Recommendations to overcome barriers to the use of artificial intelligence-driven evidence in health technology assessment.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has attracted much attention because of its enormous potential in healthcare, but uptake has been slow. There are substantial barriers that challenge health technology assessment (HTA) professionals to use AI-generated evidence for decision-making from large real-world databases (e.g., based on claims data). As part of the European Commission-funded HTx H2020 (Next Generation Health Technology Assessment) project, we aimed to put forward recommendations to support healthcare decision-makers in integrating AI into the HTA processes. The barriers, addressed by the paper, are particularly focusing on Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, where the implementation of HTA and access to health databases lag behind Western European countries. Methods: We constructed a survey to rank the barriers to using AI for HTA purposes, completed by respondents from CEE jurisdictions with expertise in HTA. Using the results, two members of the HTx consortium from CEE developed recommendations on the most critical barriers. Then these recommendations were discussed in a workshop by a wider group of experts, including HTA and reimbursement decision-makers from both CEE countries and Western European countries, and summarized in a consensus report. Results: Recommendations have been developed to address the top 15 barriers in areas of (1) human factor-related barriers, focusing on educating HTA doers and users, establishing collaborations and best practice sharing; (2) regulatory and policy-related barriers, proposing increasing awareness and political commitment and improving the management of sensitive information for AI use; (3) data-related barriers, suggesting enhancing standardization and collaboration with data networks, managing missing and unstructured data, using analytical and statistical approaches to address bias, using quality assessment tools and quality standards, improving reporting, and developing better conditions for the use of data; and (4) technological barriers, suggesting sustainable development of AI infrastructure. Conclusion: In the field of HTA, the great potential of AI to support evidence generation and evaluation has not yet been sufficiently explored and realized. Raising awareness of the intended and unintended consequences of AI-based methods and encouraging political commitment from policymakers is necessary to upgrade the regulatory and infrastructural environment and knowledge base required to integrate AI into HTA-based decision-making processes better.

Guidance on using real-world evidence from Western Europe in Central and Eastern European health policy decision making.

Aim: Real-world data and real-world evidence (RWE) are becoming more important for healthcare decision making and health technology assessment. We aimed to propose solutions to overcome barriers preventing Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries from using RWE generated in Western Europe. Materials & methods: To achieve this, following a scoping review and a webinar, the most important barriers were selected through a survey. A workshop was held with CEE experts to discuss proposed solutions. Results: Based on survey results, we selected the nine most important barriers. Multiple solutions were proposed, for example, the need for a European consensus, and building trust in using RWE. Conclusion: Through collaboration with regional stakeholders, we proposed a list of solutions to overcome barriers on transferring RWE from Western Europe to CEE countries.

Risk of lower extremity amputations in patients with type 2 diabetes using sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors.

AIMS: To compare the influence of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) on the risk of lower extremity amputations in patients with type 2 diabetes in Slovenia. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 40 years or more who were administered a newly introduced SGLT2i or DPP-4i between June 2014 and June 2018. Patients treated with insulin at baseline and patients with a history of amputation were excluded. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. Survival analysis was performed; hazard ratio (HR) and ratios of cumulative hazards at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were estimated. On-treatment and intention-to-treat approaches were used. RESULTS: The study cohort (mean age: 64 years) consisted of 2,939 new users of SGLT2i (empagliflozin, 59%; dapagliflozin, 41%) matched to 2,939 new users of DPP-4i. In the on-treatment analysis (median follow-up of 2 years), the incidence of amputations was higher in SGLT2i than in DPP-4i users (4.2 vs. 2.7 per 1,000 patient years), resulting in a HR of 1.58 (95% CI 0.85-2.92; p = 0.145). An intention-to-treat analysis yielded to similar HR of 1.86 (95% CI: 1.10-3.14; p = 0.020). There was no difference in amputation rates in the first two years, but SGLT2i users had a 2.81-fold higher (95% CI: 1.63-4.84; p = 0.007) cumulative hazard of amputation at 4 years than did DPP-4i users. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DPP-4i use, SGLT2i use did not result in a statistically significant higher overall risk of lower extremity amputations. However, the results suggest that SGLT2i may increase the risk of amputation with long-term use.

Initiation of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: An observational study.

The aim of the study was to assess the initiation of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes using health claims data on prescription medicines. The study evaluated time to insulin initiation and prescribing patterns of other anti-diabetic medicines before and after insulin initiation. Five years after starting non-insulin antidiabetic therapy, 6.4 % of patients were prescribed insulin, which is substantially lower compared to other similar studies. Among all patients who initiated insulin therapy in 2013, 30 % did not continue any other antidiabetic therapy. However, this proportion was lowered to 20 % in 2018. Before insulin initiation in 2018, metformin was prescribed in only 67 % of patients and sulfonylureas in 78 % of patients. Moreover, metformin and sulfonylureas were discontinued after insulin initiation in 26 and 37 % of patients, resp. More attention should be paid to the continuation of oral anti-diabetics, particularly metformin, after insulin initiation.

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes using novel antidiabetic medicines as add-on therapy: an observational real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) as add-on therapy on cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). DESIGN AND SETTING: A nationwide cohort study using three linked healthcare databases from Slovenia (outpatient prescription claims data, hospitalisation claims data and death registry data). PARTICIPANTS: Patients with T2D with newly introduced DPP-4i (n=3817), GLP-1RA (n=855) or SGLT2i (n=2851) add-on therapy between June 2014 and June 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a major adverse CV event (MACE), while the secondary outcomes were CV death and heart failure (HF). The effects of the antidiabetic medicine group on the risk of each outcome were estimated with Cox proportional hazards regression. Intention-to-treat and on-treatment approaches were used. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, SGLT2i as add-on therapy, when compared with DPP-4i, was associated with lower risk of MACE (HR=0.66; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.85; p=0.002) and CV death (HR=0.46; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73; p=0.001). On-treatment analysis revealed lower HF risk in patients initiating SGLT2i (HR=0.54; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; p=0.047). In the intention-to-treat analysis, GLP-1RA add-on therapy was associated with a lower MACE risk when compared with DPP-4i (HR=0.64; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; p=0.034), but it had a non-significant effect on CV death (HR=0.62; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.14; p=0.128) and HF (HR=1.39; 95% CI 0.88 to 2.21; p=0.157). The results of on-treatment analyses were in agreement with the results of intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i and GLP-1RA improved CV morbidity and mortality in patients with T2D when compared with DPP-4i as an add-on therapy. The results of this study may serve as a basis for the selection of an optimal add-on antidiabetic medicine to reduce CV morbidity and mortality in patients with T2D in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUPAS32558.

Pharmacy-supported interventions at transitions of care: an umbrella review.

Background Medication discrepancies arising at care transitions are prevalent and are linked with adverse drug events and increased healthcare utilization. Evidence is lacking about which pharmacy-supported interventions at care transitions are most effective for both the patient and the healthcare system. Aim of the review To invesitigate the content and effect of pharmacy-supported interventions at transitions of care. Method The PubMed, Ovid/Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were used. The search was limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in English up to May 2018. Included reviews investigated any intervention related to medication therapy performed by pharmacists or multiple healthcare professionals, including a pharmacist, at transition points in any healthcare setting. Reviews were excluded if interventions were not clearly defined or were not performed at care transitions or were not related to medications. A quality assessment was performed using the PRISMA guidelines. The data extracted included general characteristics, methodology, point of transition, pharmacy-supported interventions and outcomes. For systematic reviews, narrative conclusions were extracted. For meta analyses, reported relative risks or odds ratios were extracted along with the 95% confidence intervals. Results Nine systematic reviews and 5 meta-analyses reporting 162 studies were included. The interventions analysed included medication reconciliation (7 reviews) and composite interventions (7 reviews). Six studies reviewed interventions performed by pharmacists alone, while 8 studies explored interventions by different healthcare professionals, including a pharmacist. A positive effect on either medication discrepancies or (potential) ADEs was observed in all reviews. Mixed effects were observed for hospitalizations rates (9 reviews) and costs (4 reviews), regardless of the intervention applied. Mixed effects were also observed for both medication reconciliation and composite interventions on the number of emergency department visit. Interventions showed no significant effect on mortality (4 reviews). The quality of the reviews showed significant variability. Conclusion Pharmacy-supported interventions at transitions of care are heterogeneous and potentially improve medication safety, but show no significant effect on mortality. The effect on healthcare utilization and costs is inconclusive.