Les ministères de la Santé et les chefs de la direction des hôpitaux, les chefs de département et les directeurs médicaux de divers types d'hôpitaux classent constamment la qualité des soins et l'optimisation des ressources parmi les grandes priorités. Le rôle du laboratoire évolue dans le continuum de la santé, et de nouveaux diagnostics en laboratoire sont mis en marché à un rythme constant. Il y a un besoin de mieux définir, mesurer et évaluer la valeur des diagnostics en laboratoire. Le présent article expose des points de vue sur les divers défis liés à l'évaluation des diagnostics en laboratoire et propose un cadre des principales dimensions à inclure pour évaluer leur valeur auprès des hôpitaux et des systèmes de santé.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MaRS Discovery District. Life sciences: Molecular diagnostics. New tools for evidence-based medicine. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MaRS Discovery District; 2009.
2.
DrummondD. Des services publics pour la population ontarienne: Cap sur la viabilité et l'excellence. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Commission de la réforme des services publics de l'Ontario; 2012.
3.
ClossonT. Achieving a high performing health care system. Ontario Hospital Association, Breakfast with the Chiefs. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Hospital Association; 2012.
4.
The Lewin Group, Inc. Laboratory medicine: A national status report. Falls Church, VA: The Lewin Group, Inc.; 2008.
5.
BillingsPR. Three barriers to innovative diagnostics. Nat Biotechnol.2006; 24: 917–918.
6.
HallworthMJ. The; 1970% claim': What is the evidence base?Ann Clin Biochem.2011; 48: 487–488.
7.
The Lewin Group, Inc. The value of diagnostics innovation, adoption and diffusion into health care. Falls Church, VA: The Lewin Group, Inc.; 2005.
8.
LijmerJGLeeflangMBossuytPM. Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29: E13–E21.
9.
TrikalinosTASiebertULauJ. Decision-analytic modeling to evaluate benefits and harms of medical tests: Uses and limitations. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29: E22–E29.
10.
LordSJIrwigLBossuytPM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29: E1–12.
11.
LeeDWNeumannPJRizzoJA. Understanding the medical and nonmedical value of diagnostic testing. Value Health. 2010; 13(2): 310–314.
12.
FangCOteroHJGreenbergD et coll. Cost-utility analyses of diagnostic laboratory tests: A systematic review. Value Health. 2011; 14(8): 1010–1018.
13.
LangloisMRWallemacqP. The future of hospital laboratories. Position statement from the Royal Belgian Society of Clinical Chemistry (RBSCC). Clin Chem Lab Med.2009; 47(10): 1195–1201.
14.
BossuytPMMcCafferyK. Additional patient outcomes and pathways in evaluations of testing. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29: E30–E38.
15.
NeumannPJCohenJTHammittJK et coll. Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: A survey of US residents. Health Econ.2012; 21: 238–251.
16.
PriceCP. Point of care testing. BMJ. 2001; 322: 1285–1288.
17.
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Consulté le 6 juin 2012 àwww.mhra.gov.uk.
18.
BaileyTMTophamTMWantzS et coll. Laboratory process improvement through point-of-care testing. Jt Comm J Qual Improv.1997; 23(7): 362–380.
19.
Lee-LewandrowskiELewandrowskiK. Perspectives on cost and outcomes for point-of-care testing. Clin Lab Med.2009; 29: 479–489.
20.
RaoGGCrookMTillyerML. Pathology tests: Is the time for demand management ripe at last?J Clin Pathol.2003; 56: 243–248.
21.
SmellieWS. Appropriateness of test use in pathology: A new era or reinventing the wheel?Ann Clin Biochem.2003; 40: 585–592.
ThomasRECroalBLRamsayC et coll. Effect of enhanced feedback and brief educational reminder messages on laboratory test requesting in primary care: A cluster randomised trial. Lancet. 2006; 367: 1990–1996.
24.
RossHHowlettJArnoldJM et coll. Treating the right patient at the right time: Access to heart failure care. Can J Cardiol. 2006; 22(9): 749–754.
25.
Agence de la santé publique du Canada. Suivi des maladies du cœur et des accidents vasculaires cérébraux au Canada. Ottawa: Agence de la santé publique du Canada; 2009.
26.
Fondation des maladies du cœur du Canada. Le fardeau croissant des maladies cardiovasculaires et des accidents vasculaires cérébraux. Ottawa, ON: Fondation des maladies du cœur du Canada; 2003.
27.
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heart disease and stroke prevention, addressing the nation's leading killers: At a glance 2011. Consulté le 6 juin 2012 à www.cdc.gov.
28.
LiaoLAllenLAWhellanDJ. Economic burden of heart failure in the elderly. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(6): 447–662.
29.
Lopez-AndrèsNRossignolPIraqiW et coll. Association of galectin-3 and fibrosis markers with long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, and dyssynchrony: Insights from the CARE-HF (cardiac resynchronization in heart failure) trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012; 14(1): 74–81.
30.
HoJELiuCLyassA et coll: Gal-3. Predicts incident heart failure in the community. Article présenté à la 61e séance scientifique et exposition annuelle de l'American College of Cardiology, le 26 mars 2012; Chicago, IL.
31.
de BoerRALokDJJaarsmaT. Predictive value of plasma galectin-3 levels in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Ann Med.2011; 43: 60–68.
32.
deFilippiCRFelkerMichael M. Galectin-3 in heart failure: Linking fibrosis, remodelling and progression. European Cardiology. 2010; 6(2): 33–36.
33.
AnandI. Galectin-3 in relation to prognosis and effect of valsartan treatment-results of Val-HeFT trial. Article présenté à la 61e séance scientifique et exposition annuelle de l'American College of Cardiology, le 26 mars 2012; Chicago, IL.
34.
SteinK. Galectin-3 in candidates for CRT treatment: A MADITCRT substudy. Article présenté à la 61e séance scientifique et exposition annuelle de l'American College of Cardiology, le 26 mars 2012; Chicago, IL.
35.
WellesCCKuIAKwanDM et coll. Left atrial function predicts heart failure hospitalization in subjects with preserved ejection fraction and coronary heart disease: Longitudinal data from the Heart and Soul Study. J Am Coll Cardiol.2012; 59(7): 673–680.
36.
BoutwellAHwuS. Effective interventions to reduce rehospitalizations: A survey of the published evidence. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2009.
37.
KornowskiRZeeliDAverbuchM et coll. Intensive home-care surveillance prevents hospitalization and improves morbidity rates among elderly patients with severe congestive heart failure. Am Heart J.1995; 129: 762–766.
38.
NicholGKaulPHusztiE et coll. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with symptomatic heart failure. Ann Intern Med.2004; 141: 343–351.
39.
American Heart Association. Lifestyle changes for heart failure. Consulté le 6 juin 2012 àwww.heart.org.
40.
FaubelSChawlaLSChertowGM et coll. Ongoing clinical trials in AKI. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012; 7: 861–873.
41.
KellumJABellomoRRoncoC. Definition and classification of acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract.2008; 109: c182–c187.
42.
ShawADChalfinDBKleintjensJ. The economic impact and cost-effectiveness of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin after cardiac surgery. Clin Ther.2011; 33(11): 1713–1725.
43.
DevarajanP. Emerging urinary biomarkers in the diagnosis of acute kidney injury. Expert Opin Med Diagn.2008; 2: 387–398.
44.
HaaseMDevarajanPHaase-FielitzA et coll. The outcome of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin-positive subclinical acute kidney injury: A multicenter pooled analysis of prospective studies. J Am Coll Cardiol.2011; 57(17): 1752–1761.
45.
McLeodPS. Humana and Norton Healthcare's pilot ACO triggered both increased utilization of clinical laboratory tests and improved patient outcomes. Consulté le 23 juillet 2012 à www.darkdaily.com.
46.
SchulmanKAVidalAVAckerlyDC. Personalized medicine and disruptive innovation: Implications for technology assessment. Genet Med.2009; 11(8): 577–581.
47.
MaRS Discovery District. Excellence in clinical innovation and technology evaluation (EXCITE). Consulté le 6 juin 2012 à http://excite.marsdd.com/.
48.
The International Society for PharmacoEconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Consulté le 20 juillet 2012 àwww.ispor.org.
