When do practitioners adopt a newly approved therapy into practice?

Adopting new therapies in clinical practice is rarely a quick decision. Even when a treatment shows promise in trials, practitioners carefully weigh the evidence, cost, and real-world feasibility before making changes to patient care.

Practitioners on Healthcasts revealed how they evaluate new options and what ultimately drives them to integrate these therapies into their routines.

If you are a practitioner, how do you evaluate and implement new treatments? Log in or sign up to read the full case, see the consensus, and share your own thoughts. 

Question of the week

How do you decide when to adopt a newly approved treatment or therapy into your practice?

 Comments

Key takeaways about adopting new therapies in clinical practice:  

• Evidence and real-world validation come first
  Most clinicians weigh trial data against real-world outcomes before adopting new therapies, often waiting for post-approval safety data or peer experience to confirm benefits.
  
• Adoption depends on clear, proven advantages
  New therapies are adopted faster when they demonstrate meaningful improvements, whether in efficacy, tolerability, or patient outcomes, compared to current standards of care. If the benefits are unclear, practitioners tend to hold off until more data becomes available.
  
• Patient context and practicality guide decisions
  The decision to adopt a new therapy often depends on patient context, insurance coverage, and clinical workflow. Shared decision-making and cost considerations are key to determining when and how new treatments fit into everyday practice.
  

Pulmonolgy

"I assess new therapies by weighing their benefits against current treatments, reviewing both trial results and real-world outcomes. I start using them sooner if the advantage is clear, but hold off if the evidence is still uncertain."

Psychiatry

"When evaluating newly approved treatments, I consider whether the therapy clearly improves outcomes compared with existing options, its safety profile, and how well the clinical trial population matches my patients. I also look at real-world evidence and expert experience before deciding to integrate it into my practice. Shared decision-making with patients and cost or convenience factors also influence my approach."

Unspecified/Other

"Typically will look at the evidence and the safety results. Discuss it with peers in regards to their thoughts on the new treatment."

Infectious Disease/HIV

"Typically, I evaluate clinical trial results and FDA approval, followed by discussion with colleagues and further evaluation of implementation issues, e.g., is this feasible in the clinic setting. I also examine costs to the patient, whether insurance coverage is available, and what the benefit is compared to the current standard of care. If these are all positive, then it is time to try the new agent."

Opthomatology/Optometrists

"I tend to wait a bit for some real-world experience. There have been instances in ophthalmology where rare but severe side effects are not discovered until doctors start treating patients in the real world."

Oncology/Hematology

"I generally incorporate the newest approved regimens into my practice. As an oncologist with a subspeciality, I am familiar with the newest approved treatments during their clinical trial phases, some of which my group has participated in the studies. Of course, this assumes the newer therapy has advantages regarding responses and toxicities compared to older therapies."

Oncology/Hematology

"I have to see the data, and my main criterion is "Is it better than what I already have?". I prefer to see real-world data as well as the published articles, to make sure the patient populations being studied match the patients that I see. Sometimes the advantage is obvious. For example, Gleevec in CML totally changed how every CML patient was treated, within the first few weeks of availability. Sometimes the advantage is seen on initial studies, but not confirmed; MACOP in large cell lymphoma, CDK4/6 in Paloma trials come to mind."

Gastroenterology

"1. I generally do not jump into new therapy immediately after approval. All clinical trials before approval may not have demonstrated all potential side effects within the finite time frame over which the drug was studied.

2. However, if the therapy is truly "ground-breaking" and I am dealing with a patient with severe illness in desperate need of new therapy (after failure of available treatments), I may discuss the new medication with the patient, and we would make "shared" decision-making."

Dermatology

"I look at the clinical trials, esp. safety profile, (MOA- is it novel or established), and alternatives for the particular condition being treated. Is the new agent really an advance or just a more costly option? What advantages does the new agent really have? How insurers cover it is also important. I will then usually start using it in a limited number of patients and gain some experience with it."

Psychiatry

"When a new treatment is approved, I usually meet with a pharmaceutical rep to discuss the details of the treatment, and then I will usually begin using it in my practice within the first 3 to 6 months after approval. I usually wait a few months to see if there are any unexpected side effects or problems associated with the new treatment before I prescribe it."

Discover other strategies practitioners use to evaluate new treatments, or share yours, by reading the full post on Healthcasts.