Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The recent update of the European Union’s (EU) regulation on public procurement has created new opportunity for progress in the purchasing of medical devices by shifting towards focus on value from one purely on price. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may serve as additional tools for manufacturers to demonstrate value beyond traditional metrics of safety and performance and to differentiate their products in a market of increasing competition. The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which PROMs are included in registered device studies in the EU and interpret the results in the context of the purchasing of medical devices.
Twelve device groups were searched in clinical trial registries to determine the frequency distribution of PROMs in related studies.
Results indicate that clinical studies of the selected device categories are done predominately in the western EU nations and are increasingly including PROMs. In the United Kingdom 121 (65%) study, out of 186 included PROMs, and in Germany, 92 (52%) out of 178 between 1998 and 2018. Few device studies were done in the Central and Eastern European region, and out of 76 studies 27 (35%) included PROMs. Since there is no requirement to include PROMs in device studies for regulatory purposes, it seems probable that their increasing use is driven by competitive market pressures.
The trend of increasing use of PROMs might be driven by the demand of purchasers to demonstrate value of devices, but is manifested at different levels in various regions of the EU.
Squitieri, L., Bozic, K.J., Pusic, A.L.: The role of patient-reported outcome measures in value-based payment reform. Value Health. 20(6), 834–836 (2017) CrossRef
Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M.T., Calvert, M.J., Stockler, M.R., Friedlander, M.: The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 9, 353–367 (2018) CrossRef
Franklin, P., Chenok, K., Lavalee, D., Love, R., Paxton, L., Segal, C., Holve, E.: Framework to guide the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures in the learning healthcare system. EGEMS 5(1), 17 (2017) CrossRef
Christensen, et al.: Patient-reported outcomes in orthopedics. J. Bone Jt. Surg-Am. 100(5), 436–442 (2018) CrossRef
Anker, S.D., Agewall, S., Borggrefe, M., Calvert, M., Jaime, C.J., Cowie, M.R., Ford, I., Paty, J.A., Riley, J.P., Swedberg, K., Tavazzi, L., Wiklund, I., Kirchhof, P.: The importance of patient-reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. Eur. Heart J. 35(30), 2001–2009 (2014) CrossRef
U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Value and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in assessing effects of medical devices. CDRH strategic priorities 2016–2017. https://www.fda.gov/media/109626/download. Accessed 13 May 2019
Ramkumar, P.N., Harris, J.D., Noble, P.C.: Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone Jt. Res. 4(7), 120–127 (2015) CrossRef
U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for industry, tool developers, and food and drug administration staff; Qualification of medical device development tools. August 10, (2017). https://www.fda.gov/media/87134/download. Accessed 13 May 2019
Robinson, J.C.: Value-based purchasing for medical devices. Health Aff (Millwood). 27(6), 1523–1531 (2008) CrossRef
Rencz, F., et al.: EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Qual. Life Res. 25(11), 2693–2710 (2016) CrossRef
Kramer, D.B., Cutlip, D.E.: Regulatory science: trust and transparency in clinical trials of medical devices. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 12(9), 503–504 (2015) CrossRef
Chang, L., Dhruva, S.S., Chu, J., Bero, L.A., Redberg, R.F.: Selective reporting in trials of high risk cardiovascular devices: cross sectional comparison between premarket approval summaries and published reports. BMJ 350, h2613 (2015) CrossRef
DeAngelis, C.D., et al.: Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 292(11), 1363–1364 (2004) CrossRef
EU Clinical Trials Register ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/about.html). Accessed 27 Dec 2018
Robinson, J.C.: Purchasing medical innovation: the right technology, for the right patient, at the right price. University of California Press, Oakland (2015)
Lingg, M., Wyss, K., Durán-Arenas, L.: Effects of procurement practices on quality of medical device or service received: a qualitative study comparing countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 16(a), 362 (2016) CrossRef
Decarolis, F., Giorgantonio, G.: Public Procurement of Healthcare in Europe: The case of medical devices. Rivista di Politica Economica. 104(4/4), 7–36 (2015)
European Commission: Public procurement—guidance for practitioners on the avoidance of the most common errors in projects funded by the European Structural and Investment Fund. KN-02-15-758-EN-N (2015). https://doi.org/10.2776/7059
Cavlan, O., Grey, L., Krych, A., Llewellyn, C., Zerbi, C.: The European Public-Procurement Opportunity: Delivering Value in Medtech. McKinsey & Company, New York (2018)
Lingg, M., Wyss, K., Durán-Arenas, L.: Effects of procurement practices on quality of medical device or service received: a qualitative study comparing countries. BMC Health Serv. Res. 16(a), 362 (2016) CrossRef
- Is the trend of increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures in medical device studies the sign of shift towards value-based purchasing in Europe?
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
The European Journal of Health Economics
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Elektronische ISSN: 1618-7601