Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs.

Decisions about the adoption of medical interventions are informed by evidence on their costs and effects. For a range of reasons, evidence relating to medical devices may be limited. The decision to adopt a device early in its life cycle when the evidence base is least mature may impact on the prospects of acquiring further evidence to reduce uncertainties. Equally, rejecting a device will result in no uptake in practice and hence no chance to learn about performance. Decision options such as 'only in research' or 'approval with research' can overcome these issues by allowing patients early access to promising new technologies while limiting the risks associated with making incorrect decisions until more evidence or learning is established. In this paper, we set out the issues relating to uncertainty and the value of research specific to devices: learning curve effects, incremental device innovation, investment and irrecoverable costs, and dynamic pricing. We show the circumstances under which an only in research or approval with research scheme may be an appropriate policy choice. We also consider how the value of additional research might be shared between the manufacturer and health sector to help inform who might reasonably be expected to conduct the research needed. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Comprehensive Algorithm for Approval of Health Technologies With, Without, or Only in Research: The Key Principles for Informing Coverage Decisions.

BACKGROUND: The value of evidence about the performance of a technology and the value of access to a technology are central to policy decisions regarding coverage with, without, or only in research and managed entry (or risk-sharing) agreements. OBJECTIVES: We aim to outline the key principles of what assessments are needed to inform "only in research" (OIR) or "approval with research" (AWR) recommendations, in addition to approval or rejection. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive algorithm to inform the sequence of assessments and judgments that lead to different types of guidance: OIR, AWR, Approve, or Reject. This algorithm identifies the order in which assessments might be made, how similar guidance might be arrived at through different combinations of considerations, and when guidance might change. RESULTS: The key principles are whether the technology is expected to be cost-effective; whether the technology has significant irrecoverable costs; whether additional research is needed; whether research is possible with approval and whether there are opportunity costs that once committed by approval cannot be recovered; and whether there are effective price reductions. Determining expected cost-effectiveness is only a first step. In addition to AWR for technologies expected to be cost-effective and OIR for those not expected to be cost-effective, there are other important circumstances when OIR should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: These principles demonstrate that cost-effectiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for approval. Even when research is possible with approval, OIR may be appropriate when a technology is expected to be cost-effective due to significant irrecoverable costs.

Unifying Research and Reimbursement Decisions: Case Studies Demonstrating the Sequence of Assessment and Judgments Required.

BACKGROUND: The key principles regarding what assessments lead to different types of guidance about the use of health technologies (Only in Research, Approval with Research, Approve, or Reject) provide an explicit and transparent framework for technology appraisal. OBJECTIVE: We aim to demonstrate how these principles and assessments can be applied in practice through the use of a seven-point checklist of assessment. METHODS: The value of access to a technology and the value of additional evidence are explored through the application of the checklist to the case studies of enhanced external counterpulsation for chronic stable angina and clopidogrel for the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. RESULTS: The case studies demonstrate the importance of considering 1) the expected cost-effectiveness and population net health effects; 2) the need for evidence and whether the type of research required can be conducted once a technology is approved for widespread use; 3) whether there are sources of uncertainty that cannot be resolved by research but only over time; and 4) whether there are significant (opportunity) costs that once committed by approval cannot be recovered. CONCLUSIONS: The checklist demonstrates that cost-effectiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for approval. Only in Research may be appropriate when a technology is expected to be cost-effective due to significant irrecoverable costs. It is only approval that can be ruled out if a technology is not expected to be cost-effective. Lack of cost-effectiveness is not a necessary or sufficient condition for rejection.