Hospital-based health technology assessment of innovative medical devices: insights from a nationwide survey in France.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the process of hospital acquisition of innovative medical devices (MDs) and the hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) pathways in France, an in-depth study based on a quantitative approach is needed. The aim of the present study was to assess through a national survey how HB-HTA is currently implemented in French hospitals and to identify its level of formalization. METHODS: A quantitative online survey was conducted among hospitals performing HB-HTA in France, with a focus on the acquisition of innovative MDs for individual use. The survey, conducted between March and June 2022, was developed by a scientific board composed of members of the French-speaking Society for HB-HTA. RESULTS: Sixty-seven out of 131 surveyed hospitals with HB-HTA activities responded, including 29 university hospitals, 24 nonprofit private hospitals, and 14 local hospitals. Sixty-one respondents (91 percent) reported the existence of a process dedicated to evaluating innovative MDs; of these, 16 declared that their hospitals had a formalized unit with HB-HTA activity. These units were more frequently found in larger hospitals with more than 500 inpatient beds (n = 16, p = 0.0160) and in university hospitals (n = 12, p = 0.0158). No hospital reported any collaboration with HAS, the French national HTA agency. CONCLUSION: A diverse range of HB-HTA organizations with different structural levels exist in France for MD procurement linked to the category of hospitals. The study highlights the need for recognition of HB-HTA activity at the regulatory level in France and for direct collaboration between HTA activities performed at local and national levels.

A randomized controlled phase III study comparing hadrontherapy with carbon ions versus conventional radiotherapy - including photon and proton therapy - for the treatment of radioresistant tumors: the ETOILE trial.

BACKGROUND: Some cancers such as sarcomas (bone and soft tissue sarcomas) and adenoid cystic carcinomas are considered as radioresistant to low linear energy transfer radiation (including photons and protons) and may therefore beneficiate from a carbon ion therapy. Despite encouraging results obtained in phase I/II trials compared to historical data with photons, the spread of carbon ions has been limited mainly because of the absence of randomized medical data. The French health authorities stressed the importance of having randomized data for carbon ion therapy. METHODS: The ETOILE study is a multicenter prospective randomized phase III trial comparing carbon ion therapy to either advanced photon or proton radiotherapy for inoperable or macroscopically incompletely resected (R2) radioresistant cancers including sarcomas and adenoid cystic carcinomas. In the experimental arm, carbon ion therapy will be performed at the National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO) in Pavia, Italy. In the control arm, photon or proton radiotherapy will be carried out in referent centers in France. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints are overall survival and local control, toxicity profile, and quality of life. In addition, a prospective health-economic study and a radiobiological analysis will be conducted. To demonstrate an absolute improvement in the 5-year PFS rate of 20% in favor of carbon ion therapy, 250 patients have to be included in the study. DISCUSSION: So far, no clinical study of phase III has demonstrated the superiority of carbon ion therapy compared to conventional radiotherapy, including proton therapy, for the treatment of radioresistant tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02838602 . Date of registration: July 20, 2016. The posted information will be updated as needed to reflect protocol amendments and study progress.

Myocardial infarction: Economic, health, and social impacts on informal caregivers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to measure the economic impact of informal care (IC) on caregivers assisting myocardial infarction (MI) survivors in France. Health and social impacts were also described. METHODS: Data from the prospective 2008 Health and Disabilities Households Survey (Enquête Handicap-Santé), carried out among the French general population, were used to obtain information about patients with MI and their informal caregivers. To estimate the approximate monetary value of IC, three methods were used: the proxy good method, opportunity cost method (OCM), and contingent valuation method (CVM). A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the associations of the IC duration and the existence of professional care with the health indicators stated by caregivers. RESULTS: The analysis included data from 147 caregivers. The mean value of IC ranged from €9,679 per year using the CVM to €11,288 per year using the OCM (p > .05). The mean willingness to pay for an additional hour of IC was €10.9 (SD = 8.3). A total of 46.2 percent of caregivers reported that IC negatively affected theirs physical condition, and 46.3 percent reported that it negatively affected their psychological health. In addition, 40.1 percent declared that caregiving activity made them anxious and 38.8 percent stated they felt alone. Associations were identified between the duration of IC and feeling the need to be replaced, feeling alone and making sacrifices (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Informal caregiver burden may be recognized in health technology assessment in order not to underestimate the cost of strategies and to facilitate the comparability of cost-effectiveness outcomes between studies.

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies. RESULTS: A total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items "characterizing heterogeneity," "assumptions," and "choice of model." CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

SMABcare study: subcutaneous monoclonal antibody in cancer care: cost-consequence analysis of subcutaneous rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma.

Rituximab is used as a standard of care for follicular lymphoma and is usually administered intravenously. A novel subcutaneous formulation recently showed non-inferior efficacy with similar pharmacokinetic and safety profiles compared to intravenous rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma. This new approach is promising in terms of comfort for patients and time-saving for hospital staff. To evaluate the real-life economic impact of subcutaneous rituximab as maintenance therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma in real life, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis from the hospital's point of view in three French teaching hospitals. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) was investigated as well as patients' and nurses' perception. Compared to intravenous rituximab, subcutaneous administration showed an estimated cost-saving of €109.20 per patient per cycle (p < 0.001), 78.6% of which could be attributed to the rituximab cost. Health-related quality of life showed no significant difference between the two groups despite tendencies for greater pain in the subcutaneous group and greater anxiety in the intravenous group. Thus, subcutaneous rituximab had a favorable pharmacoeconomic profile, with clinical efficacy similar to that of intravenous rituximab. The subcutaneous form was preferred by almost all patients, but further consideration should be given to improve the patients' experience: a dedicated day unit with trained medical, nursing, and pharmaceutical staff could be helpful.

National cost study versus hospital cost accounting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group.

BACKGROUND: The choice of cost data sources is crucial, because it influences the results of cost studies, decisions of hospital managers and ultimately national directives of policy makers. The main objective of this study was to compare a hospital cost accounting system in a French hospital group and the national cost study (ENC) considering the cost of organ recovery procedures. The secondary objective was to compare these approaches to the weighting method used in the ENC to assess organ recovery costs. METHODS: The resources consumed during the hospital stay and organ recovery procedure were identified and quantified retrospectively from hospital discharge abstracts and the national discharge abstract database. Identified items were valued using hospital cost accounting, followed by 2010-2011 ENC data, and then weighted using 2010-2011 ENC data. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether at least two of the cost databases provided different results. Then, a Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the three cost databases. RESULTS: The costs assessed using hospital cost accounting differed significantly from those obtained using the ENC data (Mann-Whitney; P-value < 0.001). In the ENC, the mean costs for hospital stays and organ recovery procedures were determined to be €4961 (SD €7295) and €862 (SD €887), respectively, versus €12,074 (SD €6956) and €4311 (SD €1738) for the hospital cost accounting assessment. The use of a weighted methodology reduced the differences observed between these two data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Readers, hospital managers and decision makers must know the strengths and weaknesses of each database to interpret the results in an informed context.

Organ recovery cost assessment in the French healthcare system from 2007 to 2014.

Background: Organ recovery costs should be assessed to allow efficient and sustainable integration of these costs into national healthcare budgets and policies. These costs are of considerable interest to health economists, hospitals, financial managers and policy makers in most developed countries. This study assessed organ recovery costs from 2007 to 2014 in the French healthcare system based on the national hospital discharge database and a national cost study. The secondary objective was to describe the variability in the population of deceased organ donors during this period. Methods: All stays for organ recovery in French hospitals between January 2007 and December 2014 were quantified from discharge abstracts and valued using a national cost study. Five cost evaluations were conducted to explore all aspects of organ recovery activities. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the methodological choice. Trends regarding organ recovery practices were assessed by monitoring indicators. Results: The analysis included 12 629 brain death donors, with 28 482 organs recovered. The mean cost of a hospital stay was €7469 (SD = €10, 894). The mean costs of separate kidney, liver, pancreas, intestine, heart, lung and heart-lung block recovery regardless of the organs recovered were €1432 (SD = €1342), €502 (SD = €782), €354 (SD = €475), €362 (SD = €1559), €542 (SD = €955), €977 (SD = €1196) and €737 (SD = €637), respectively. Despite a marginal increase in donors, the number of organs recovered increased primarily due to improved practices. Conclusion: Although cost management is the main challenge for successful organ recovery, other aspects such as organization modalities should be considered to improve organ availability.

Cost-effectiveness of the ONCORAL multidisciplinary programme for the management of outpatients taking oral anticancer agents at risk of drug-related event: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: The development of oral anticancer agents (OAA) has profoundly changed cancer care, leading patients to manage their chemotherapy treatment on an outpatient basis. The prevention of iatrogenic effects of OAA remains a major concern, especially since their side effects are not less serious than those of intravenous chemotherapy. The ONCORAL programme was set up to secure the management of OAA in cancer patients followed at the Lyon University Hospital. This multidisciplinary programme involves hospital pharmacists, nurses, oncologists, and haematologists, as well as community health professionals. Given the economic stakes that this programme entails for the health system, a medico-economic study was designed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective controlled study, with individual open-label randomisation. A total of 216 outpatients treated with OAA and at risk of developing a drug-related iatrogenic event, will be randomised (2:1) to undergo follow-up in the ONCORAL programme or usual care. The primary outcome will be the estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (difference in total costs per quality adjusted life years gained) at 12 months between the two groups. The secondary outcomes will be evaluation of OAA management consequences (relative-dose intensity, adherence, adverse drug events, drug-drug interactions, and proven medication errors), evaluation of overall survival and cancer-related quality of life, and patient-reported outcomes in relation to the treatment. A budget impact analysis will be implemented. Patient and health professional satisfaction regarding the ONCORAL programme will be measured. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval to conduct this study was obtained from an Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile-de-France VI) in October 2019, and from the French data protection agency (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés), according to the French Law. Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03660670.

Use of 5-ALA fluorescence-guided surgery versus white-light conventional microsurgery for the resection of newly diagnosed glioblastomas (RESECT study): a French multicenter randomized phase III study.

OBJECTIVE: Only one phase III prospective randomized study, published in 2006, has assessed the performance of 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) for glioblastoma resection. The aim of the RESECT study was to compare the onco-functional results associated with 5-ALA fluorescence and with white-light conventional microsurgery in patients with glioblastoma managed according to the current standards of care. METHODS: This was a phase III prospective randomized single-blinded study, involving 21 French neurosurgical centers, comparing 5-ALA FGS with white-light conventional microsurgery in patients with glioblastoma managed according to the current standards of care, including neuronavigation use and postoperative radiochemotherapy. Randomization was performed in a 1:1 ratio stratified by institution. 5-ALA (20 mg/kg) or placebo (ascorbic acid) was administered orally 3-5 hours before the incision. The primary endpoint was the rate of gross-total resection (GTR) blindly assessed by an independent committee. Patients without a confirmed pathological diagnosis of glioblastoma or with unavailable postoperative MRI studies were excluded from the per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: Between March 2013 and August 2016, a total of 171 patients were assigned to the 5-ALA fluorescence group (n = 88) or to the placebo group (n = 83). Twenty-four cases were excluded because the WHO histological criteria of grade 4 glioma were not met. The proportion of GTR was significantly higher in the 5-ALA fluorescence group (53/67, 79.1%) than in the placebo group (33/69, 47.8%; p = 0.0002). After adjustment for age, preoperative Karnofsky Performance Scale score, and tumor location, GTR was still associated with 5-ALA fluorescence (OR 4.13 [95% CI 1.94-8.79]). The mean 7-day postoperative Karnofsky Performance Scale score (≥ 80% in 49/71, 69.0% [5-ALA group]; 50/71, 70.4% [placebo group], p = 0.86) and the proportion of patients with a worsened neurological status 3 months postoperatively (9/68, 13.2% [5-ALA group]; 9/70, 12.9% [placebo group], p = 0.95) were similar between groups. Adverse events related to 5-ALA intake were rare and consisted of photosensitization in 4/87 (4.6%) patients and hepatic cytolysis in 1/87 (1.1%) patients. The 6-month PFS (70.2% [95% CI 57.7%-79.6%] and 68.4% [95% CI 55.7%-78.1%]; p = 0.39) and 24-month OS (30.1% [95% CI 18.9%-42.0%] and 37.7% [95% CI 25.8%-49.5%]; p = 0.89) did not significantly differ. In multivariate analysis, GTR was an independent predictor of PFS (hazard ratio 0.56 [95% CI 0.36-0.86], p = 0.008) and OS (hazard ratio 0.65 [95% CI 0.42-1.01], p = 0.05). The use of 5-ALA FGS generates a significant extra cost of 2732.36€ (95% CI 1658.40€-3794.11€). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that 5-ALA FGS is an easy-to-use, cost-effective, and minimally time-consuming technique that safely optimizes the extent of resection in patients harboring glioblastoma amenable to a large resection.

Perspectives in prospective comparative economic evaluations: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Depending on countries and health systems, medico-economic assessment guidelines recommend to adopt one or several perspectives. We conducted a systematic literature review in order to assess the fit between the country guidelines and the perspectives announced in the published studies. AREAS COVERED: Searches were carried out within the Medline electronic database for records published between 1 January 2000 and 31 August 2020. Only studies from countries in which guidelines recommending a perspective to adopt were available online were selected. EXPERT OPINION: A total of 398 studies were included. Among those studies, 212 (54.9%) adopted as a main perspective a public payer perspective, 141 (36.5%) a societal perspective, 25 (6.5%) a hospital perspective, and 8 (2.1%) a patient perspective. Recommendations in terms of perspective were followed by 267 (67.1%) studies, mainly from Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands. Two thirds of the perspectives chosen in studies were in line with the recommendations. While the choice of a perspective does not question the quality of the studies published, it raises the question of the relevance of the perspectives that must be adapted to the question asked, the pathology studied, and the feasibility of the studies.

Cost-effectiveness of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura diagnosis: a retrospective analysis in the University Hospital Center of Lyon (France).

The aim of the present study was to perform an economic evaluation of two alternative assays of ADAMTS13 activity (A Disintegrin And Metalloprotease with ThromboSpondin type 1 repeats, member 13) for diagnosing thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) in the Hospital of Lyon (France). The study approach was more economic than clinical. We retrospectively calculated the prescription costs of ADAMST13 activity from January to December 2019 for patients depending on the assay: manual ELISA (Technozym) or automated assay (AcuStar Werfen, Instrumentation Laboratory). Then, we compared the cost of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) consumption awaiting ADAMTS13 activity assay results. From an economic point of view, the automated assay was more cost-effective. From a clinical one, we supposed that the faster results given by AcuStar could improve patient care by reducing the number of TPEs. Automated assay could improve patient care without increasing costs in our institution.

Evaluating the cost-consequence of a standardized strategy for the etiological diagnosis of uveitis (ULISSE study).

MAIN OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the cost-consequence of a standardized diagnostic strategy as to compared to an open one for the etiological diagnosis of uveitis. DESIGN: This was a prospective, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We included all consecutive patients with uveitis who had visited at least one of the Departments of Ophthalmology. In the standardized group, patients had a minimal work-up regardless of the type of uveitis (including evaluation of the CBC, ESR, C-reactive protein, tuberculin skin test, syphilis serology and chest X-ray). Depending on ophthalmological findings, further investigations could be performed. In the open strategy, ophthalmologists were free to order any kind of investigation. The main outcome was the mean cost per patient of each strategy. RESULTS: 903 uveitis patients were included from January, 2010 to May, 2013. The mean cost per patient of the standardized strategy was 182.97 euros [CI 95% (173.14; 192.80)], and the mean cost per patient of the open strategy was 251.75 euros [CI 95% (229.24; 274.25)]. Therefore, the mean cost per patient of the standardized strategy was significantly lower than the mean cost per patient of the open strategy (p<0.001). There were significantly fewer visits (p<0.001), fewer radiological procedures (p<0.004) and fewer laboratory investigations (p<0.001) in the standardized group. CONCLUSION: A standardized strategy is a cost-saving approach for the etiological diagnosis of uveitis.

Mixed method versus full top-down microcosting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group.

BACKGROUND: The costing method used can change the results of economic evaluations. Choosing the appropriate method to assess the cost of organ recovery is an issue of considerable interest to health economists, hospitals, financial managers and policy makers in most developed countries. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to compare a mixed method, combining top-down microcosting and bottom-up microcosting versus full top-down microcosting to assess the cost of organ recovery in a French hospital group. The secondary objective was to describe the cost of kidney, liver and pancreas recovery from French databases using the mixed method. METHODS: The resources consumed for each donor were identified and valued using the proposed mixed method and compared to the full top-down microcosting approach. Data on kidney, liver and pancreas recovery were collected from a medico-administrative French database for the years 2010 and 2011. Related cost data were recovered from the hospital cost accounting system database for 2010 and 2011. Statistical significance was evaluated at P < 0.05. RESULTS: All the median costs for organ recovery differ significantly between the two costing methods (non-parametric test method; P < 0.01). Using the mixed method, the median cost for recovering kidneys was found to be €5155, liver recovery was €2528 and pancreas recovery was €1911. Using the full top-down microcosting method, median costs were found to be 21-36% lower than with the mixed method. CONCLUSION: The mixed method proposed appears to be a trade-off between feasibility and accuracy for the identification and valuation of cost components when calculating the cost of organ recovery in comparison to the full top-down microcosting approach.

Accuracy of several maternal seric markers for predicting histological chorioamnionitis after preterm premature rupture of membranes: a prospective and multicentric study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare several maternal seric markers for the prediction of histological chorioamnionitis (HCA) after preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). Study design A prospective and multicentric observational study was undertaken, including six French tertiary referral centres. Pregnant women over 18 years, with PPROM between 22+0 and 36+6 WG were enrolled. A blood sample was obtained before delivery and analysed for C-Reactive Protein (CRP), InterCellular Adhesion Molecule-1 (ICAM-1), Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-8 (IL-8), Matrix-Metalloproteinase 8 and 9 (MMP-8, MMP-9), Triggering receptor on myeloid cells (TREM-1), and Human Neutrophile Peptides (HNP). HCA was determined by histological examination distinguishing maternal from fetal inflammatory response. Placental analyses and biological assays were performed in duplicate. Comparison of maternal seric markers levels in women with or vs. without HCA was performed, using a non-parametric Receiver Operating Characteristic. RESULTS: 295 women were kept for analysis. The prevalence of HCA was 42.7% (126/295). The concentrations of MMP-8, MMP-9, HNP and CRP were higher in HCA vs. the non-HCA group (P<0.05) whereas the concentrations of ICAM- 1, IL-6, IL-8 were not different (P>0.05). The ROC curve with the largest AUC was for CRP (AUC; 0.70; 95% CI; 0.64-0.77) and it was significantly higher than those for MMP-8, MMP-9, or HNP (P<0.03). CONCLUSION: CRP was the best maternal marker for predicting HCA in women with PPROM.

Specific information about the WHO guidelines for gestational diabetes screening improves clinical practices.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of specific information on World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening on clinical practices and to estimate its acceptance by women. METHODS: A non-randomized interventional study, comparing two periods, that is, before (period I) and after (period II) the implementation of the WHO guidelines during year 2000 in three obstetrical units, using reminders, meetings and pre-printed prescription sheets. Women were interviewed on GDM screening acceptance. RESULTS: A total of 333 pregnant women were included in period I and 345 in period II. The proportion of women who were screened significantly increased between period I and period II (0.9% in period I, 59.1% in period II, P < 10(-3)). The screening test was realized in accordance with guidelines for 80% of women in period II. The acceptability of the test by women was estimated at 98%. Furthermore, 90% of them would accept to be screened again during another pregnancy. DISCUSSION: Specific information about WHO screening guidelines improves doctor practices. Moreover, the high rate of acceptance by women is an argument to promote more widespread WHO screening for GDM during pregnancy.