This study aims to assess how care is mediated through technology by analyzing the interaction between nurses, patients, and a Bar Coded Medication Administration (BCMA) system. The objective is to explore how patients experience care through medication technology, with the main focus of our observations and interviews on nurses rather than patients.

A qualitative ethnographic study was conducted in an orthopedic ward of a Dutch general hospital.

After analyses, the following two themes were discerned: (i) the use of bar code medication technology organizes double institutionalization, and (ii) nurses frequently need to work around the BCMA, as the system is not always supportive of patient needs.

The results of this study indicate that BCMA is not merely a neutral tool, but an active component within the nurse–patient relationship, as it influences medication administration and profoundly affects patient participation in the care process.

The Health Technology Expert Review Panel is an advisory body to Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) that develops recommendations on health technology assessments (HTAs) for nondrug health technologies using a deliberative framework. The framework spans several domains, including the environmental impact of the health technology(ies). Our research objective was to identify articles on frameworks, methods or case studies on the environmental impact assessment of health technologies.

A literature search in major databases and a focused gray literature search were conducted. The main search concepts were HTA and environmental impact/sustainability. Eligible articles were those that described a conceptual framework or methods used to conduct an environmental assessment of health technologies, and case studies on the application of an environmental assessment.

From the 1,710 citations identified, thirteen publications were included. Two articles presented a framework to incorporate environmental assessment in HTAs. Other approaches described weight of evidence practices and comprehensive and integrated environmental impact assessments. Central themes derived include transparency and repeatability, integration of components in a framework or of evidence into a single outcome, data availability to ensure the accuracy of findings, and familiarity with the approach used.

Each framework and methods presented have different foci related to the ecosystem, health economics, or engineering practices. Their descriptions suggested transparency, repeatability, and the integration of components or of evidence into a single outcome as their main strengths. Our review is an initial step of a larger initiative by CADTH to develop the methods and processes to address the environmental impact question in an HTA.

The fifth Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (APF) was held in Beijing, November 2017. The topic of the meeting was ‘Universal Health Care in the Asia Region: Overcoming the Barriers using HTA and Real World Data’. This presentation will focus on the goal of achieving universal health care (UHC) in the Asia region, and specifically the perspective of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The 2017 HTAi APF had senior representatives from HTA agencies, academia, industry active in the region plus representatives from the WHO Geneva office and the Western Pacific Regional Office. A keynote presentation was delivered by the WHO representative and there were guided breakout group discussions.

UHC is a key component of the overall aims and objectives of the WHO; universal access to safe, effective, quality and affordable medicines and vaccines for all is at the heart of this. Pharmaceutical spending varies widely across the Asia region and all countries in the region share common problems in attaining UHC. These include inadequate financing, inefficiencies in procurement and supply chain management, limited use of effective pricing policies and negotiations, substandard quality of medicines and widespread inappropriate prescribing and use.

HTA can be used to help countries in the Asia region to achieve UHC; it is a tool to support good decision making and hence can help promote more efficient allocation of limited resources. Affordability, however, needs to be at the center of any decision to invest or disinvest, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios should not be used as the sole basis for decision making.

This study aims to assess participants’ views on previous experiences, the current situation and future perspectives for early dialogue between the pharmaceutical industry, a regulatory agency and health technology assessment bodies (HTABs) in Europe.

Eleven semi-structured interviews were arranged purposively with experienced people from the pharmaceutical industry, the European Medicines Agency, and an expert in Health Economics. The interview questions focused on the value of early dialogue, the challenges faced during the process of early dialogue, the best time to start an early dialogue, the kind of products most suitable for early dialogue, the current situation, and future perspectives for the early dialogue process. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed for open and axial coding to summarize the findings.

All interviewees agreed that early dialogue is a valuable process that helps to inform the development program and accordingly provide patients with faster access to new medicines. However, at this stage, the pharmaceutical industry acknowledged certain challenges: (i) Finding resources within pharmaceutical companies and HTABs to support early dialogues (ii) Requirements between regulators and HTABs in different countries diverge.

This study revealed that people from the pharmaceutical industry perceive early dialogue as a valuable tool that can bring medicines to patients faster by streamlining development. However, the challenges mentioned above need to be mitigated to build a sustainable mechanism for early dialogue.

Adherence to injectable disease-modifying treatments in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) impacts outcomes and can be influenced by perceptions of treatment efficacy, side effects, injection frequency, and the duration of injection. This study aimed to quantify preferences for selected attributes of injectable treatments among individuals with MS in the United Kingdom and France.

Respondents with a self-reported diagnosis of MS completed an online discrete-choice-experiment survey, consisting of a series of treatment-choice questions. Each choice question presented two hypothetical treatments, each with six attributes (years until disability progression, relapses in the next 4 years, injection time, injection frequency, flu-like symptoms (FLS), and injection-site reactions), each with various levels. Mixed-logit regression analysis was used to estimate preference weights for attribute levels and to calculate the relative importance of changes in treatment attributes (vertical distance between preference weights). Minimum acceptable efficacy estimates indicate improvement in efficacy that respondents would require in exchange for worsening injection frequency and FLS.

In both countries, 100 respondents completed the survey. In the United Kingdom and France, respectively, improving the time until disability progression from 2 to 4 years, reducing injection frequency from “daily” to “every 2 weeks”, and reducing FLS from 3 days after every injection to none had a relative importance of 2.9 and 2.6, 3.0 and 3.5, and 2.5 and 3.1. Given the ranges included in the study, changes in these attributes were more important than most changes in other attributes assessed.

Reductions in the injection frequency of MS treatments and FLS can be as important to patients as improvements in treatment efficacy.

As model-based economic evaluations (MBEEs) are widely used to make decisions in the context of policy, it is imperative that they represent clinical practice. Here, we assess the relevance of MBEEs on dabigatran for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

We performed a systematic review on the basis of a developed questionnaire, tailored to oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. Included studies had a full body text in English, compared dabigatran with a vitamin K antagonist, were not dedicated to one or more subgroup(s), and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The relevance of all MBEEs was assessed on the basis of ten context-independent factors, which encompassed clinical outcomes and treatment duration. The MBEEs performed for the United States were assessed on the basis of seventeen context-dependent factors, which were related to the country's target population and clinical environment.

The search yielded twenty-nine MBEEs, of which six were performed for the United States. On average, 54 percent of the context-independent factors were included per study, and 37 percent of the seventeen context-dependent factors in the U.S. studies. The share of relevant factors per study did not increase over time.

MBEEs on dabigatran leave out several relevant factors, limiting their usefulness to decision makers. We strongly urge health economic researchers to improve the relevance of their MBEEs by including context-independent relevance factors, and modeling context-dependent factors befitting the decision context concerned.

The aim of this study was to develop and to assess a specific Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework to evaluate new drugs in an hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committee (P&TC) setting.

A pilot criteria framework was developed based on the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking) framework, together with other relevant criteria, and assessed by a group of P&TC's members. The weighting of included criteria was done using a 5-point weighting technique. Two drugs were chosen by evaluation: an orphan-drug for Gaucher disease, and a nonorphan drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence matrices were developed, and value contribution of each drug was evaluated by P&TC's members. An agreed final framework was obtained through a discussion between the P&TC's members.

After criteria assessment, the pilot framework included eight quantitative criteria: “disease severity,” “unmet needs,” “comparative efficacy/effectiveness,” “comparative safety/tolerability,” “comparative patient-reported outcomes,” “comparative cost consequences-cost of treatment,” “comparative cost consequences-other medical costs,” and “quality of evidence”; and one contextual criterion: “opportunity costs and affordability.” The most valued criteria were: “comparative safety/tolerability,” “disease severity,” and “comparative efficacy/effectiveness.” When assessing the drugs most valued characteristics of the MCDA were the possibility that all team may contribute to drug assessment by means of scoring the matrices and the discussion to reach a consensus in drug positioning and value decision making.

The reflective MCDA would integrate quantitative and qualitative criteria relevant for a P&TC setting, allowing reflective discussions based on the criteria weighting score.

The fifth Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (APF) was held in Beijing, November 2017. The topic of the meeting was ‘Universal Health Care in the Asia Region: Overcoming the Barriers using HTA and Real World Data’. This presentation will focus on the use of real world data (RWD) as a mechanism of informing HTA in the Asia region – from the perspective of the not-for-profit HTA agencies that were represented at the APF.

The 2017 HTAi APF had senior representatives from government and HTA agencies from 11 countries in the Asia region. This included first-time attendees from Iran, Indonesia and the Philippines. A keynote presentation on the lessons learnt from Taiwan on the use of RWD was delivered, and there were guided breakout group discussions.

There are a number of registries and sources of RWD available to the HTA agencies across the Asia region. However it was noted that the databases are resource intensive to maintain, and there are noted time lags in the data collection and release. There are examples where the data from these sources have been used to evaluate local utilization of treatments and post-market surveillance, but it has not yet been used in pricing/reimbursement decisions.

Although RWD could be a good tool for healthcare decision-making in the Asia region, it is still unclear how to do so properly. Infrastructure and human capacity, as well as law, are key factors to the successful use of RWD. Standardized methodologies, increased transparency, quality control and capacity building are essential elements to better implementing RWD in HTA.