To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Conclusions and recommendations of health technology assessment (HTA) reports have an impact on all relevant actors involved in the health system (health authorities, administrators, health professionals, patients, citizens and industry). The involvement of all those relevant stakeholders in the HTA process facilitates making valid and informed decisions and an efficient allocation of resources. Improving communication, participation and transparency among all agents will lead to more efficient evaluation and decision-making processes.
To review key aspects of the relations between HTA agencies and health industries, two process were carried out: a narrative review of literature searched in Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and WOS (2007-2017) and a review of websites of international HTA agencies. References and webs with information on the framework, objectives, methodologies, impact or results of the relationships were included.
A total of 1961 references were located and forty-five were selected. From the synthesis of the selected references the following key aspects of the relationships between HTA and industry were identified: (i) the importance of early dialogues with industry to align HTA objectives with the generation of evidence; (ii) challenges of the bias in the evidence produced by industry; (iii) difficulties in industry engagement in HTA processes; and (iv) industry interest in HTA. The review of six agency websites provided information on industry involvement in strategic activities, early dialogues, provision of documentation, management of industry clarifications, review of the report/allegations and other forms of relationship.
Both the review of the literature and the contents of the web pages of international agencies with experience in relations with industry show that the interest is in the creation of collaborative frameworks between regulatory authorities that decide on authorization and price and reimbursement and HTA agencies, while both try to maintain an early, transparent and systematic interaction with the healthcare industry.
New therapeutic strategies have been established in chronic wound healing procedures, such as the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). There is currently still uncertainty about the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and real safety of PRP in promoting chronic wound healing and what specific types of chronic wounds can benefit most from its use.
We conducted a systematic review of available scientific literature on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of PRP compared to placebo, standard care or alternative topical therapies for the treatment of chronic wounds in adults. Overall effect size was estimated through a meta-analysis. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model which simulates the costs and health outcomes of individuals for a 5-year horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) for the PRP versus standard treatment in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
Sixteen RCTs and four observational studies were included for the effectiveness and safety meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the proportion of chronic wounds completely healed: 143 patients out of 334 (42.8 percent) were cured in the standard treatment arm and 251 patients out of 375 (66.9 percent) in the PRP arm, relative risk (RR) 1.68 (95% CI: 1.22–2.31). It was unclear whether there was a difference in the risk of infection (RR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.10–2.71) or adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI: 0.29–3.88) between PRP and standard care. Three studies were considered for the cost-effectiveness analysis. In the base case analysis, PRP led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 41,767 (USD 48,323)/QALY.
PRP treatment is more expensive and more effective than standard treatment. The estimated ICER is above the acceptability threshold in Spain.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.