Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:00:43.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coverage with evidence development: The Ontario experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

Leslie Levin ,
Ron Goeree ,
Mark Levine ,
Murray Krahn ,
Tony Easty ,
Adalstein Brown  and
David Henry
Leslie Levin
Affiliation:
University of Toronto and Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Ron Goeree
Affiliation:
McMaster University and St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Mark Levine
Affiliation:
McMaster University and Ontario Clinical Oncology Group
Murray Krahn
Affiliation:
University of Toronto and Toronto Health and Technology Assessment Collaborative
Tony Easty
Affiliation:
University of Toronto and University Health Network
Adalstein Brown
Affiliation:
University of Toronto and St. Michael's Hospital
David Henry
Affiliation:
University of Toronto and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: For non-drug technologies, there is often residual uncertainty following systematic review, mainly due to inadequate evidence of efficacy. The unwillingness to make decisions in the presence of uncertainty may lead to passive diffusion and intuitive decision making with or without public pressure. This may affect health system sustainability. There is increasing interest in post-market evaluation through processes that include coverage with evidence development (CED) to address residual uncertainty regarding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Global experience of CED has been slow to develop despite their potential contribution to decision making.

Methods: Ontario's field evaluation program to better inform decision making represents a collaboration between physicians, policy decision makers and academic centers. We report results of the first ten CEDs from this program to assess whether they achieved their objective of influencing policy by addressing residual uncertainty following systematic review.

Results: Since 2003, nineteen field evaluation studies to resolve residual uncertainty following systematic review have been completed, ten of which met the criteria of CED and are the focus of this report. There was more than one patient subgroup or intervention in three of the CEDs. This provided the basis for evaluating thirteen outcomes. In each case, the CED addressed the uncertainty and led to a decision based on the systematic review and CED result. The CEDs led to adoption of the technology in six instances, modified adoption in three instances and withdrawal in four instances.

Conclusions: CED makes an important contribution to translating evidence to decision making. Methodologies are needed to increase the scope and reduce timelines for CEDs, such as the use of linked comprehensive and robust data sets and collaborative studies with other jurisdictions. CED before making long-term funding decisions, especially where there is uncertainty of effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness, should be increasingly funded by health systems.

Keywords

Coverage with evidence developmentPost-market evaluationHealth systemsPolicyEvidence-based decisionsField evaluation studiesMedical Advisory SecretariatOntario Health Technology Advisory Committee
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 159 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Atkins, D, Best, D, Briss, PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.Google ScholarPubMed
2. Chalkidou, K, Hoy, A, Littlejohns, P. Making a decision to wait for more evidence: When the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:453–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Chalkidou, K, Tunis, S, Lopert, R, et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: Experience from four countries. Milbank Q. 2009;87:339–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Chow, BJW, Freeman, MR, Bowen, JM, et al. For the OMCAS Investigators. Ontario Multi-Director Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography Study (OMCAS): A field evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. Arch Intern Med. (in press).Google Scholar
5. Clarke, PM, Gray, AM, Briggs, A, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia. 2004;47:1747–1759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Claxton, K, Briggs, A, Buxton, MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: An opportunity not to be missed? BMJ. 2008;336:251–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Evans, WK, Laupacis, A, Gulenchyn, KY, Levin, L, Levine, M. Evidence-based approach to the introduction of positron emission tomography in Ontario, Canada. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5607–5613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Feder, BJ. Doctors rethink widespread use of heart stents. October 21, 2006. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/business/21stent.html (accessed December 2, 2009).Google Scholar
9. Goeree, R, Levin, L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE framework – an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1143–1156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Health technology assessment of positron emission tomography (PET) – A systematic review. May 2001. http://www.ices.on.ca/file/Health_Technology_Assessment-PET_May-2001.pdf (accessed December 2, 2009).Google Scholar
11. Johnson, AP, Sikich, NJ, Evans, G, et al. Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:141–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Levin, L, Goeree, R, Sikich, N, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:299–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Maziak, DE, Darling, GE, Inculet, RI, et al. Positron emission tomography in staging early lung cancer: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:221–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: An evidence-based analysis. Ontario Health Technol Assess Ser. [Internet]. 2002;2:1–46. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/rev_evar_030102.pdf.Google Scholar
15. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Non-invasive cardiac imaging technologies for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: A summary of evidence-based analyses. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. [Internet]. 2010;10:1–40. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/cardiac_aggregate_20100527.pdf.Google Scholar
16. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Diabetes strategy evidence platform: A summary of evidence-based analyses. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009;9:1–43. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/rev_diabetes_sum_20091020.pdf.Google Scholar
17. Morice, MC, Serruys, PW, Sousa, JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1773–1780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Moses, JW, Leon, MB, Popma, JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1315–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Research and development strategy. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/R&D_strategy_2006.pdf. (accessed Decem-ber 2, 2009).Google Scholar
20. Neumann, PJ, Tunis, SR. Medicare and medical technology—the growing demand for relevant outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:377–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. O'Reilly, D, Hopkins, R, Blackhouse, G, et al. Long-term cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary primary care diabetes management program in Ontario. Can J Diabetes. 2007;31:205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Pritchard, KI, Julian, J, McCready, D. A prospective study evaluating 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in the assessment of axillary nodal spread in women undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26 (Suppl):533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Stadtmauer, EA, O'Neill, A, Goldstein, LJ, et al. Conventional-dose chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer. Philadelphia Bone Marrow Transplant Group. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1069–1076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Tanenbaum, SJ. “Medical effectiveness” in Canadian and U.S. health policy: The comparative politics of inferential ambiguity. Health Serv Res. 1996;31:517–532.Google ScholarPubMed
25. Tarride, JE, Blackhouse, G, De Rose, G, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of elective endovascular repair compared with open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms for patients at a high surgical risk: A 1-year patient-level analysis conducted in Ontario, Canada. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48:779–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Tu, JV, Bowen, J, Chiu, M, et al. Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1393–1402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Tunis, SR, Pearson, SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's ‘coverage with evidence development’. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:1218–1230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Tunis, SR, Stryer, DB, Clancy, CM. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–1632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Ung, Y, Sun, A, MacRae, R. Impact of positron emission tomography (PET) in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A prospective randomized trial (PET START). J Clin Oncol. 2009;27: 15(Suppl):7548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Whicher, DM, Chalkidou, K, Dhalla, IA, Levin, L, Tunis, S. Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada: Producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers. Milbank Q. 2009;87:585–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed