Quality improvement programmes (QIPs) are designed to enhance patient outcomes by systematically introducing evidence-based clinical practices. The CONQUEST QIP focuses on improving the identification and management of patients with COPD in primary care. The process of developing CONQUEST, recruiting, preparing systems for participation, and implementing the QIP across three integrated healthcare systems (IHSs) is examined to identify and share lessons learned.

This review is organized into three stages: 1) development, 2) preparing IHSs for implementation, and 3) implementation. In each stage, key steps are described with the lessons learned and how they can inform others interested in developing QIPs designed to improve the care of patients with chronic conditions in primary care.

Stage 1 was establishing and working with steering committees to develop the QIP Quality Standards, define the target patient population, assess current management practices, and create a global operational protocol. Additionally, potential IHSs were assessed for feasibility of QIP integration into primary care practices. Factors assessed included a review of technological infrastructure, QI experience, and capacity for effective implementation.

Stage 2 was preparation for implementation. Key was enlisting clinical champions to advocate for the QIP, secure participation in primary care, and establish effective communication channels. Preparation for implementation required obtaining IHS approvals, ensuring Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance, and devising operational strategies for patient outreach and clinical decision support delivery.

Stage 3 was developing three IHS implementation models. With insight into the local context from local clinicians, implementation models were adapted to work with the resources and capacity of the IHSs while ensuring the delivery of essential elements of the programme.

Developing and launching a QIP programme across primary care practices requires extensive groundwork, preparation, and committed local champions to assist in building an adaptable environment that encourages open communication and is receptive to feedback.

It remains unclear which individuals with subthreshold depression benefit most from psychological intervention, and what long-term effects this has on symptom deterioration, response and remission.

To synthesise psychological intervention benefits in adults with subthreshold depression up to 2 years, and explore participant-level effect-modifiers.

Randomised trials comparing psychological intervention with inactive control were identified via systematic search. Authors were contacted to obtain individual participant data (IPD), analysed using Bayesian one-stage meta-analysis. Treatment–covariate interactions were added to examine moderators. Hierarchical-additive models were used to explore treatment benefits conditional on baseline Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) values.

IPD of 10 671 individuals (50 studies) could be included. We found significant effects on depressive symptom severity up to 12 months (standardised mean-difference [s.m.d.] = −0.48 to −0.27). Effects could not be ascertained up to 24 months (s.m.d. = −0.18). Similar findings emerged for 50% symptom reduction (relative risk = 1.27–2.79), reliable improvement (relative risk = 1.38–3.17), deterioration (relative risk = 0.67–0.54) and close-to-symptom-free status (relative risk = 1.41–2.80). Among participant-level moderators, only initial depression and anxiety severity were highly credible (P > 0.99). Predicted treatment benefits decreased with lower symptom severity but remained minimally important even for very mild symptoms (s.m.d. = −0.33 for PHQ-9 = 5).

Psychological intervention reduces the symptom burden in individuals with subthreshold depression up to 1 year, and protects against symptom deterioration. Benefits up to 2 years are less certain. We find strong support for intervention in subthreshold depression, particularly with PHQ-9 scores ≥ 10. For very mild symptoms, scalable treatments could be an attractive option.

Following a health technology assessment, the Health Service Executive (HSE) supported reimbursement of dupilumab subject to a managed access protocol (MAP) being implemented. Reimbursement is restricted to a subgroup of the fully licensed indication, that is, moderate-to-severe refractory atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and adolescents 12 years and older. This study provides an overview of the first year of the MAP.

All reimbursement applications submitted to the HSE Medicines Management Programme between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022 were reviewed. Key demographic and clinical characteristics of the approved population were analyzed. Reimbursement claims data within the specified period were extracted from the HSE Primary Care Reimbursement Services national pharmacy claims database. All data were compiled and analyzed using SPSS Statistics 27. Expenditure estimates were based on wholesale prices and were exclusive of value-added tax, fees, and confidential rebates.

During the study period, 382 applications were submitted, 96 percent (n=365) of which were approved. Among approved patients, the mean age was 35 years (range 12 to 79 years), the mean number of years between AD diagnosis and approval was 22.65 years (range 1 to 78 years), and 65 percent (n=238) were men. The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score was 28.72 and the mean (Children’s) Dermatology Life Quality Index score was 19.72. Approved patients who had unsuccessfully tried other systemic immunosuppressants had trialed up to five different medicines (mean=1.6). Year one expenditure was EUR2.4million, with 70 percent of approved patients accessing treatment.

Most applications submitted through the MAP were approved. These patients met the predefined evidence-based eligibility criteria for treatment. Patient numbers were higher than estimated, suggesting that the MAP did not hinder access. Utilizing health technology management by way of a MAP has facilitated access to expensive medicines for patients with the greatest need, while controlling expenditure for the payer.

The Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment (HTAR) for medicines will come into effect in January 2025; initially, new oncology medicines and advanced therapy medicinal products will be assessed at EU level. How will this work in practice? What does this mean for national HTA bodies, such as the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) Ireland that uses a cost-effectiveness framework to inform decision-making for medicines?

Joint work to be conducted under the Regulation includes joint clinical assessments (JCA), joint scientific consultations (JSC), and production of procedures and methodological guidance. A review was undertaken of key areas that will be impacted by the HTAR in the Irish HTA process for medicines, including timing, evidence synthesis structure, capacity building, and resource implications.

The HTAR will alter the current process for medicines assessment in Ireland, from early scientific advice to cost-effectiveness assessment post-authorization. JSCs will represent an additional step. Significant training and capacity implications are associated with the JCA, which will require earlier engagement with stakeholders. The NCPE’s pragmatic HTA early triaging process, the “Rapid Review,” may be delayed due to the non-duplication clause in the HTAR. The availability of high-quality comparative effectiveness evidence may help avoid full HTAs in some cases. The benefit of the JCA will be realized if the results can directly inform treatment-effectiveness estimates in cost-effectiveness modeling.

The HTAR will significantly impact on medicines reimbursement procedures in Ireland. For the HTAR to be effective in achieving its aims, sufficient resources will need to be built into the EU HTA system. The balance between the extra resources needed and the resources spared will depend on the quality of the comparative effectiveness evidence available for the JCA.

Surrogate endpoints are increasingly being used in the pivotal trials of cancer drugs to underpin (conditional) regulatory approval. We examined the relationship between the use of surrogate measures in pivotal trials underpinning cancer drug approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2017 and 2022 and health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations made by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics in Ireland (NCPE).

A previously published methodology was used to identify cancer drug indications that received (conditional) marketing authorization between 2017 and 2022, inclusive. EMA-approved cancer drugs were categorized using the following benefit categories, based on pivotal trial endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease response (DR), and single-arm trials (SATs). The NCPE website was searched to identify indications that had undergone, at least, a rapid review (RR) assessment. The NCPE recommendation for each assessment was recorded. Additional data including the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain reported in cost-effectiveness analyses were extracted for indications that had undergone a full HTA.

One hundred and eight cancer drug indications were identified, comprising 68 cancer drugs. In 2017, OS, PFS, and SAT benefit underpinned equal proportions of approvals (28.6% each). In 2022, SAT underpinned the largest proportion of approvals (53.6%). As of June 2023, 77 indications (71.3%) had undergone at least a RR assessment; 31 indications had completed a full HTA appraisal. All of the indications underpinned by SAT evidence (n=7) received a conditional negative recommendation. Indications with SAT evidence had a mean incremental QALY gain of 1.88 (standard deviation [SD] 1.20), whereas indications with an OS benefit had a mean incremental QALY gain of 0.81 (SD 0.36).

The proportion of cancer drug indications receiving regulatory approval on the basis of SAT evidence, where no direct comparative evidence is available, is increasing. This results in additional uncertainty in the comparative benefit of cancer drugs supported by SAT evidence. The study is limited by the sample size of HTA appraisals included. Further in-depth analysis of factors influencing NCPE recommendations is needed.

The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP MABs) erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab are reimbursed in Ireland under the High Tech Arrangement, subject to a managed access protocol (MAP), for the prophylaxis of chronic migraine in adults in whom three or more prophylactic treatments have failed. This study provides an overview of submitted reimbursement applications and the utilization of CGRP MABs.

The MAP for CGRP MABs was introduced on 1 September 2021 and is operated by the Health Service Executive (HSE) Medicines Management Programme. Individual patient reimbursement applications for CGRP MABs submitted through an online reimbursement application system between 1 September 2021 and 30 April 2023 were reviewed. Utilization data from 1 September 2021 to 30 April 2023 were extracted from the HSE Primary Care Reimbursement Service national pharmacy reimbursement claims database for the High Tech Arrangement. Analysis was performed using SAS® 9.4 software.

A total of 1,517 reimbursement applications were submitted in the study period. Reimbursement was approved for 96.1 percent (n=1,458) of the applications. A total of 1,399 individual patients (mean age 45 years) were dispensed a CGRP MAB under the High Tech Arrangement between September 2021 and April 2023, the majority of whom were women (n=1,141). Almost 90 percent of patients were considered treatment adherent. In April 2023, the market share of the individual CGRP MABs on the High Tech Arrangement was 56 percent (n=599) for fremanezumab, 38.3 percent (n=409) for erenumab, and 5.7 percent (n=61) for galcanezumab.

MAPs are part of the health technology management approach to drug reimbursement in the Irish healthcare setting, ensuring that reimbursement is in line with approved subgroups of the licensed indication. Used in conjunction with health technology assessment, MAPs enable access to high-cost drug treatments for patients with the greatest unmet need, while providing budgetary oversight and certainty for the payer.

Time to reimbursement has been described as a hurdle to availability of new medicines to European patients, with assessment and decision-making processes frequently quoted as taking the majority of time. In light of the upcoming Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment (HTAR), the aim was to examine timelines and health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations for orphan drugs in Ireland.

The study reviewed all orphan drug submissions to the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) from January 2020 to December 2023 inclusive. The number of days from marketing authorization to rapid review (RR) commissioning was calculated. The RR and HTA recommendations were identified for all medicines. The timelines for the RR and HTA process were evaluated.

Of the 66 submissions identified, 38 percent were made prior to marketing authorization (MA), eight percent were made within 30 days of MA, and 79 percent were made 30 days post MA. RRs were completed within 32 days (mean). Full HTA was recommended in 62 percent (n=41). Price negotiations were recommended in 38 percent (50% of which have been reimbursed to date). Where a full HTA was recommended (n=41), 20 have been completed to date (price negotiations were recommended in 90%). For those 20 HTAs completed, 11 have been reimbursed to date; a decision is pending for the remainder. HTAs were completed within 200 days (mean).

Data shows that the majority of submissions were made 30 days post MA. A pragmatic approach may have to be taken nationally to accommodate the HTAR post 2024 and those submissions that are made prior to publication of a joint clinical assessment. The majority of orphan drug HTA recommendations lead to reimbursement recommendations.

Increasingly in Ireland, there are specific criteria attached to reimbursement approval for new medicines. Health technology assessment (HTA) identifies where uncertainty is greatest in relation to clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence and budget impact estimates; our health technology management (HTM) approach uses these outputs from HTA to design protocols to manage these uncertainties in the post-reimbursement phase.

A bespoke managed access protocol (MAP) is developed for each medicine reimbursed under this approach, informed by uncertainties highlighted in the HTA, directions from the decision-maker, and relevant particulars arising from commercial negotiations. Individual patient reimbursement applications are submitted via an online application system linked directly to the national pharmacy claims system. Pharmacists review the applications and approve reimbursement support where the patient meets the reimbursement criteria. The process is adaptive, allowing expansion of the criteria to include previously excluded patient cohorts, and the addition of new indications. It can also work across differing reimbursement arrangements (hospital/primary care).

The MAP for liraglutide for weight management confines reimbursement to patients with a body mass index greater than or equal to 35 kg/m², prediabetes, and high risk for cardiovascular disease. Phase I reimbursement support lasts for six months; patients not attaining greater than or equal to five percent weight loss are deemed non-responders as per the HTA, and reimbursement support is discontinued. The MAP for dupilumab confined reimbursement support to adults with refractory moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, where cost-effectiveness was plausible in the HTA. The MAP for calcitonin-gene-related-peptides monoclonal antibodies confines reimbursement support to patients with chronic migraine, refractory to at least three prophylactic treatments, where cost-effectiveness was plausible in the HTA.

Across these MAPs, over 3,000 patients accessed novel treatments for chronic illnesses in September 2023. HTM provides an effective mechanism to facilitate access to high-cost medicines for targeted patient groups, while providing increased oversight and budgetary certainty. Key to acceptance is utilization of HTA outputs to implement evidence-based HTM measures targeting specific uncertainties as highlighted in the HTA report.

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel (a CAR T-cell therapy), versus blinatumomab, for the treatment of pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) in the Irish healthcare setting. The value of conducting further research, to investigate the value of uncertainty associated with the decision problem, is assessed by means of expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and partial EVPI (EVPPI) analyses.

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed. A short-term decision tree partitioned patients in the tisagenlecleucel arm according to infusion status. Survival was extrapolated to 60 months; general population mortality with a standardized mortality ratio was then applied. Estimated EVPI and EVPPI were scaled up to population according to the incidence of the decision.

At list prices, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was EUR 73,086 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (incremental costs EUR 156,928; incremental QALYs 2.15). The probability of cost-effectiveness, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 45,000 per QALY, was 16 percent. At this threshold, population EVPI was EUR 314,455; population EVPPI was below EUR 100,000 for each parameter category.

Tisagenlecleucel is not cost effective, versus blinatumomab, for the treatment of pediatric and young adult patients with R/R ALL in Ireland (at list prices). Further research to decrease decision (parameter) uncertainty, at the defined willingness-to-pay threshold, may not be of value. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty underpinning the analysis, which may not be captured by EVPI analysis.

Peer review is an essential quality assurance component of radiation therapy planning. A growing body of literature has demonstrated substantial rates of suggested plan changes resulting from peer review. There remains a paucity of data on the impact of peer review rounds for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We therefore aim to evaluate the outcomes of peer review in this specific patient cohort.

We conducted a retrospective review of all SBRT cases that underwent peer review from July 2015 to June 2018 at a single institution. Weekly peer review rounds are grouped according to cancer subsite and attended by radiation oncologists, medical physicists and medical radiation technologists. We prospectively compiled ‘learning moments’, defined as cases with suggested changes or where an educational discussion occurred beyond routine management, and critical errors, defined as errors which could alter clinical outcomes, recorded prospectively during peer review. Plan changes implemented after peer review were documented.

Nine hundred thirty-four SBRT cases were included. The most common treatment sites were lung (518, 55%), liver (196, 21%) and spine (119, 13%). Learning moments were identified in 161 cases (17%) and translated into plan changes in 28 cases (3%). Two critical errors (0.2%) were identified: an inadequate planning target volume margin and an incorrect image set used for contouring. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of learning moments for lower-volume SBRT sites (defined as ≤30 cases/year) versus higher-volume SBRT sites (29% vs 16%, respectively; p = 0.001).

Peer review for SBRT cases revealed a low rate of critical errors, but did result in implemented plan changes in 3% of cases, and either educational discussion or suggestions of plan changes in 17% of cases. All SBRT sites appear to benefit from peer review, though lower-volume sites may require particular attention.

Psychiatric disorders are increasingly prevalent and present as a comorbidity in many hospitalized patients. Studies have demonstrated that the presence of comorbid psychiatric conditions (CPC) is associated with worsened inpatient outcomes. Emergency surgical admissions and the impact of CPC on their outcomes has not been studied in Ireland to date. This study aims to provide a comprehensive analyses of the relationship between a wide range of psychiatric comorbidities and surgical presentations.

The Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE) and prospectively maintained electronic patient records were used to identify all surgical emergency admissions between 31st August 2019 and 1st September 2020 to Mayo University Hospital, Ireland. Patient demographics, comorbidities, primary diagnoses, length of stay (LoS), discharge destination, and surgical interventions were recorded. Subgroup analyses were performed examining LoS variation in the type of surgical presentation. Physical comorbidities were scored using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS.

A total of 995 admissions were recorded. The presence of CPC increased the overall mean LoS by 1.9 days (p = .002). This trend was observed in both operative and conservative management. Significant increase in LoS was noted in patients with a comorbid depression (2.4 days, p = .003), dementia (2.8 days, p = .019), and intellectual disability (6.7 days, p = .007). Subgroup analysis revealed greater LoS in patients with CPC diagnosed with non-specific abdominal pain (1.4 days, p = .019), skin and soft tissue infections (2.5 days, p = .040), bowel obstruction (4.3 days, p = .047), and medical disorders (18.6 days, p = .010). The odds of nursing home or convalescence as a discharge destination was 2.44 (95% CI: 1.37–4.35, p = 0.002) in patients with CPC and the odds of self-discharge against medical advice in this population was 4.89 (95% CI: 1.43–16.70, p = 0.005). No significant difference was observed in mortality and readmission rates.

Psychiatric comorbidities significantly impact length of hospital stay and influence discharge planning in surgical inpatients. Greater vigilance is required in providing care for patients with psychiatric comorbidities, particularly those with depression, dementia and intellectual disability. Better optimisation of facilities and a more personalised approach to patients with CPC are required to improve inpatient outcomes and resource allocation.