International collaboration on horizon scanning for medical devices is seen as desirable, because the development of medical devices is not limited to the national level, and horizon scanning for medical devices on a country-level can be challenging due to scarcity and diversity of information. The International Horizon Scanning Initiative Medical Devices Working Group (IHSI MDWG) was set up in June 2021. The objective of this study was to research the expectations and experiences of the participants of this initiative, in order to reflect on the possibilities and challenges of governing innovative medical technologies.

A questionnaire was sent out to 10 purposively selected representatives of the IHSI MDWG participating counties: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden. The survey covered individual countries’ respective purposes for an international horizon scanning system as well as questions related to the desired scope and perceived challenges of such a system. The questionnaire was supplemented with online, semi-structured, in-depth interviews with the same representatives from each participating country. These interviews provided for diving deeper into the survey topics as well as discussing the relation between horizon scanning and health technology assessment, the relation to other international horizon scanning collaborations, and the relation between an international versus a national horizon scanning system. In addition, participant observations were conducted at the Dutch National Health Care Institute and during IHSI MDWG working group meetings.

Preliminary results are discussed first with participants after which we will draw our final conclusions and recommendations for practice. Our analysis focuses on exploring participants’ expectations and experiences with international horizon scanning through triangulating the three sources of data in our analysis.

The study will report on the expectations, needs and challenges of setting up an international collaboration for horizon scanning of medical devices and reflect on the regulation and governance of innovative medical technologies across several countries in Europe and Canada.

Horizon Scanning (HS) has been part of the health technology assessment (HTA) world since the end of 20th century. In accordance with the life cycle concept of heath technologies, there have been different organizations that have devoted part of their portfolio to HS’s so called Early Awareness and Alert Systems. In 2017, a legal entity international Health Tech Scan (iHTS) was created on the basis of the previous existing network EuroScan. Our aim is to describe the current achievements of the network, the methods used by its members, and their achievements.

In 2010, EuroScan decided to analyze its members’ methods and processes to perform HS. We used a previously defined questionnaire to revisit the analysis of methods, processes, and impact of the founded legal entity i-HTS. We analyzed the clients, stakeholders involved, impact on health systems and alliances, as well as the current achievements as a group.

i-HTS is currently rooted mainly in Europe and Asia-Pacific with members in the Americas and with ambassador programmes in Africa. The individual members have continued their achievements with special focus on three main aspects: proactive approach to innovators, stakeholder involvement, and client orientation. In most cases, the members of i-HTS produce information that is used for decision-making purposes, some of which influences the national or regional benefit package. Methods did not differ but the level of involvement of stakeholders in the different phases of the process. Some members also include in their portfolio early advice to innovators.

Early Awareness and Alert Systems are key to inform health care systems around technologies that could impact the management of patients in different contexts. There is a need to better understand the needs of the clients and the importance of HS in order to improve their efficiency. iHTS is in the process of redesigning its methods toolkit with the participation of all its members.

The term Postlaunch Evidence Generation (PLEG) refers to evidence generated after the launch or licensing of a health technology. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the implementation of these practices in the European Union in order to explore cross-border cooperation opportunities.

In December 2019, a survey composed of nine closed-ended questions with multiple choice answers about the PLEG practices in each country was sent to all twenty-five dedicated work package (WP5B) partners of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3. In addition to the survey, the national practices were discussed during a face-to-face meeting with WP5B partners.

Twelve Health TechnologyAssessment (HTA) bodies completed the survey. Of these, eleven reported procedures in place for official requests for PLEGs in their remit. In the large majority of cases, the requests are made at the time of the assessment/appraisal. Several agencies participate in the definition of the scope of the PLEG or review of its protocol. Data collection and analysis mainly lie with companies for pharmaceuticals, whereas it is more the responsibility of the HTA bodies for medical devices. Only one agency owns the data and is able to exchange them without asking permission.

Most agencies recommend European collaboration on PLEG commence once the evidence gaps have been defined or during the production of the HTA report in the case of European joint assessment.

To understand the importance of the preference methods criteria to stakeholders at each decision point in the Medical Product Lifecycle (MPLC) and to determine the suitability of commonly applied preference methods (Discrete Choice Experiment [DCE], swing weighting [SW], probabilistic threshold technique [PTT], Best-Worst Scaling case 1 [BWS1], Best-Worst Scaling case 2 [BWS2]) for a given decision-point.

Nineteen preference methods criteria of an existing performance matrix were incorporated in an online survey of industry, regulatory, and health technology assessment (HTA) stakeholders. All methods criteria were given a relative weight based on the SW ranking and point allocation task in the survey. Based on this relative weight and the performance matrix values, an overall suitability score was calculated for each method per critical decision point along the MPLC. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted for which the performance matrix was adapted.

In total 59 industry, 29 regulatory, and 5 HTA representatives completed the survey. In general, ‘estimating trade-offs between characteristics’, and ‘estimating weights for treatment characteristics’ were important preference method criteria throughout all MPLC decision points, while other preference method criteria were most important only for specific MPLC stages. Both BWS1 and BWS2 seem equally suitable across decision points, DCEs seem most suitable during clinical development and regulatory launch, and SW and PTT seem most suitable throughout industry decision points. Sensitivity analysis showed substantial impact of slight changes in the performance matrix.

With rapid changes in preference research, performance matrices of preference methods should continue to be re-evaluated as more and more evidence accumulates. While DCE is the most applied preference elicitation method, other methods should also be considered to address the needs of MPLC stakeholders. Development of evidence-based guidance documents for designing, conducting, and analyzing such methods could enhance their use.

Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is emerging, as the focus of health technology assessment agencies shifts from traditional methods of technology adoption to managing technologies throughout their lifecycle. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates devices, digital and diagnostic technologies by producing medical technologies guidance, which could recommend for adoption, no adoption, or further research. The desire to move to a lifecycle approach in the evaluation of medical technologies is reflected in the guidance review process, which involves review of the technology every three years or upon notification of significant new evidence. The outcomes of the guidance review can be to amend, update, withdraw, or leave the guidance unchanged.

Information on all technologies which have undergone guidance review since the commencement of the process was collected, including the recommendation before and after review and the basis for this recommendation. The proportion of guidances which were not changed, amended, updated, and withdrawn was calculated and the trends, including the bases for recommendation change were analyzed.

In total, 34 medical technology guidance reviews have been performed. During the process, 15 (44%) were amended to reflect minor changes in the economic or clinical evidence, which did not change the recommendation. Ten (29%) were not changed, while three (9%) were updated respectively. Three (9%) were withdrawn. Another three (9%) represent special cases, which entered guidance review, but were paused due to external reasons. Among the guidances that progressed to update, two out of three had a cost increase, whereas one was broadened to reflect evidence for a larger population.

HTR is an important mechanism to improve patient care and system efficiency. In NICE’s evaluation of medical technologies, changes in the recommendation stemmed from changes in the technology’s (or standard care’s) cost, the evidence for clinical effectiveness, or the safety profile.

To review the development of economic evaluation guidelines (EEGs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with the goal of assisting those developing EEGs in LMICs.

We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature until March 2021. We extracted data on the methods used in the EEG development process, the responsible party engaged, and the development team’s composition. We conducted a quality assessment, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems tool, and then carried out a relative comparison.

Fourteen EEGs and nine studies were identified. In ten countries, the Ministry of Health was responsible for handling the development process. The majority of LMICs who developed EEGs did not explicitly report the discipline of those involved in the process. The developers of EEGs followed four main steps: conducting a review on national guidelines, organizing workshops, and getting support from international experts or from organizations. One-third of the identified EEGs failed to engage multisectoral or multidisciplinary developers, and approximately 14 percent did not follow or report any recommended step.

This study identified a scarcity of published information related to the development process and the suboptimal quality of included studies. It provides relevant material to support international organizations and developers of guidelines in LMICs in developing EEGs that fit their national context. In addition, this paper recommends a transparent approach to the design of guidelines and to reporting on the methods for developing them.

Due to the iterative nature of medical device innovation and development, a single once-off assessment does not provide all the answers that decision-makers need over the device’s lifetime. Consequently, a lifecycle approach is frequently recommended. However, there is no lifecycle model recognized internationally for conducting such evaluations, nor is there explicit agreement regarding what is meant by, or evaluated over, the lifecycle. The purpose of this review was to identify and explore the range of models/frameworks used for evaluating medical devices across their lifetime – to determine what people mean by ‘the lifecycle’, what is evaluated, how, and why.

A qualitative evidence synthesis of lifecycle models described in the literature from a wide variety of disciplines was performed. Literature searching and selection of models iterated with analysis. Similarities, differences, and patterns were identified, from which themes became apparent, and explanatory theories were developed.

Fifty-three models are included in the synthesis. The dimensions of difference include, amongst others, the lifecycle scope, level of application, evaluation timepoints and methods, factors included in the models, and the focus of interest. These are each influenced by the purpose of the lifecycle evaluation, which depends on the perspective and the decision or activity the evaluation is intended to inform. Few models provide a lifecycle approach to evaluating safety or efficacy. Theories explaining the differences are postulated.

Lifecycle evaluation means different things to different actors, with varied reasons for evaluation and different variables included in the models. Thus, discussions between different actors on lifecycle evaluation may be inadvertently at cross-purposes. Without first defining what is meant by the lifecycle (including the stages or phases of activity it covers) and the variables included in an evaluation, care must be exercised when discussing a lifecycle evaluation approach – to ensure that the meaning (and intended objective) is not lost in translation. Indeed, promoting lifecycle evaluation may result in necessary evidence not being generated early enough, being deferred instead until later.

Managed access approaches have been used by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in partnership with NHS England since 2015. The Cancer Drugs Fund is an exemplar of this approach which enables earlier patient access to promising new treatments while further real-world data is collected to address evidential uncertainties. Increasingly, this approach is being applied to rare diseases and other conditions to address unmet clinical need with extensive involvement from patient organizations and clinicians.

All Managed Access Agreements (MAAs) in development or published in England were reviewed to present data on the number of technologies (i) entering, (ii) in active monitoring, and (iii) exiting managed access, for both cancer and other disease areas.

After six years since the first MAA (at December 2021), over 73,000 patients have benefited from earlier access to promising new treatments for cancer, genetic and rare diseases, including cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy and sickle cell disease via managed access. Fifty-eight technologies were commissioned via managed access: thirty technologies in active data collection, eleven technologies being re-evaluated, and seventeen technologies have exited managed access. Patient and clinical engagement have been essential to the successful real-world data collections delivered and underway.

Managed access is an approach for providing earlier patient access to promising new technologies that would not otherwise be recommended for use in England. The approach to managed access in England is maturing at the same time the volume of topics entering and exiting managed access in England is expected to grow throughout 2022 with the introduction of the Innovative Medicines Fund.

This review intends to provide an overview of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment (HTA) among the different agencies.

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2020. The studies were eligible for inclusion if they conducted a quantitative analysis of HTA’s previous decisions for cancer drugs. The factors with p-values below the significance level of .05 were considered as the statistically significant factors for HTA decisions.

A total of nine studies for six agencies in Australia, Belgium, France, South Korea, the UK, and Canada were eligible to be included. From the univariable analysis, improvements in clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness were found as significant factors for the agencies in Belgium, South Korea, and Canada. From the multivariable analysis, cost-effectiveness was found as a positive factor for the agencies in the UK, South Korea, and Canada. Few factors related to characteristics of disease and technology were found to be significant among the included agencies.

Despite the different drug reimbursement systems and the socioeconomic situations, cost-effectiveness and/or improvement on clinical outcomes seemed to be the most important factors for recommendations of cancer drugs among the agencies.

Prices of medicines have increasingly come under payer and societal scrutiny in many countries around the world. As the price-setting process is quite untransparent, the concept of cost-based pricing has been brought forward as an alternative method to inform reimbursement decision-making. A Real-Option rate of Return (ROroR) approach, was recently proposed as a method for a multi-stakeholder driven collaborative investment model. This study showed that there are public-private medicine development opportunities that could lead to lower research and development (R&D) costs for products with a challenging business model. The aim of the current study is to assess the practical use of the ROroR approach and highlight its sensitivity regarding input parameters.

The ROroR approach incorporates medicine-specific parameters: R&D costs, the number of patients treated per year, the time horizon for recouping the investments set by the stakeholders, the production costs and a predefined profit margin. Three hypothetical case-studies were selected for the ROroR analysis comprising of an orphan, oncology, and a more regular medicine. Parameter input data was derived from the available literature. Cost-based prices were calculated based on applying the ROroR equation under a constant profit margin. Ultimately, the corresponding prices of the case-studies were analyzed for their sensitivity using ten changes of the original value.

The ROroR approach was most sensitive to the length of the time horizon and the number of patients treated per year. The largest sensitivity was found for the oncological drug, with an asymmetric price change ranging from -25 percent to +271 percent if varying the time horizon or number of patients. The profit margin, and total R&D costs have the least effect on the price: +/-4 percent and +/-45 percent, respectively.

This study shows that cost-based pricing is highly beneficial in uncovering pricing-underlying business or economic mechanisms and suggesting a transparent price. Further research is needed on implementing public-private development models and cost-based price determination using the core parameters.

Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review.

A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

This paper reports the results of the collaboration within the European initiative of new Reimbursement and aCCess Approaches (EUreccA) which is concerned with the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. The work grew from the observation of a large, very experienced group of HTA practitioners which found that the use of RWE varied depending on the type of question asked and the particulars of the data source(s) used. We set out to examine how RWE is used in HTA decision-making and to make proposals on its facilitation.

Literature reviews covering earlier reviews of RWE use, academic papers, and HTA agency websites were combined with case studies involving interviews with decision-makers in four countries (England, France, Italy, Sweden) to identify the circumstances of breakdown of RWE use and to build a categorization of the uses of RWE and associated difficulties. This evidence supported the creation of a taxonomy of pairings of data sources and the questions they were used to address. The face validity of the approach was tested at an advisory board of senior HTA practitioners.

In total, 27 questions were identified and 10 types of data source, giving 270 pairings. These pairings were linked to relevant methods guidance and to examples of their use, itemizing HTA issues and decisions made. Reports are being prepared for publication, covering the detail of the methods of the literature searches; methods of the country case studies; a description of the taxonomy; and guidance on governance.

When using RWE in HTA decision-making, the detail of the particular data sources and question addressed matter. Recently, both the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Real-World Transparency Initiative have argued for a registry of the uses of RWE. The work described here offers a starting classification of the material that should be held in such a registry, and which in itself could be developed by the stakeholders, both agencies and companies, that use it, furthering trust and confidence.

When assessing existing or emerging technologies using a one-off health technology assessment (HTA) we do not take into consideration the effects on people who will receive the technology once approved. Developments in real-world data (RWD) can help to address this by moving to ongoing health technology management (HTM).

To move to HTM, we first need to develop HTM data requirements. We undertook user interviews with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) HTA developers to develop a list of requirements. We surveyed the types of data that NICE currently has access to and performed a gap analysis to understand where further data is needed. We then worked with external systems partners to identify and review available data sources that could support HTM.

From our user interviews we established eight HTM data requirements. Data needed to be linked, cover full care pathways, contain data from new collections, be shareable, have direct access, be of high quality, have comprehensive coverage, and be responsive to technological developments (such as artificial intelligence). The review of data sources revealed a fragmented landscape of health data in the United Kingdom (UK). We identified National Health Service Digital’s (NHSD) Trusted Research Environment as the main data source that could address HTM requirements. This addresses challenges with fragmented data by providing approved researchers with timely and secure access to a range of linked health and care data. We also identified that a large national data collection would not capture all technologies, such as orphan technologies for rare conditions. We therefore established a process for accessing data from smaller data collections such as disease specific registries. To address how we can use this data, we developed the NICE Real-World Evidence (RWE) Framework that provides clear guidance on the expectations for the planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal of RWE studies.

We have established requirements for the type of data that will help to deliver HTM as well as developed a process for accessing several suitable data sources that meet these requirements.

The extent to which value assessments are uniquely deployed in any given geographic setting is variable. Increasingly, markets are seeking insights from external health technology assessments (HTAs) to assist with decisions surrounding the adoption of new technologies. We reviewed the environment, infrastructure, and practice of value assessment in six countries, with a focus on how these elements influence the transferability of value assessments between settings.

We reviewed the diverse settings in which six organizations conducting HTA operate, and explored how differences might affect the transferability of value assessment. We focused attention on Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, China’s National Center for Medicine and HTA, Germany’s Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Japan’s Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (Core 2 Health), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England and Wales, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review in the United States.

HTA is adopted to address unique objectives for a given health system and is tailored to support local standards and preferences. Some elements of a value assessment, such as evidence on clinical effectiveness, may be more transferable than others. It is challenging to appropriately adjust external assessments to the local context.

Contextual differences influence both the role and application of HTA. These differences limit the transferability of value assessments from one setting to another. De novo appraisals, customized to the local decision context, are the ideal approach to determinations about value.

Real-world evidence (RWE) can be of value to support comparative effectiveness of drugs and technologies by providing additional information about their use for a variety of patients in real contexts of care. However, the integration of RWE in appraisals can be challenging, and INESSS felt the need to reinforce and explicit the underlying methodological and theoretical foundations.

A comprehensive literature review was carried out, followed by collaborative development work by members of the methodological and assessment teams.

The literature review led to a common understanding of RWE underlying principles and fed the subsequent phases of the project. Three factors were identified as driving the integration of RWE in reimbursement appraisals at INESSS. Specifically, (i) the design and conduct of the real-world studies are done in accordance with best practices, (ii) the results are presented transparently and include all relevant information to assess the quality of the study and the data, and (iii) the RWE submitted is appropriate and relevant for decision-making. This third component is further ascertained by considering the decisional context (what are the circumstances motivating the submission of RWE and how does it correlate or not with existing evidence?), the data (is the dataset fit for decision needs?) and the study methods (are study design and analytical methods robust enough?). Globally, INESSS considers the integration of RWE in appraisals and its weighting, in relation with the (more traditional) available evidence, to be a case-by-case exercise.

The characterization of the main factors driving the integration of RWE in reimbursement appraisals at INESSS serves as a basis for communicating the requirements for evaluation submissions by sponsors. It further reinforces INESSS capabilities in assessing innovations, which can imply an appraisal of value at various moments along the lifecycle and with a diversity of evidence types. Considering the rapidly evolving literature and international experience, this work is expected to evolve too, and will be updated as needed.