The Latest

SEARCH BY KEYWORD
BROWSE BY Category
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

IRB Approved Circle: Ketamine Infusion For Pain Management In Certain Spine Surgeries

Post
October 17, 2023
Peri-operative ketamine infusion has been shown to decrease post-operative pain from surgeries such as cervical and lumbar fusions. There is also evidence that ketamine infusions can help to improve levels of chronic pain, reducing the need for opioid medications. Dr. Jessica Jameson as ...
Type image caption here (optional)Peri-operative ketamine infusion has been shown to decrease post-operative pain from surgeries such as cervical and lumbar fusions. There is also evidence that ketamine infusions can help to improve levels of chronic pain, reducing the need for opioid medications.Dr. Jessica Jameson as principal investigator is using Circles for a Phase IV clinical trial to help determine whether a pre-operative ketamine infusion will decrease post-operative analgesic and opioid consumption similar to that experienced with intra-operative ketamine. Dr. Jameson is board certified in anesthesiology and pain medicine. She practices at the Axis Spine Center, part of the Northwest Specialty Hospital. She has acted as a principal investigator and co-investigator on many clinical trials.Circles are competitive with much more expensive clinical research platforms. Moreover, integrated Circles processes handle IRB support, patient enrollment, long-term outcomes capture, report generation, publication, co-investigator administration and other trial elements. Circles also enable, if Dr. Jameson wishes, the efficient addition of co-investigators and extension of the trial’s scope, duration and/or other parameters.More information on the trial protocol can be found in this article and at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT06066879).Please contact us for more information on the use of Circles for clinical trials.
See more
Arrow right

Phase IV Clinical Trial Circle: Ketamine Infusion For Post Operative Pain

Article
October 12, 2023
This Circle will aggregate data to help determine whether a pre-operative ketamine infusion can provide a decrease in post-operative analgesic and opioid consumption similar to that of intra-operative ketamine.
TABLE OF CONTENTS‍BACKGROUNDSTUDY DESIGN General Inclusion Criteria Exclusionary Criteria Primary Outcome Measures Secondary Outcome Measure More Information On The TrialCIRCLES FOR CLINICAL TRIALS General Technology Platform and Processes Investigator Recruitment and Trial/Study Expansion Supporting The Culture of Research In Academic Medical Centers Democratizing Medical Research Further Information On CirclesCONCLUSIONFOOTNOTESAbstractThis Circle will aggregate data to help determine whether a pre-operative ketamine infusion can provide a decrease in post-operative analgesic and opioid consumption similar to that of intra-operative ketamine. The post-operative monitoring period will extend through ninety days. The trial hypothesis is that pre-operative ketamine infusion will lead to a decrease in narcotic consumption from baseline following an elective cervical or lumbar fusion, leading to increased functionality and quality of life.BackgroundPatients with chronic pain requiring daily opioid use often rely on invasive surgeries for long-term pain management. Nevertheless, many still require opioid pain medications, as well as increased use, during the immediate post-operative phase.For patients with chronic neck or back pain, choosing to undergo invasive spinal surgeries could provide some relief of daily pain. There is however a chance that they will still require daily narcotics for pain relief post-operatively.Ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, has received renewed attention for its ability to provide anesthesia in patients with chronic and neuropathic pain syndromes. Recent studies have shown evidence that intra-operative delivery of ketamine can reduce acute post-operative analgesic consumption following various surgical procedures, though this is often focused on the acute post-operative period (initial 72 hours).Studies have also shown that ketamine infusions in patients with chronic pain requiring opioid analgesics does provide some variable level of baseline pain improvement.Peri-operative ketamine infusion has been shown to decrease post-operative pain from surgeries such as cervical and lumbar fusions. There is also evidence that ketamine infusions in general can help to improve levels of chronic pain, reducing the need for opioid medications. Study DesignGeneralDr. Jennifer Jameson practices at the Axis Spine Center, part of the Northwest Specialty Hospital. She has been the principal investigator on a number of clinical trials in anesthesiology and interventional pain management.Dr. Jameson’s Circle supporting the clinical trial which is the subject of the present article reflects the following principal components:IRB-approved and monitoredSite: Axis Spine CenterNon-Randomized Cohort Study. Interventional/treatment. Open label. Parallel assignmentConditions: revision spine surgery, fusion of spine, cervical fusion, lumbar fusionEstimated Enrollment: 40 Inclusion CriteriaMale or female aged 18-75Able to understand the informed consent form and provide written informed consent and able to complete outcome measuresStated willingness to comply with all study procedures and availability for the duration of the studyDaily opiate use totaling ≥50 morphine milli-equivalents (MME) or more for 6 weeks or greaterScheduled for revision surgical fusion of the cervical or lumbar spineTotal duration of neck or back pain >12 weeks Exclusionary CriteriaCurrent use of Ketamine for any other medical conditionsUncontrolled hypertensionUncontrolled diabetesIncreased intracranial pressurePregnancy or lactationKnown allergic reactions to components of ketamine or midazolamParticipants who ultimately require intra-operative ketamine administration for anesthesiaTreatment with another investigational drug or other intervention within 12 months of study treatmentHistory of psychosis or schizophreniaHistory of conversion disorderHistory of clotting diseasePending or active compensation claim, litigation or disability remuneration (secondary gain)Surgically naive patientsAllergies to any of the medications to be used during the proceduresActive infection or systemic or localized infection at needle entry sites (subject may be considered for inclusion once infection is resolved)Uncontrolled immunosuppression (e.g. AIDS, cancer)Participating in another clinical trial/investigation within 30 days prior to signing informed consentSubject unwilling or unable to comply with follow up schedule or protocol requirements Primary Outcome MeasuresDegree of reduction in opiate consumption following surgery, twelve-week time frame. Secondary Outcome MeasureThe proportion of subjects who experience at least 50% reduction in back pain intensity (improvement in ODI scores) at 3 months as compared with baseline. More Information On The Trial ClinicalTrials.gov Circles For Clinical TrialsGeneral Circles are an ideal platform for complex clinical trials, as well as simpler studies and registries. They are based on a powerful technology platform with excellent user experience for investigators and patients.Circles are efficient, low-cost, and highly scalable. They are used by large provider groups, sole practitioners, medical societies, product manufacturers, veterinarians, researchers, and other healthcare constituencies around the world. Technology Platform and Processes Circles utilize the clinical grade [1] and patented [2] clinician-facing inCytes™ and patient-facing Benchmarc™ platforms. This technology is competitive with much more expensive clinical research software.[3]Circles processes include patient enrollment, long-term outcomes capture, report generation, publication, co-investigator administration, single and multi-center capabilities, publication, industry funding, IRB support and other integrated capabilities.Circles emphasize patient engagement, comprehension of medical conditions and proposed treatment paths, and long-term compliance. Investigator Recruitment and Trial/Study Expansion Circles support the identification, onboarding, and active involvement of investigators as well as scientific, statistical, and other experts required by the study protocol. As Circle Members, those investigators collaborate within and across institutional and national borders. Circle Hours [4], Circle Academies, and other integrated processes sustain that collaboration.Often, trial sponsors and/or principal investigators wish to extend a trial’s scope, duration and/or other parameters, without compromising the integrity of its original design. The inherent flexibility of Circles accommodates individual investigator variations, additional endpoints, extension of termination dates, and larger or different patient cohorts. Supporting The Culture of Research In Academic Medical Centers Academic medical centers encourage the involvement of clinicians in trials and other forms of medical research. However, internal processes and platforms are often unnecessarily complex and time consuming, seriously undermining those efforts.Circles combine clinical grade functionality with excellent user experience for all relevant constituencies. They substantially expand the research, education, and training potential of trials and studies at larger hospital systems. Democratizing Medical Research Regulators, legislative bodies, and payers recognize the potential of real-world evidence to improve healthcare outcomes and reduce costs. [5] This has led to a proliferation of registries [6] and study designs -- pragmatic, quality improvement, observational, and other. [7] A corollary is the requirement for more inclusiveness and diversity in clinical trial design. [8]These developments are the result of broad demand for faster, less expensive pathways to market for medical products, as well as more evidence-based standards of care. [9]Clinically relevant and statistically significant trials and other forms of studies should not be the sole province of well-capitalized product manufacturers and large hospital systems. Circles put them within reach of small medical practices.‍Further Information On Circles What Is a CircleKnowledgeBaseLinkedIn Corporate PageLatestContact Us ConclusionDr. Jameson’s ketamine clinical trial uses integrated technical platforms and processes to achieve the impact of much more expensive clinical trials in an efficient and low-cost manner. Moreover, the initial clinical and scientific value of her trial will likely be significantly amplified through the inherent international collaborative functionality of Circles.Footnotes1 See for example FDA, Real World Evidence, FDA, Post-Market Surveillance Programs; The 21st Century Cures Act; NIH Grants Program For Real-World Studies; Expect To See More RWE-Based Regulatory Decisions, Robert Califf, FDA Commissioner; Use Of Real-World Evidence In Regulatory Decision Making, European Medicines Agency.2 See Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide: 4th Edition, Agency for Healthcare and Quality and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.3 See Pragmatic Trials, NEJM, Ford and Norrie, Quality Improvement Projects and Clinical Research Studies, Faiman, and Quality Improvement In Practice, Backman.4 See for example, Diversity and Inclusion In Clinical Trials, NIH; Why Diverse Clinical Trial Participation Matters, Schwartz et al, New England Journal Of Medicine.5 See Transforming Medicare Coverage: A New Medicare Coverage Pathway for Emerging Technologies and Revamped Evidence Development Framework, Fleischer et al., Center For Medicare and Medicaid Services; Center For Clinical and Translational Science/Product Development Pathways, Mayo Clinic. What Is The Evidence For Our Standards Of Care?, Turka et al, The Journal Of Clinical Investigation.6 HIPAA, GDPR, Part 11, FHIR HL7 Compliant. Scalable. All data and edits fully auditable. Multilingual. Real-time 24/7 accessibility by patients and clinicians from any device in any location. Robust role, permission, clinician branding, and other customization settings.7 U.S. patent number 11720567, Method and System For Processing Large Amounts Of Real-World Evidence.8 HIPAA, GDPR, Part 11, FHIR HL7 Compliant. Scalable. All data and edits fully auditable. Multilingual. Real-time 24/7 accessibility by patients and clinicians from any device in any location. Robust role, permission, clinician branding, and other customization settings.9 Regular livestream and recorded sessions among Circle Members reviewing observations, best practices, study variations and emerging correlations.‍Copyright © 2023 Regenerative Medicine LLC
See more
Arrow right

Circles For Value-Based Care Models

Article
October 10, 2023
A large amount of data has been collected regarding the performance of various VBC models. Some have been modestly successful; others not at all. This article argues that value-based care is both laudable and achievable.
TABLE OF CONTENTSBACKGROUND The Impetus For VBC Models Legislation and Government Policies VBC Performance CMS Programs Private VBC ProgramsCHALLENGES WITH VBC MODELS Introduction Complexity and Cost Poorly Designed Incentives Lack of Meaningful Standardization Clinician Experience Patient Awareness and ExperienceCIRCLES FOR VBC MODELS General Technology Platform and Processes Scalability HCP and Patient User Experiences Clinician and Patient Motivation VBC and Real-World Evidence Further Information On CirclesCONCLUSIONFOOTNOTESAbstractThe concept of value-based care (“VBC”) is that incentives (and disincentives) imposed on providers will lead to less expensive and higher quality healthcare. VBC models in the U.S. [1] date back to the “managed care” efforts of the 1980’s. Today, the VBC market value is forecast to grow to $1 trillion. [2]A large amount of data has been collected regarding the performance of various VBC models. Some have been modestly successful; others not at all. This article argues that value-based care is both laudable and achievable. However, its objectives are undermined by imposing on providers complex, burdensome, varying, and expensive “incentives”, often misaligned with the realities of everyday clinical practice.BackgroundThe Impetus For VBC ModelsHealthcare costs in the U.S., on a per capital basis and as a percentage of GDP, have been steadily increasing for decades. They are significantly higher than those of many other developed countries. At the same time, population health metrics are often worse. [3]Moreover, there are substantial regional and other population group disparities in standards of care, healthcare access and outcomes. [4]Consequently, the government as well as private payers have implemented a wide variety of VBC models. Each typically contains a mix of presumed financial incentives and disincentives intended to induce providers to control costs and improve “health quality” metrics.Genuine value-based care is no longer merely a desirable objective. Failure to design and implement successful VBC models will have significant negative economic and political consequences. Legislation and Government PoliciesUnited States government programs relating to value-based care are the province of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). Accountable Care Organizations (“ACOs”) are overseen by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”).ACOs are but one of many VBC models tried over the years at the national and state levels. [5] Indeed, there are now many types of Medicare ACOs. In addition to national legislation, there are many similar state, local and private payer and corporate VBC programs. [6] VBC PerformanceCMS ProgramsA good deal of information on ACOs performance is available from CMS, as well as the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. [7]That public information reflects mixed results. In its “Synthesis of Evaluation Results Across 21 Medicare Models 2012 – 2020”, the CMS summarized those results as follows:“Fourteen of 21 models demonstrated gross savings to Medicare driven by improvements in inpatient admissions (ten models) and/or post-acute care (fourteen models). Seven models reduced emergency department visits and/or inpatient readmissions. Six models had net savings, six incurred net losses, and six models had no impacts on net spending.Quality of care improved in a few models (two models improved self-reported beneficiary or caregiver experience of care and four models improved mortality) but was mostly maintained.Even with successful evaluation results and transformation efforts, models may face other barriers to national expansion. Generous financial incentive payments, which helped ensure robust participation in models, made it difficult for many models to demonstrate net savings.” [8]There is also a good deal of analysis of Medicare ACO performance. Many experts feel that their effect on healthcare cost and quality has been the opposite of intended effects, and that they should be eliminated. [9] Others, while acknowledging the failure of ACO’s and similar government VBC models in many respects, maintain that they are here to stay and can be fixed. [10] Private VBC ProgramsMeasured by their continued growth and profitability, private insurance companies can be credited with the largest VBC successes. [11] This is in large part due to their superior data collection and analysis capabilities, as well as for-profit management structure.At the same time, employers – which are often self-insured – have seen success with wellness, [12] narrow networks [13], corporate groups, [14] and other VBC models. As indicated in the cited and other literature, however, the performance of employer VBC models has been mixed. Challenges With VBC ModelsIntroductionValue-based care implies two interrelated objectives – (i) controlling expenditures, and (ii) better quality population healthcare metrics. At a high level, improvements in “bending the healthcare cost curve”, or improving general population healthcare metrics, have to date been less than hoped for.On the other hand, certain models – usually at a smaller scale – are pointing the way on how to address VBC design and execution challenges. Some of the major challenges are summarized below. Complexity and CostA review of the ACO Case Studies posted by CMS [15] reveals the complexity and cost associated with their design and implementation. Hurdles include additional staff, additional IT platforms, regulatory compliance, HCP and patient training/education and coordination among multiple stakeholders.Excessive administrative costs are estimated to represent 15% of the $4 trillion annual healthcare spend, or over $2,000 per person. [16]All of this in an environment where many providers are facing severe financial pressures. [17] Poorly Designed IncentivesBy the government’s own numbers, far fewer providers have contracted with ACO’s than is necessary to make a material difference. Many enroll and then drop out. Those which are already efficient operations have little incentive to join. Clearly, the incentives are insufficient to overcome the cost and complexity for the great majority of providers. Lack of Meaningful StandardizationTo determine whether a specific clinical intervention should become a standard of value-based care, the data relating to that intervention need to be verifiable and consistently formatted in the context of a statistically significant population sample.Moreover, those data must integrate standardized long-term outcomes in the relevant patient history and treatment protocol record.Several impediments exist to achieving these goals:There are multiple data standardization approaches in modern healthcare. [18] In addition, various EHR’s have their own data formats. This results in non-reconciled aggregated datasets.Longitudinal outcomes are rarely captured in VBC initiatives. (Providers are not incentivized to do so.) Without long term outcomes data, meaningful safety and efficacy for a given intervention are impossible to determine.Outcomes assessment scores for many clinical interventions do not exist. To the extent they do exist, they also are often non-standardized.The IT and staff cost and complexity of attempting data standardization under the foregoing circumstances are often insurmountable. Clinician ExperienceThe patient/provider interaction remains at the heart of successful healthcare outcomes and cost control. The challenges facing healthcare professionals are well documented. Reduced compensation, more stressful clinical environment, heavier administrative burdens, less time for patient care are major reasons for the forecast substantial shortage of healthcare professionals. [19]Whether for larger hospital systems or smaller medical practices, many VBC models exacerbate these problems for the very healthcare professionals expected to implement them. Patient Awareness and ExperienceVBC success depends on “buy-in” by the patient/beneficiary. This involves several elements:Patients’ understanding of why behavior change in the context of a particular condition and/or treatment protocol is likely to lead to better outcomes, at a lower cost to them.Patient incentives likely to induce long-term compliance with those protocols.In many cases, VBC models rely on telehealth, remote patient therapies (“RPT”) and monitoring (“RPM”), and other forms of home care. Especially for older populations, or indications involving cognitive impairment, RMP and RPT programs are challenging, poorly designed and/or inadequately reimbursed.A major goal of most VBC models is to include patient populations which are typically under-served. Providers serving these patient groups, however, are particularly poorly positioned to absorb the cost and complexity of most VBC models. Circles For VBC ModelsGeneralThere are many challenges to achieving the twin promises of lower costs and better healthcare metrics for broad patient groups.Changing well established norms and expectations is unlikely to occur on the basis of laws and regulations alone. Indeed, in many ways, federal attempts to solve multiple challenges at once on a national scale have proved self-defeating. Conversely, the smaller, more focused, VBC efforts seem to have shown greater success.Also, trusting the inherent desire of providers to deliver proper care to their patients at a transparent and reasonable price is more likely to achieve the promise of value-based care.Finally, the tools and processes needed to drive meaningful and positive VBC results need not be expensive or burdensome. Circles have demonstrated this. They integrate the technology, processes, user experience, and low cost which make support value-based care for practitioners around the world. A summary of the key Circles elements relevant to any VBC model follows. Technology Platform and ProcessesCircles utilize the clinical grade [20] and patented [21] clinician-facing inCytes™ and patient-facing Benchmarc™ platforms.They include patient enrollment, long-term outcomes capture, report generation, publication, single and multi-center administration, publication, industry funding, IRB support and other integrated capabilities.Circles emphasize patient engagement, comprehension of medical conditions and proposed treatment paths, and long-term compliance. ScalabilityCircles support the identification, onboarding, and active involvement of providers within and outside of institutional and regional boundaries.Their inherent flexibility accommodates efficient data collection from the small patient panel of small practices, as well as patient populations of virtually any size. HCP and Patient User ExperiencesCircles combine clinical grade functionality with excellent user experience for all relevant constituencies. Clinician and Patient MotivationCircles processes are designed to provide meaningful and sustained motivation to providers as well as their patients. VBC and Real-World EvidenceRegulators, legislative bodies, and payers recognize the potential of real-world evidence to improve healthcare outcomes and reduce costs. [22] This has led to a proliferation of registries [23] and study designs – pragmatic, quality improvement, observational, and other. [24] A corollary is the requirement for more inclusiveness and diversity in clinical trial design. [25]Circles are purpose-built to develop and extent statistically significant and clinically significant standards of care for any indication or patient population. [26]Value-base care models should not be the sole province of large hospital systems. Circles put them within reach of small medical practices and smaller hospitals. This is key to delivering value-based to care to underserved patient populations.Circles flexibility will also enable the “democratization” of various VBC models across a much larger group of providers than currently exists. Further Information On CirclesCircles/What Is A CircleKnowledgeBaseLinkedIn Corporate PageLatestContact Us ConclusionValue-based care as a concept is here to stay. Many models will be attempted and discarded. Others, or at least some of their components, will demonstrably achieve their goals. ACO’s and other VBC models designed and implemented at a national level – while probably necessary in our current healthcare system – are bound to be cumbersome and face slow, uneven adoption. But, as is often said, “politics is local”. Many VBC best practices will be developed at the regional or community level. Similarly, efficient VBC models can be expected from self-insured corporations for which healthcare costs are becoming a major strategic issue. The definition of success for a given VBC model will differ from use case to use case. But, in all instances it should reflect the following elements: The ability to deliver evidence-based treatment protocols to a defined population group for a defined indication. Long-term outcomes capture for those treatment protocols and patient populations. The ability, based on low cost and excellent user experience, to accommodate all patient groups, regardless of location or financial means. Transparent pricing reasonable for the care provided from the perspectives of both the patient and the provider. Incentives which respect a provider’s professional judgment, and are meaningful and minimally burdensome in the context of his/her clinical reality. Patient experience which informs, educates, and leads to high compliance. Minimal administrative and other implementation costs and complexities. Circles can meet the foregoing elements, and support any value-based care model. FOOTNOTES1 Although this Article focuses on the U.S. healthcare environment, many of its points are relevant to Europe and other countries which use a more centralized approach to budgetary allocations for healthcare.2 McKinsey, 2022. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare/our-insights/investing-in-the-new-era-of-value-based-care.3 Peter G. Peterson Foundation, 2023. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/07/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries.4 KFF, 2023. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/disparities-in-health-and-health-care-5-key-question-and-answers/.5 There is a large glossary of related VBC terms and entities generated by CMS and HHS. These include MSSP, MIPS, Pathways To Success, CHIP, ESRD, ACO Reach, AHRQ (to name a few). Some are renamed from time to time. See also the AHRQ (part of the HHS), and FDA requirements and recommendations regarding post-market surveillance and real-world evidence..6 These include “wellness”, narrow-networks, self-insured employer groups, and similar schemes.7 For example, National Healthcare Expenditure data can be found here. MEDCAP presents a detailed report to the U.S. Congress semiannually covering results of ACO and other initiatives relating to healthcare cost and quality. The reports also provide recommendations to Congress for improvement on both scores.8 https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/data-and-reports/2022/wp-eval-synthesis-21models-aag.9 Stat, Sullivan and Kahn, 2021. https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/23/stop-failed-accountable-care-organization-experiment/10 Health Affairs, McWilliams and Chen, 2020. Understanding The Latest ACO “Savings”: Curb Your Enthusiasm And Sharpen Your Pencils.11 https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/2020-Annual-Health-Insurance-Industry-Analysis-Report.pdf12 See for example US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021, What Constitutes A Successful Wellness Program, https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/book-review/what-attributes-characterize-a-successful-corporate-wellness-program.htm. Harvard Business Review, What’s The Hard Return On Corporate Wellness Programs, 2010, https://hbr.org/2010/12/whats-the-hard-return-on-employee-wellness-programs. 13 https://www.humana.com/employer/group-benefits-101/how-to-choose-plans/myths-about-narrow-networks.14 For example, Health Transformation Alliance. https://www.htahealth.com/.15 https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/innovation-models/ACO.16 Annals of Internal Medicine, 2020, https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-2818.17 American Hospital Association, Costs of Caring, 2023. https://www.aha.org/costsofcaring.18 Organizations such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Health Information Management Systems Society, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the eHealth Initiative, the Markle Foundation, the Sequoia Project, the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership, and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology have either promoted or published best-practice approaches to data standardization.19 Forbes, 2022. New Survey Shows That Up To 47% Of U.S. Healthcare Workers Plan To Leave Their Positions By 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2022/04/19/new-survey-shows-that-up-to-47-of-us-healthcare-workers-plan-to-leave-their-positions-by-2025/?sh=1f3fb290395b.20 HIPAA, GDPR, Part 11, FHIR HL7 Compliant. Scalable. All data and edits fully auditable. Multilingual. Real-time 24/7 accessibility by patients and clinicians from any device in any location. Robust role, permission, clinician branding, and other customization settings21 U.S. patent number 11720567, Method and System For Processing Large Amounts Of Real-World Evidence.22 See for example FDA, Real World Evidence, FDA, Post-Market Surveillance Programs; The 21st Century Cures Act; NIH Grants Program For Real-World Studies; Expect To See More RWE-Based Regulatory Decisions, Robert Califf, FDA Commissioner; Use Of Real-World Evidence In Regulatory Decision Making, European Medicines Agency.23 See Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide: 4th Edition, Agency for Healthcare and Quality and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.24 See Pragmatic Trials, NEJM, Ford and Norrie, Quality Improvement Projects and Clinical Research Studies, Faiman, and Quality Improvement In Practice, Backman.25 See for example, Diversity and Inclusion In Clinical Trials, NIH; Why Diverse Clinical Trial Participation Matters, Schwartz et al, New England Journal Of Medicine.26 See Transforming Medicare Coverage: A New Medicare Coverage Pathway for Emerging Technologies and Revamped Evidence Development Framework, Fleischer et al., Center For Medicare and Medicaid Services; Center For Clinical and Translational Science/Product Development Pathways, Mayo Clinic. What Is The Evidence For Our Standards Of Care?, Turka et al, The Journal Of Clinical Investigation.
See more
Arrow right

RegenMed & IOF Partnership: September Newsletter Update

Client News
October 10, 2023
In the middle of 2023, RegenMed partnered with the Interventional Orthobiologics Foundation “IOF” to offer dozens of unique Circles to the IOF’s growing membership. These Circles are made available through a members-only research portal and are organized by distinct tags, including principal ...
In the middle of 2023, RegenMed partnered with the Interventional Orthobiologics Foundation “IOF” to offer dozens of unique Circles to the IOF’s growing membership. These Circles are made available through a members-only research portal and are organized by distinct tags, including principal investigator, product/protocol topic, and Industry funder. The IOF Circle library allows its members to find and join a Circle of interest, collaborate within smaller, more focused sub-groups of their colleagues, and immediately access and utilize real-world patient outcomes and other relevant data within their Circle of choice. In addition, many IOF members have elected to design, launch and grow their own proprietary Circles, and use the portal, and RegenMed, to help recruit colleagues as co-investigators, and Industry partners as funders.Membership participation on this new research portal has been high, and we are proud to share a few IOF Circle highlights below:‍Circles: PRP Quality Improvement for Musculoskeletal and Sexual Health ConditionsCircle PI: Grant Pagdin, M.D., CCFP, FCFP, ABAARMCircle Funder: MDBiologix‍‍Grant Pagdin, M.D. has used Circles for nearly two years to track his everyday PRP patient outcomes for knees, shoulders, hips, elbows and ankles. He promotes his evidence-based approach to patients through his website, and now makes his Circles available to IOF colleagues who wish to use, and contribute to, his real-world databases. Dr. Pagdin will soon be launching the first Canadian chapter of IOF, bringing IOF training, standards and evidence to another growing community of orthobiologic practitioners.‍‍Circles: Unique Bioformulations For Specific Treatment of Knee and Shoulder PathologiesCircle PI: Peter Everts, Ph.D. FRSMCircle Funder: Gulf Coast Biologics‍‍The Gulf Coast Biologics “GCB” Knee and Shoulder Circles, led by Peter Everts, Ph.D. comprises 10 expert orthobiologic practitioners, including IOF members Drs. Ariana DeMers, Walter Sussman, Alberto Panero, Imran Siddiqui, abd Shounuck Patel. Each Circle member logs their unique formulations and injection methodologies across a wide-range of pathoanatomic conditions affecting one or both knees. Everyday patient outcomes are captured through the Circles patented apps, significance quantified using a robust statistical analysis, and pearls discussed during private, monthly “Circle Hours”.‍‍Circles: Investigator-Initiated, MFAT Clinical Follow Up StudyCircle PI: Ariana DeMers, D.O.Circle Funder: JoinTechLabs‍‍Led by IOF president Dr. Ariana DeMers, and co-investigated by IOF members Drs. John Ferrell, Imran Siddiqui and others, these Circles assess the efficacy and safety of MFAT using a mix of patient-reported and clinical outcome measures. JoinTechLabs has provided support for these investigator-initiated Circles, and invites other MFAT users to join and contribute their own outcomes and other data. A new Ankle Circle, also designed by IOF members, is expected to launch in 3Q23. ‍‍Circles: Engaging, Automated Patient-Reported Outcomes Circles‍Not all IOF members have time to participate in nuanced Circle topics, and many instead prefer to simply track their everyday patients’ long-term outcomes. Our library of Outcomes-Only Circles represent out-of-the-box solutions for deploying digitized, validated patient-reported outcomes measures against any patient population, and engaging patients in an interactive and personalized outcomes reporting experience long after their treatment. They are automated, burden-free solutions ready to go within any clinical practice.We look forward to sharing further updates on our partnership with the IOF, and our growing libraries of Circles, during the next newsletter.
See more
Arrow right

Real-World Evidence Studies For Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy

Client News
October 5, 2023
BHRT’s are estimated to account for one third of menopausal hormone therapy prescriptions. However, the debate over safety and efficacy remains vibrant. Similar discussion surrounds BHRT’s for andropause and other male-specific conditions. Discover how Dr. Grant Pagdin is utilizing two Circles ...
BHRT’s are estimated to account for one third of menopausal hormone therapy prescriptions. However, the debate over safety and efficacy remains vibrant. Similar discussion surrounds BHRT’s for andropause and other male-specific conditions. (See this Article for a deeper review of the topic.) Given their growth and fragmented regulatory environment, BHRT’s are an excellent example of the need for real-world studies.‍Dr. Grant Pagdin is utilizing two Circles – one for men and a second for women – to develop BHRT clinical decision support in his practice. Pre-treatment and long-term outcomes assessments include the Cervantes Short-Form Scale and the Aging Males’ Symptom Scale. Aggregated outcomes will be explained and shared with patients, as described on the Outcomes Page on Dr. Pagdin’s website.Dr. Pagdin’s initial BHRT Circles and associated datasets will focus on standardized outcomes assessments and patient compliance. Subsequent Circles will also collect data on specific types, dosages and other characteristics of bio-identical products used. To learn more, please contact us.‍
See more
Arrow right
Nothing was found. Please use a single word for precise results.
Stay Informed.
Subscribe for our newsletter
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.