IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v31y2022is1p25-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How real can we get in generating real world evidence? Exploring the opportunities of routinely collected administrative data for evaluation of medical devices

Author

Listed:
  • Benedetta Pongiglione
  • Aleksandra Torbica

Abstract

Real‐world data are considered a potentially valuable source of evidence for assessing medical technologies in clinical practice, but their widespread use is hampered by numerous challenges. Using the case of coronary stents in Italy, we investigate the potential of administrative databases for estimating costs and health outcomes associated with the use of medical devices in real world conditions. An administrative dataset was created ad hoc by merging hospital records from patients admitted between 2013 and 2019 for stent implantations with ambulatory records, pharmaceutical use data and vital statistics. Health outcomes were multifold: all‐cause and cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction, within 30 days, 1, 2, 5 years. Costs were estimated from the National Health System perspective. We used multivariable Cox models and propensity score (PS) methods (PS matching; stratification on PS; inverse probability of treatment weighting using PS; PS adjustment). 257,907 coronary stents were implanted in 113,912 patients. For all health outcomes and follow‐up times, and across all methods, patients receiving drug‐eluting stents (DES) presented lower risk. For all‐cause mortality, the DES patient advantage over bare‐metal stent (BMS) patients declined over time but remained significant even at 5 years. For myocardial infarction, results remained quite stable. The DES group presented lower cumulative total costs (ranging from 3264 to 2363 Euros less depending on methods). Our results confirm the consolidated evidence of the benefits of DES compared to BMS. The consistency of results across methods suggests internal validity of the study, while highlighting strengths and limitations of each depending on research context. Administrative data yield great potential to perform comparative effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness analysis of medical devices provided certain conditions are met.

Suggested Citation

  • Benedetta Pongiglione & Aleksandra Torbica, 2022. "How real can we get in generating real world evidence? Exploring the opportunities of routinely collected administrative data for evaluation of medical devices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 25-43, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:31:y:2022:i:s1:p:25-43
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.4562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4562
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.4562?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shuai Chen & Jennifer Rolfes & Hongwei Zhao, 2015. "Estimation of mean health care costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with possibly censored data," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 15(3), pages 698-711, September.
    2. Cappellaro, Giulia & Ghislandi, Simone & Anessi-Pessina, Eugenio, 2011. "Diffusion of medical technology: The role of financing," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 51-59, April.
    3. van der Wal, Willem M. & Geskus, Ronald B., 2011. "ipw: An R Package for Inverse Probability Weighting," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 43(i13).
    4. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 5-12, February.
    5. Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica & Michael Drummond, 2017. "Challenges in the Assessment of Medical Devices: The MedtecHTA Project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26, pages 5-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aleksandra Torbica & Rosanna Tarricone & Jonas Schreyögg & Mike Drummond, 2022. "Pushing the boundaries of evaluation, diffusion, and use of medical devices in Europe: Insights from the COMED project," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 1-9, September.
    2. Michael Drummond & Carlo Federici & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Aleksandra Torbica & Carl Rudolf Blankart & Oriana Ciani & Zoltán Kaló & Sándor Kovács & Werner Brouwer, 2022. "Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 179-194, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philip Klein & Hedwig Blommestein & Maiwenn Al & Benedetta Pongiglione & Aleksandra Torbica & Saskia de Groot, 2022. "Real‐world evidence in health technology assessment of high‐risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 10-24, September.
    2. Pedro Parreira & Liliana B. Sousa & Inês A. Marques & Paulo Santos-Costa & Sara Cortez & Filipa Carneiro & Arménio Cruz & Anabela Salgueiro-Oliveira, 2020. "Usability Assessment of an Innovative Device in Infusion Therapy: A Mix-Method Approach Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Carla Rognoni & Alessandro Furnari & Marzia Lugli & Oscar Maleti & Alessandro Greco & Rosanna Tarricone, 2023. "Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Capturing the Complexity of Healthcare Processes: The Case of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Leg Ulcers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    5. Martina F. Baumann & Daniel Frank & Lena-Charlotte Kulla & Thomas Stieglitz, 2020. "Obstacles to Prosthetic Care—Legal and Ethical Aspects of Access to Upper and Lower Limb Prosthetics in Germany and the Improvement of Prosthetic Care from a Social Perspective," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, January.
    6. Michael Drummond & Carlo Federici & Vivian Reckers‐Droog & Aleksandra Torbica & Carl Rudolf Blankart & Oriana Ciani & Zoltán Kaló & Sándor Kovács & Werner Brouwer, 2022. "Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 179-194, September.
    7. Michael Drummond & Rosanna Tarricone & Aleksandra Torbica, 2022. "European union regulation of health technology assessment: what is required for it to succeed?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 913-915, August.
    8. Tarricone, Rosanna & Amatucci, Fabio & Armeni, Patrizio & Banks, Helen & Borsoi, Ludovica & Callea, Giuditta & Ciani, Oriana & Costa, Francesco & Federici, Carlo & Torbica, Aleksandra & Marletta, Marc, 2021. "Establishing a national HTA program for medical devices in Italy: Overhauling a fragmented system to ensure value and equal access to new medical technologies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 602-608.
    9. Fuchs, Sabine & Olberg, Britta & Perleth, Matthias & Busse, Reinhard & Panteli, Dimitra, 2019. "Testing a new taxonomic model for the assessment of medical devices: Is it plausible and applicable? Insights from HTA reports and interviews with HTA institutions in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 173-181.
    10. Albert Stuart Reece & Gary Kenneth Hulse, 2022. "European Epidemiological Patterns of Cannabis- and Substance-Related Congenital Neurological Anomalies: Geospatiotemporal and Causal Inferential Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-35, December.
    11. Stjepan Srhoj & Michael Lapinski & Janette Walde, 2019. "Size matters? Impact evaluation of business development grants on SME performance," Working Papers 2019-14, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    12. Andrea Ciccarelli & Elena Fabrizi & Eleonora Romano & Pietro Zoppoli, 2022. "Health, Well-Being and Work History Patterns: Insight on Territorial Differences," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 629-647, June.
    13. Maximilian H. M. Hatz & Jonas Schreyögg & Aleksandra Torbica & Giuseppe Boriani & Carl R. B. Blankart, 2017. "Adoption Decisions for Medical Devices in the Field of Cardiology: Results from a European Survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 124-144, February.
    14. Sopany Saing & Naomi van der Linden & Christopher Hayward & Stephen Goodall, 2019. "Why is There Discordance between the Reimbursement of High-Cost ‘Life-Extending’ Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices? The Funding of Ventricular Assist Devices in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 421-431, August.
    15. Steffen Flessa & Claudia Huebner, 2021. "Innovations in Health Care—A Conceptual Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo & Guccio, Calogero & Pignataro, Giacomo & Rizzo, Ilde, 2014. "The effects of reimbursement mechanisms on medical technology diffusion in the hospital sector in the Italian NHS," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 215-229.
    17. Bonastre, Julia & Chevalier, Julie & Van der Laan, Chantal & Delibes, Michel & De Pouvourville, Gerard, 2014. "Access to innovation: Is there a difference in the use of expensive anticancer drugs between French hospitals?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 162-169.
    18. Patricia Ex & Cornelia Henschke, 2019. "Changing payment instruments and the utilisation of new medical technologies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(7), pages 1029-1039, September.
    19. Juraj Bodik, 2024. "Extreme Treatment Effect: Extrapolating Dose-Response Function into Extreme Treatment Domain," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-36, May.
    20. Kallus Nathan & Santacatterina Michele, 2021. "Optimal balancing of time-dependent confounders for marginal structural models," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 345-369, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:31:y:2022:i:s1:p:25-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.