostic tests, also called companion diagnostics, successfully reach patients. (7)

    Existing health economic research shows that the approach of personalized medicine can significantly improve effectiveness, eventually reducing costs. Furthermore, biomarker testing may lead to more successful R&D projects. However, the value of so-called bespoke therapies relies largely on the quality of the manufacturer; i.e. adapting to both regulatory and market structures is necessary to encourage the development of personalised medicine. (8)

    Become an Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!

    References 

    1. Ethgen O, Staginnus U. The future of health economics. Taylor and Francis Group: Routledge. 2017.
    2. Mollette A. Health economics of future therapeutic concepts. DIA Europe 2018.
    3. Faulkner E, Annemans L, Garrison L, et al. Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine- payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health economics and outcomes research: a report of the ISPOR Personalized Medicine Special Interest Group. Value Health 2012; 15:1162-71.
    4. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1962.
    5. O’Donnell JC. Personalized medicine and the role of health economics and outcomes research: issues, applications, emerging trends, and future research. Value Health. 2013; 16(6 Suppl):S1-3.
    6. EFPIA. New EBE-EFPIA study demonstrates benefits of personalised medicine for patients, society and healthcare systems and makes recommendations for equitable access for patients in Europe. July, 2018. 
    7. EBE-EFPIA Set Out Policy Positions in Their Personalised Medicines Manifesto. September, 2017. 
    8. Roediger A. Personalised medicine: Health Economic Aspects. April, 2013. 

    Blog written by: Ms. Tanvi Laghate