Search

Objectives: Medical devices are potentially good candidates for coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes, as clinical data at market entry are often sparse and (cost-)effectiveness depends on real-world use. The objective of this research was to explore the diffusion of CED schemes for devices in Europe, and the factors that favour or hamper their utilization., Methods: We conducted structured interviews with 25 decision-makers from 22 European countries to explore the characteristics of existing CED programmes for devices, and how decision makers perceived 13 pre-identified challenges associated with initiating and operating CED schemes for devices. We also collected data on individual schemes that were either initiated or still ongoing in the last 5 years., Results: We identified seven countries with CED programmes for devices and 78 ongoing schemes. The characteristics of CED programmes varied across countries, including eligibility criteria, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, funding arrangements, and type of decisions being contemplated at the outset of each scheme. We observed a high variability in how decision makers perceived CED-related challenges possibly reflecting country-specific arrangements and different experiences with CED. One general finding across all countries was that relatively little attention was paid to the evaluation of schemes, both during and at their completion., Conclusions: CED programmes for devices with different characteristics exist in Europe. Decision-makers' perceptions differ on the challenges associated with these schemes. More exchange of knowledge and experience will help decision makers anticipate the likely challenges in CED schemes for devices, and to learn from good practices existing elsewhere., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Specific guidance and examples for health technology assessment (HTA) of medical devices are scarce in medical device development. A more intense dialogue of competent authorities, HTA agencies, and manufactures may improve evidence base on clinical and cost-effectiveness. Especially as the new Medical Device Regulation requires more clinical evidence., Methods: We explore the perceptions of manufacturers, competent authorities, and HTA agencies towards such dialogues and investigate how they should be designed to accelerate the translational process from development to patient access using semi-structured interviews. We synthesized the evidence from manufacturers, competent authorities, and HTA agencies from 14 different jurisdictions across Europe., Results: Eleven HTA agencies, four competent authorities, and eight manufacturers of high-risk devices expressed perceptions on the current situation and the expected development of three types of early dialogues., Discussion: The MDR has to be taken into account when designing the early dialogue processes. Transferring insights from medicinal product regulation is limited as the regulatory pathways differ substantially., Conclusion: Early dialogues promise to accelerate the translational process and to provide faster access to innovative medical devices. However, health policy-makers should promote and fully establish regulatory and HTA early dialogues before introducing parallel early dialogues of regulatory, HTA agencies, and manufacturers. For initiating change, the legislator must create the legal basis and set the appropriate incentives for manufacturers., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no financial/personal interest or belief that could affect their objectivity other than the stated funding source., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Technological and computational advancements offer new tools for the collection and analysis of real-world data (RWD). Considering the substantial effort and resources devoted to collecting RWD, a greater return would be achieved if real-world evidence (RWE) was effectively used to support Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and decision making on medical technologies. A useful question is: To what extent are RWD suitable for generating RWE?, Methods: We mapped existing RWD sources in Europe for three case studies: hip and knee arthroplasty, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and mitral valve repair (TMVR), and robotic surgery procedures. We provided a comprehensive assessment of their content and appropriateness for conducting the HTA of medical devices. The identification of RWD sources was performed combining a systematic search on PubMed with gray literature scoping, covering fifteen European countries., Results: We identified seventy-one RWD sources on arthroplasties; ninety-five on TAVI and TMVR; and seventy-seven on robotic procedures. The number, content, and integrity of the sources varied dramatically across countries. Most sources included at least one health outcome (97.5%), with mortality and rehospitalization/reoperation the most common; 80% of sources included resource outcomes, with length of stay the most common, and comparators were available in almost 70% of sources., Conclusions: RWD sources bear the potential for the HTA of medical devices. The main challenges are data accessibility, a lack of standardization of health and economic outcomes, and inadequate comparators. These findings are crucial to enabling the incorporation of RWD into decision making and represent a readily available tool for getting acquainted with existing information sources.

In the drive towards faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence from surrogate endpoints, leading to increased decision uncertainty. This study undertook an updated survey of methodological guidance for using surrogate endpoints across international HTA agencies. We reviewed HTA and economic evaluation methods guidance from European, Australian and Canadian HTA agencies. We considered how guidelines addressed the methods for handling surrogate endpoints, including (1) level of evidence, (2) methods of validation, and (3) thresholds of acceptability. Across the 73 HTA agencies surveyed, 29 (40%) had methodological guidelines that made specific reference to consideration of surrogate outcomes. Of the 45 methods documents analysed, the majority [27 (60%)] were non-technology specific, 15 (33%) focused on pharmaceuticals and three (7%) on medical devices. The principles of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) guidelines published in 2015 on the handling of surrogate endpoints appear to have been adopted by many European HTA agencies, i.e. preference for final patient-relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate endpoints with biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence of the association between the surrogate and final endpoint. Only a small number of HTA agencies (UK National Institute for Care and Excellence; the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee; and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) have developed more detailed prescriptive criteria for the acceptance of surrogate endpoints, e.g. meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials showing strong association between the treatment effect on the surrogate and final outcomes. As the decision uncertainty associated with reliance on surrogate endpoints carries a risk to patients and society, there is a need for HTA agencies to develop more detailed methodological guidance for consistent selection and evaluation of health technologies that lack definitive final patient-relevant outcome evidence at the time of the assessment.

Objectives: Several studies, mostly from developed countries, have identified barriers and facilitators with regard to the uptake of health technology assessment (HTA). This study elicited, using best-worst scaling (BWS), what HTA experts in Colombia consider to be the most important barriers and facilitators in the use of HTA, and makes a comparison to results from the Netherlands., Methods: Two object case surveys (one for barriers, one for facilitators) were conducted among 18 experts (policymakers, health professionals, PhD students, senior HTA-researchers) from Colombia. Seven respondents were employees of the national HTA agency Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica de Salud (IETS). In total, 22 barriers and 19 facilitators were included. In each choice task, participants were asked to choose the most and least important barrier/facilitator from a set of five. Hierarchical Bayes modeling was used to compute the mean relative importance scores (RIS) for each factor, and a subgroup analysis was conducted to assess differences between IETS and non-IETS respondents. The final ranking was further compared to the results from a similar study conducted in the Netherlands., Results: The three most important barriers (RIS >6.00) were "Inadequate presentation format", "Absence of policy networks", and "Insufficient legal support". The six most important facilitators (RIS >6.00) were "Appropriate timing", "Clear presentation format", "Improving longstanding relation", "Appropriate incentives", "Sufficient qualified human resources", and "Availability to relevant HTA research". The perceived relevance of the barriers and facilitators differed slightly between IETS and non-IETS employees, while the differences between the rankings in Colombia and the Netherlands were substantial., Conclusion: The study suggests that barriers and facilitators related to technical aspects of processing HTA reports and to the contact and interaction between researchers and policymakers had the greatest importance in Colombia.