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.
Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) has been shown to be a valuable tool for the anatomo-electroclinic definition of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) in some patients with medically refractory epilepsy considered for surgery. In Spain, many of those patients are not offered this diagnostic procedure. The objective of our health technology assessment (HTA) report was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of SEEG to define the EZ in patients with refractory epilepsy considered for surgery compared to no SEEG intervention (i.e. remaining with further antiepileptic drugs).
We undertook a systematic review with meta-analyses on the effectiveness and safety of SEEG. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model which simulates the costs and health outcomes of individuals for a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS). The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
The EZ was found in 92 percent of patients who underwent SEEG, 72 percent were eligible for epilepsy surgery and 33 percent were free of seizures after surgery (47 percent of those who received surgery). Any complications related to insertion and monitoring of SEEG and the subsequent intervention occurred in 1.3 percent of patients. In the base case analysis, SEEG led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 10,368 (USD 12,217) per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were robust.
SEEG is a cost-effective technology in patients with refractory epilepsy considered for surgery when compared to no SEEG intervention.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.