Performance vs. Utility of Clinical Lab Tests: A Marketing Perspective

I have always held the opinion that the laboratory diagnostics industry, the clinical labs, and lab physicians do not market themselves and their services adequately to test-ordering physicians and to the general public. By way of contrast, I think that radiologists do an admirable marketing job for medical imaging. I am not sure if this latter group is more marketing-oriented or if the new imaging technologies just sell themselves. As evidence for my statement, I suspect that your next door neighbors can discuss their CT scans and MRI's but can't name a lab test beyond cholesterol. A recent blog note by Lena Chow (see: Performance vs. Utility) crystallized this issue in my mind. She is is chairman and chief executive officer of JYT Health Media in Palo Alto and Shanghai. Below is an excerpt from her blog note (boldface emphasis mine):

In the increasingly challenging environment of healthcare marketing, diagnostic marketers need to take a page from the pharmaceutical industry...for insights into how they work to understand the way doctors make decisions and adopt new technology.....I have long been intrigued by the low value assigned to diagnostics by the healthcare system, and I have been looking for tangible, actionable ideas I can give to my clients in the diagnostics space....Most diagnostic marketers I know can produce a respectably thick binder of published studies demonstrating the analytical performance of their products, including studies comparing their products with traditional methods and showcasing superior results. Then, months to years after launch, the same marketers are surprised to learn that doctors continue to use these other methods even though they take longer and provide incomplete and/or inaccurate results, and even though reimbursement is available for the new and improved test. So, rule number one: Don’t equate performance with utility. Proving that the performance of a new diagnostic test has been demonstrated through properly designed, robust trials, and getting FDA clearance must be paralleled by an equally arduous effort to work with clinicians in understanding and demonstrating clinical utility—what is the relevance of the test results in the clinical setting, how will it influence patient care...and how all of this will improve outcome. Working with clinicians, conducting the studies, publishing the findings and communicating them to the target market are just a few of the necessary steps toward adoption.

So, the advice that I carry away from her note is that proving the analytical performance of a test to satisfy the FDA using measures such as sensitivity and specificity is only half the battle. Equally important is proving the utility of a test for the clinicians working in a hospital. Here are the questions that needs to be answered for them: What is the relevance of the results from a newly offered lab test in a clinical setting and how will the results influence patient care? How will the new test enable clinicians to work more efficiently?

Having said this, the next logical question is what are the most effective channels to communicate with physicians practicing in a hospital and in their offices. One can obviously turn first to publications such as hospital physician bulletin, either hardcopy or electronic, in which the clinical utility of a new test can be presented as described above. However, one additional approach occurs to me. Every medical staff has physician opinion leaders who are respected for their professionalism and high standards. A personal call to such individuals by a pathologist when offering a new test could go a long way in promoting its use by the medical staff.

Comments

[Elaina]

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Elaina

http://www.freearticletrove.com