Establishing Clinical Utility for Diagnostic Tests Using a Randomized Controlled, Virtual Patient Trial Design

Abstract

Demonstrating clinical utility for diagnostic tests and securing coverage and reimbursement requires high quality and, ideally, randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. Traditional RCTs are often too costly, slow, and cumbersome for diagnostic firms. Alternative data options are needed. We evaluated four RCTs using virtual patients to demonstrate clinical utility. Each study used a similar pre-post intervention, two round design to facilitate comparison. Representative samples of physicians were recruited and randomized into control and intervention arms. All physicians were asked to care for their virtual patients during two assessment rounds, separated by a multi-week time interval. Between rounds, intervention physicians reviewed educational materials on the diagnostic test. All physician responses were scored against evidence-based care criteria. RCTs using virtual patients can demonstrate clinical utility for a variety of diagnostic test types, including: (1) an advanced multi-biomarker blood test, (2) a chromosomal microarray, (3) a proteomic assay analysis, and (4) a multiplex immunofluorescence imaging platform. In two studies, utility was demonstrated for all targeted patient populations, while in the other two studies, utility was only demonstrated for a select sub-segment of the intended patient population. Of these four tests, two received positive coverage decisions from Palmetto, one utilized the study results to support commercial payer adjudications, and the fourth company went out of business. RCTs using virtual patients are a cost-effective approach to demonstrate the presence or absence of clinical utility.

A Randomized Controlled Study on Clinical Adherence to Evidence-Based Guidelines in the Management of Simulated Patients With Barrett's Esophagus and the Clinical Utility of a Tissue Systems Pathology Test: Results From Q-TAB

“…The limitations of this study include the use of simulated patients; however, other research comparing simulated patient research with real-world patient studies indicates that real-world studies would broadly substantiate this study's findings ( 38 , 39 ). We used a national sample of gastroenterologists and GI surgeons.…”

Randomized Trial to Improve Primary Care Patient Management and Patient Outcomes Using a Drug–Drug Interaction Test: Confirmation of the DECART Simulated Patient Clinical Utility Trial Results

“…The newer approach uses validated patient simulations in randomized clinical trials, which are lower cost and less time-intensive than large, multicenter, patient-based trials. CPVs, which are extensively validated simulated patients, [10,11,17,18] have important advantages over real-world patients: (1) they specify the use case and eliminate patient heterogeneity;…”

“…The newer approach uses validated patient simulations in randomized clinical trials, which are lower cost and less time-intensive than large, multicenter, patient-based trials. CPVs, which are extensively validated simulated patients, [ 10 , 11 , 17 , 18 ] have important advantages over real-world patients: (1) they specify the use case and eliminate patient heterogeneity; (2) they focus on whether the test changes physician behavior; and (3) they can generate high-quality data in short periods of time. Despite CPVs’ ability to track actual clinical practice in multiple settings among a legion of clinical conditions, for some, the question remains as to how well these changes in CPVs translate into specific changes in clinical practice and better outcomes.…”

Respiratory metagenomics: route to routine service

“…They are also conceptually complex because new molecular tests provide information informing individual decisions that are dependent on human beliefs and behaviours [57], as well as the organisations infrastructure and resources to respond. Evidence may need to include real world data [58], virtual patient trial design [59] and proposals for more efficient trial methodologies that assess the realisable clinical benefit of CMg tests will be welcomed.…”