To assess the potential cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for treatment of mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate health state progression, incremental cost, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of NMES compared to no treatment, continuous airway pressure (CPAP), or oral appliance (OA) treatment. The base case assumed no cardiovascular (CV) benefit for any of the interventions, while potential CV benefit was considered in scenario analyses. Therapy effectiveness was based on a recent multi-center trial for NMES, and on the TOMADO and MERGE studies for OA and CPAP. Costs, considered from a United States payer perspective, were projected over lifetime for a 48-year-old cohort, 68% of whom were male. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of USD150,000 per QALY gained was applied.

From a baseline AHI of 10.2 events/hour, NMES, OA and CPAP reduced the AHI to 6.9, 7.0 and 1.4 events/hour respectively. Long-term therapy adherence was estimated at 65-75% for NMES and 55% for both OA and CPAP. Compared to no treatment, NMES added between 0.268 and 0.536 QALYs and between USD7,481 and USD17,445 in cost, resulting in ICERs between USD15,436 and USD57,844 per QALY gained. Depending on long-term adherence assumptions, either NMES or CPAP were found to be the preferred treatment option, with NMES becoming more attractive with younger age and assuming CPAP was not used for the full night in all patients.

NMES might be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with mild OSA.

Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations vary in terms of how they conduct assessments. We assess whether and to what extent HTA bodies have adopted societal and novel elements of value in their economic evaluations.

After categorizing “societal” and “novel” elements of value, we reviewed fifty-three HTA guidelines. We collected data on whether each guideline mentioned each societal or novel element of value, and if so, whether the guideline recommended the element’s inclusion in the base case, sensitivity analysis, or qualitative discussion in the HTA.

The HTA guidelines mention on average 5.9 of the twenty-one societal and novel value elements we identified (range 0–16), including 2.3 of the ten societal elements and 3.3 of the eleven novel value elements. Only four value elements (productivity, family spillover, equity, and transportation) appear in over half of the HTA guidelines, whereas thirteen value elements are mentioned in fewer than one-sixth of the guidelines, and two elements receive no mention. Most guidelines do not recommend value element inclusion in the base case, sensitivity analysis, or qualitative discussion in the HTA.

Ideally, more HTA organizations will adopt guidelines for measuring societal and novel value elements, including analytic considerations. Importantly, simply recommending in guidelines that HTA bodies consider novel elements may not lead to their incorporation into assessments or ultimate decision making.

Value-based agreements (VBAs) link access, reimbursement, or price to the real-world usage and impact of a medicine, thereby enabling patient access while reducing clinical or financial uncertainty for the payer. VBAs have the potential to support improved patient outcomes, given the value-oriented approach to care, and lead to overall savings, while enabling payers to share risk and reduce uncertainty.

This commentary outlines the key challenges, enablers, and a framework for successful implementation by comparing the experience of two VBAs for AstraZeneca medicines, aiming to increase confidence in their future use.

Engagement by payers, manufacturers, physicians, and provider institutions, and robust data collection systems that are accessible, simple to use, and add little burden to physicians were key to successfully negotiating a VBA that worked for all stakeholders. In both country systems, a legal/policy framework enabled innovative contracting.

These examples demonstrate proof of concept for VBA implementation in different settings, and may inform future VBAs.

The aim of this study was to deliver insights from multiple stakeholders into actual and future collaboration for health technology assessment (HTA) in general and in oncology in particular.

Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts from European HTA bodies (HTAbs), former board members of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, a regulatory agency, academia, and patient organizations. The stakeholders were asked about their support of the EUnetHTA’s intent, about the general strengths and challenges of the EUnetHTA and its Joint Action 3 (JA 3), the strengths and challenges of the clinically oriented HTA collaboration in oncology during JA 3 across the technology life cycle, about future challenges to HTA in oncology with consequences for collaboration, and about collaboration in the economic domains of HTA. The transcribed interviews were analyzed qualitatively.

The participants perceived the intention and work quality of the EUnetHTA as positive. The experts described methodological, procedural, and capacity challenges in early dialogues (EDs) and rapid relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) meant to analyze clinical effectiveness in oncology. The majority attached increasing importance to collaboration in the future to cope with the uncertainty of HTA. Several stakeholders also proposed the incorporation of joint postlaunch evidence generation (PLEG) activities. Some gave sporadic suggestions for voluntary nonclinical collaboration as well.

Stakeholders’ continued readiness to discuss the remaining challenges to and sufficient resources for implementing HTA regulation, as well as further cooperative expansion along the technology life cycle, are necessary for improved HTA collaboration in Europe.

This study aimed to assess whether there have been changes in the quality of clinical evidence submitted for government subsidy decisions on cancer medicines over the past 15 years.

We reviewed public summary documents (PSDs) reporting on subsidy decisions made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) from July 2005 to July 2020. Information was extracted on the study design, directness of comparison, sample size, and risk of bias (RoB). Changes in the quality of evidence were assessed using regression analysis.

Overall, 214 PSDs were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven percent lacked direct comparative evidence. Thirteen percent presented observational or single-arm studies as the basis for decisions. Among PSDs presenting indirect comparisons, 78 percent reported transitivity issues. Nearly half (41 percent) of PSDs reporting on medicines supported by head-to-head studies noted there was a moderate/high/unclear RoB. PSDs reporting concerns with RoB increased by a third over the past 7 years, even after adjusting for disease rarity and trial data maturity (OR 1.30, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.70). No time trends were observed regarding the directness of clinical evidence, study design, transitivity issues, or sample size during any of the analyzed periods.

Our findings indicate that the clinical evidence supplied to inform funding decisions for cancer medicines is often of poor quality and has been deteriorating over time. This is concerning as it introduces greater uncertainty in decision making. This is particularly important as the evidence supplied to the PBAC is often the same as that supplied to other global decision-making bodies.

Despite increasing emphasis on the inclusion of patient input in health technology assessment (HTA) in Europe in particular, questions remain as to the integration of patient insight alongside other HTA inputs. This paper aims to explore how HTA processes, while ensuring the scientific quality of assessments, “make do” with patient knowledge elicited through patients’ involvement mechanisms.

The qualitative study analyzed institutional HTA and patient involvement in four European country contexts. We combined documentary analysis with interviews with HTA professionals, patient organizations, and health technology industry representatives, complemented with observational findings made during a research stay at an HTA agency.

We present three vignettes which showcase how different parameters of assessment become reframed upon the positioning of patient knowledge alongside other forms of evidence and expertise. Each vignette explores patients’ involvement during an assessment of a different type of technology and at a different stage of the HTA process. First, cost-effectiveness considerations were reframed during an appraisal of a rare disease medicine based on patient and clinician input regarding its treatment pathway; in the second vignette reframing amounted to what counts as a meaningful outcome measure for a glucose monitoring device; in the third, evaluating pediatric transplantation services involved reframing an option’s appropriateness from a question of moral to one of legal acceptability.

Making do with patient knowledge in HTA involves reframing of what is being assessed. Conceptualizing patients’ involvement in this way helps us to consider the inclusion of patient knowledge not as complementary to, but as something that can transform the assessment process.

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has emerged as a viable and valuable care delivery method to improve chronic disease management. In light of the high prevalence and substantial economic burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD), this systematic review examines the cost and cost-effectiveness of using RPM to manage CVD in the United States.

We systematically searched databases to identify potentially relevant research. Findings were synthesized for cost and cost-effectiveness by economic study type with consideration of study perspective, intervention, clinical outcome, and time horizon. The methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Economic Evaluations.

Thirteen articles with fourteen studies published between 2011 and 2021 were included in the final review. Studies from the provider perspective with a narrow scope of cost components identified higher costs and similar effectiveness for the RPM group relative to the usual care group. However, studies from payer and healthcare sector perspectives indicate better clinical effectiveness of RPM relative to usual care, with two cost-utility analysis studies suggesting that RPM relative to usual care is a cost-effective tool for CVD management even at the conservative $50,000 per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year threshold. Additionally, all model-based studies revealed that RPM is cost-effective in the long run.

Full economic evaluations identified RPM as a potentially cost-effective tool, particularly for long-term CVD management. In addition to the current literature, rigorous economic analysis with a broader perspective is needed in evaluating the value and economic sustainability of RPM.

To develop best-practice guidance for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies when appraising diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19.

We used a policy sandbox approach to develop best-practice guidance for HTA agencies to approach known challenges associated with assessing tests and treatments for COVID-19. The guidance was developed by a multi-stakeholder workshop of twenty-one participants representing HTA agencies, clinical and patient experts, academia, industry, and a payer, from across Europe and North America. The workshop was supported by extensive background work to identify the key challenges, including: targeted reviews of existing COVID-related methods guidance for assessing interventions and clinical guidelines, engagement with clinical experts, a survey and workshop of HTA agencies, a systematic review of published economic evaluations, and a workshop of health economic modelers.

We suggest HTA agencies should consider using other types of evidence (e.g., real world) where high-quality randomized controlled trials may be lacking and healthcare systems would value timely HTA outputs. A “living” HTA approach may be useful, given the context of an evolving disease, scientific understanding and evidence base, allowing for decisions to be efficiently revisited in response to new information; particularly, if supported by a common “disease model” for COVID-19. Innovative ways of engaging with the public and clinicians, and early engagement with regulators and payers, are recommended.

HTA agencies should consider the elements of this guidance that are most suited to their existing processes to enable them to assess the effectiveness and value of interventions for COVID-19.

Systematic reviews (SRs) are usually conducted by a highly specialized group of researchers. The routine involvement of methodological experts is a core methodological recommendation. The present commentary describes the qualifications required for information specialists and statisticians involved in SRs, as well as their tasks, the methodological challenges they face, and potential future areas of involvement.

Information specialists select the information sources, develop search strategies, conduct the searches, and report the results. Statisticians select the methods for evidence synthesis, assess the risk of bias, and interpret the results. The minimum requirements for their involvement in SRs are a suitable university degree (e.g., in statistics or librarian/information science or an equivalent degree), methodological and content expertise, and several years of experience.

The complexity of conducting SRs has greatly increased due to a massive rise in the amount of available evidence and the number and complexity of SR methods, largely statistical and information retrieval methods. Additional challenges exist in the actual conduct of an SR, such as judging how complex the research question could become and what hurdles could arise during the course of the project.

SRs are becoming more and more complex to conduct and information specialists and statisticians should routinely be involved right from the start of the SR. This increases the trustworthiness of SRs as the basis for reliable, unbiased and reproducible health policy, and clinical decision making.

The evolution of breast cancer (BC) treatments has resulted in tailored therapies for the different types and stages of BC. Each treatment has a profile of benefits and adverse effects which are taken into consideration when planning a treatment pathway. This study examines whether patients’ preferences are in line with what is considered important from decision makers viewpoint.

An online discrete choice experiment was conducted in six European countries (France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Spain, UK) with BC patients. Six attributes were included: overall survival (OS), hyperglycemia, rash, pain, functional well-being (FWB), and out-of-pocket payment (OOP). Sixteen choice sets with two hypothetical treatments and a “No treatment” option were presented. Data were analyzed with the use of heteroscedastic conditional, mixed logistic, and latent class models. Marginal rate of substitution (MRS) were estimated for OOP versus the rest of attributes to establish the ranking of preferences for each attribute.

Two hundred and forty-seven patients with advanced or metastatic BC and 314 with early-stage BC responded. Forty-nine percent of patients were < 44 years old and 65 percent had completed university education. The MRS of the analysis demonstrated that “severe pain” is the highest dis-preferred attribute level, followed by “severe impairment in FWB” and OS. Four classes of patients as “decision makers” were identified.

This study suggests that there is heterogeneity in treatment preferences of BC patients depending on their sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics. In combination with clinical guidelines, patient preferences can support the selection and tailoring of treatment options.

Multi-stakeholder interactions have evolved at product and policy levels. There is a need to assess the current and future landscape of interactions between companies, and regulatory and HTA agencies to address challenges and identify areas for improvement.

The aims of this study were to review the current interactions within and across regulatory and HTA agencies, and companies’ experiences in engaging in these activities; to assess the added value of interactions as well as limitations; to explore the future ecosystem for stakeholder interactions.

Three separate questionnaires were developed for companies, regulators and HTA agencies, respectively, to assess their experiences and perceptions. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and discussed at a multi-stakeholder workshop. Key outcomes from the surveys and workshop discussion were reported.

All seven regulators and seven HTA agencies in the survey indicated that they had stakeholder interactions. More formal collaboration occurred with regulators compared with HTA agencies. All nine companies have taken early advice but indicated the need for future prioritization. Success indicators can be built at the product and therapy levels, with the added value of faster patient access. Four principles were proposed for the future ecosystem: separate remit and functions between regulators and HTA; align processes; converge evidence requirements where possible; increase transparency.

This research brought together regulators, HTA agencies, companies to examine how they interact with one another. We propose measures of value and make recommendations on future evolution to enable better evidence generation and improve regulatory and HTA decision-making.

The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) conducts early health technology assessment (HTA) of new medicines on behalf of NHSScotland. Assessment of end-of-life (EoL), orphan, and ultra-orphan medicines includes a process to gather evidence from patients and carers during Patient and Clinician Engagement (PACE) meetings. The output of PACE meetings is a consensus statement describing the medicine’s added value from the perspective of patients/carers and clinicians. The PACE statement is used by SMC committee members in decision making. This study compared how PACE participants and SMC committee members rate the importance of information in PACE statements for these medicines.

A survey was undertaken of patient group (PG) representatives and clinicians who participated in PACE meetings, and SMC committee members.

PACE participants who responded (26 PG representatives and 14 clinicians) rated health benefits and ability to take part in normal life as important/very important. Convenience of administration and treatment choice received the lowest rating. Hope for the future received the most diverse response. PACE participants generally rated the importance of quality of life themes higher than committee members (n = 20) but the rank order was similar. Differences between the proportion of PACE participants and committee members who rated themes as important/very important were greatest for treatment choice and hope for the future.

In general, PACE themes and subthemes that were rated highly by PACE participants were also considered important by SMC committee members, indicating that information captured during PACE meetings is relevant when making decisions on EoL, orphan, and ultra-orphan medicines.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is the systematic evaluation of various properties and effects of a health technology. HTA can serve as a bridge between the world of knowledge and that of decision making, offering decision makers the best summary of scientific evidence. Scoping HTA reports in the context of dentistry can help researchers identify grey areas; help practitioners make evidence-based decisions and further initiate better policy making.

To provide an overview on HTAs pertaining to oral health and dentistry in the past decade, map the extension and scope of the methodological practices, key findings, and limitations.

A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. A comprehensive search for HTA reports was done through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment Database from January 2010 to December 2020. Consecutively, electronic databases (PubMed and Google Scholar) were searched. Finally, thirty-six reports were included in this review and analyzed.

A total of 709 articles were initially identified, of which thirty-six met the inclusion criteria. Reviewed HTAs focused on various specialties of dentistry worldwide. Maximum number of reports (N = 5) were related to “prosthodontics and dental implants” and technologies related to preventive dentistry were most commonly assessed (N = 4).

Functional, appropriate, and evidence-based information provided through HTA pertaining to oral health on a regular basis will enable decision makers to have enough data to make decisions on the future use of new technology, modify existing policies, accelerate its translation into practice, and ensure provision of robust dental healthcare services.

The objective of the present policy analysis was to understand how a disinvestment approach to the process of health technology assessment (HTA), applied to the field of medical devices, might help Italian policymakers to properly spend the resources in healthcare.

Previous international and national experiences in disinvestment for medical devices were reviewed. Precious insights for the rational expenditure of the resources were derived by assessing the evidence available.

The disinvestment of ineffective or inappropriate technologies or interventions with an inadequate value-for-money ratio has become a growing priority for National Health Systems. Different international disinvestment experiences of medical devices were identified and described through a rapid review. Although most of them have a strong theoretical framework, their practical application remains difficult. In Italy, there are no examples of large and complex HTA-based disinvestment practices, but their importance is becoming increasingly acknowledged, especially given the need to prioritize the funds provided by Recovery and Resilience Plan.

Anchoring decisions on health technologies without reassessing the current technological landscape through a robust HTA model might expose to the risk of not ensuring the best employment of the resources available. Thus, it is necessary to develop a strong HTA ecosystem in Italy through adequate consultation with stakeholders to enable a data-driven and evidence-based prioritization of resources toward choices characterized by high value for both patients and society as a whole.

The hazard ratio (HR) is a commonly used summary statistic when comparing time to event (TTE) data between trial arms, but assumes the presence of proportional hazards (PH). Non-proportional hazards (NPH) are increasingly common in NICE technology appraisals (TAs) due to an abundance of novel cancer treatments, which have differing mechanisms of action compared with traditional chemotherapies. The goal of this study is to understand how pharmaceutical companies, evidence review groups (ERGs) and appraisal committees (ACs) test for PH and report clinical effectiveness in the context of NPH.

A thematic analysis of NICE TAs concerning novel cancer treatments published between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021 was undertaken. Data on PH testing and clinical effectiveness reporting for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were obtained from company submissions, ERG reports, and final appraisal determinations (FADs).

NPH were present for OS or PFS in 28/40 appraisals, with log-cumulative hazard plots the most common testing methodology (40/40), supplemented by Schoenfeld residuals (20/40) and/or other statistical methods (6/40). In the context of NPH, the HR was ubiquitously reported by companies, inconsistently critiqued by ERGs (10/28), and commonly reported in FADs (23/28).

There is inconsistency in PH testing methodology used in TAs. ERGs are inconsistent in critiquing use of the HR in the context of NPH, and even when critiqued it remains a commonly reported outcome measure in FADs. Other measures of clinical effectiveness should be considered, along with guidance on clinical effectiveness reporting when NPH are present.

To identify which international health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are undertaking evaluations of medical tests, summarize commonalities and differences in methodological approach, and highlight examples of good practice.

A methodological review incorporating: systematic identification of HTA guidance documents mentioning evaluation of tests; identification of key contributing organizations and abstraction of approaches to all essential HTA steps; summary of similarities and differences between organizations; and identification of important emergent themes which define the current state of the art and frontiers where further development is needed.

Seven key organizations were identified from 216 screened. The main themes were: elucidation of claims of test benefits; attitude to direct and indirect evidence of clinical effectiveness (including evidence linkage); searching; quality assessment; and health economic evaluation. With the exception of dealing with test accuracy data, approaches were largely based on general approaches to HTA with few test-specific modifications. Elucidation of test claims and attitude to direct and indirect evidence are where we identified the biggest dissimilarities in approach.

There is consensus on some aspects of HTA of tests, such as dealing with test accuracy, and examples of good practice which HTA organizations new to test evaluation can emulate. The focus on test accuracy contrasts with universal acknowledgment that it is not a sufficient evidence base for test evaluation. There are frontiers where methodological development is urgently required, notably integrating direct and indirect evidence and standardizing approaches to evidence linkage.