Economic value of diastasis repair with the use of mesh compared to no intervention in Italy.

AIM: Rectus abdominal diastasis (RAD) can cause mainly incontinence and lower-back pain. Despite its high incidence, there is no consensus regarding surgical indication. We aimed at comparing RAD repair (minimally invasive technique with mesh implant) with no treatment (standard of care - SOC) through cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses from both National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspectives in Italy. METHODS: A model was developed including social costs and productivity losses derived by the online administration of a socio-economic questionnaire, including the EuroQol for the assessment of quality of life. Costs for the NHS were based on reimbursement tariffs. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, estimated costs were 64,115€ for SOC and 46,541€ for RAD repair in the societal perspective; QALYs were 19.55 and 25.75 for the two groups, respectively. Considering the NHS perspective, RAD repair showed an additional cost per patient of 5,104€ compared to SOC, leading to an ICUR of 824€. RAD repair may be either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to SOC depending on the perspective considered. Considering a current scenario of 100% SOC, an increased diffusion of RAD repair from 2 to 10% in the next 5 years would lead to an incremental cost of 184,147,624€ for the whole society (87% borne by the NHS) and to incremental 16,155 QALYs. CONCLUSION: In light of the lack of economic evaluations for minimally invasive RAD repair, the present study provides relevant clinical and economic evidence to help improving the decision-making process and allocating scarce resources between competing ends.

Collecting Physicians' Preferences on Medical Devices: Are We Doing It Right? Evidence from Italian Orthopedists Using 2 Different Stated Preference Methods.

OBJECTIVES: Physician preference items (PPIs) are high-cost medical devices for which clinicians express firm preferences with respect to a particular manufacturer or product. This study aims to identify the most important factors in the choice of new PPIs (hip or knee prosthesis) and infer about the existence of possible response biases in using 2 alternative stated preference techniques. METHODS: Six key attributes with 3 levels each were identified based on a literature review and clinical experts' opinions. An online survey was administered to Italian hospital orthopedists using type 1 best-worst scaling (BWS) and binary discrete choice experiment (DCE). BWS data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and conditional logit model. A mixed logit regression model was applied to DCE data, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) was estimated. All analyses were conducted using Stata 16. RESULTS: A sample of 108 orthopedists were enrolled. In BWS, the most important attribute was "clinical evidence," followed by "quality of products," while the least relevant items were "relationship with the sales representative" and "cost." DCE results suggested instead that orthopedists prefer high-quality products with robust clinical evidence, positive health technology assessment recommendation and affordable cost, and for which they have a consolidated experience of use and a good relationship with the sales representative. CONCLUSIONS: The elicitation of preferences for PPIs using alternative methods can lead to different results. The BWS of type 1, which is similar to a ranking exercise, seems to be more affected by acquiescent responding and social desirability than the DCE, which introduces tradeoffs in the choice task and is likely to reveal more about true preferences. HIGHLIGHTS: Physician preference items (PPIs) are medical devices particularly exposed to physicians' choice with regard to type of product and supplier.Some established techniques of collecting preferences can be affected by response biases such as acquiescent responding and social desirability.Discrete choice experiments, introducing more complex tradeoffs in the choice task, are likely to mitigate such biases and reveal true physicians' preferences for PPIs.

Economic Evaluation of a Bioinductive Implant for the Repair of Rotator Cuff Tears Compared with Standard Surgery in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Rotator cuff tear (RCT) is a painful, progressive condition resulting from damage to the rotator cuff tendons and is the leading cause of shoulder-related disability. Surgical repair of rotator cuff is an established standard of care (SOC); however, failure of the procedure can occur. In this context, the use of collagen-based bioinductive implant REGENETEN showed long-term improvements in clinical scores. The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of REGENETEN combined with SOC (SOC + REGENETEN) compared to SOC alone from both National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspectives in Italy. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the number of tears healed and costs for the two considered treatment strategies over 1 year. Clinical data were retrieved from the literature, and the clinical pathways for the management of patients with RCTs were retrieved from four key opinion leaders in Italy. RESULTS: Over a 1-year time horizon, healed lesions were 90.70% and 72.90% for surgical repair of RCTs with and without REGENETEN, respectively. Considering the NHS perspective, mean costs per patient were €7828 and €4650 for the two strategies, respectively, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €17,857 per healed tear. From the societal perspective, the mean costs per patient were €12,659 for SOC and €11,784 for REGENETEN, thus showing savings of €4918 per healed tear when the bioinductive implant is used. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model results. CONCLUSION: In the context of paucity of cost-effectiveness studies, our findings provide additional evidence for clinicians and payers regarding the value of a new treatment option that supports a tailored approach for the management of patients with RCTs.

The rotator cuff refers to a group of four muscles, with tendons connected to the upper arm bone, which act together to allow lifting and rotating the shoulder. A tear of the rotator cuff can affect either a single tendon or multiple tendons. Typical first-line treatment includes conservative therapies, which aim to alleviate pain and reduce functional impairment, but are often ineffective. Persisting disease is usually managed through conventional surgical repair. Recently, REGENETEN, a collagen-based bioinductive implant derived from purified bovine Achilles tendon, positioned over the site of the damaged rotator cuff, achieved successful rotator cuff tendon repair with an increase in healed tears of 17.80% at 1 year compared to conventional surgery. Considering the National Healthcare Service perspective in Italy, the cost needed to achieve one additional healed tear using REGENETEN compared to conventional surgery is €17,857. From the societal perspective, which includes patients' productivity losses from hospital admission to return to work, the use of REGENETEN may be cost-saving compared to conventional surgery. The findings of our study provide evidence for clinicians and payers to support the value of a new treatment option for patients with rotator cuff lesions.

Implementing preconception expanded carrier screening in a universal health care system: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: The limited evidence available on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of expanded carrier screening (ECS) prevents its widespread use in most countries, including Italy. Herein, we aimed to estimate the CE of 3 ECS panels (ie, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics [ACMG] Tier 1 screening, "Focused Screening," testing 15 severe, highly penetrant conditions, and ACMG Tier 3 screening) compared with no screening, the health care model currently adopted in Italy. METHODS: The reference population consisted of Italian couples seeking pregnancy with no increased personal/familial genetic risk. The CE model was developed from the perspective of the Italian universal health care system and was based on the following assumptions: 100% sensitivity of investigated screening strategies, 77% intervention rate of at-risk couples (ARCs), and no risk to conceive an affected child by risk-averse couples opting for medical interventions. RESULTS: The incremental CE ratios generated by comparing each genetic screening panel with no screening were: -14,875 ± 1,208 €/life years gained (LYG) for ACMG1S, -106,863 ± 2,379 €/LYG for Focused Screening, and -47,277 ± 1,430 €/LYG for ACMG3S. ACMG1S and Focused Screening were dominated by ACMG3S. The parameter uncertainty did not significantly affect the outcome of the analyses. CONCLUSION: From a universal health care system perspective, all the 3 ECS panels considered in the study would be more cost-effective than no screening.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Capturing the Complexity of Healthcare Processes: The Case of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Leg Ulcers.

Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is suggested to assess costs within the value-based healthcare approach, but there is a paucity of applications in chronic diseases such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and leg ulcers. In this context, we applied TDABC in a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing venous stenting to compression ± anticoagulation (standard of care-SOC) from both hospital and societal perspectives in Italy. TDABC was applied to both treatments to assess costs that were included in a cost-effectiveness model. Clinical inputs were retrieved from the literature and integrated with real-world data. The Incremental Cost Utility Ratio (ICUR) of stenting compared to SOC was EUR 10,270/QALY and EUR 8962/QALY for hospital and societal perspectives, respectively. The mean cost per patient for venous stenting of EUR 5082 was higher than the Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) reimbursement (EUR 4742). For SOC, an ulcer healing in 3 months costs EUR 1892, of which EUR 302 (16%) is borne by the patient versus a reimbursement of EUR 1132. TDABC showed that venous stenting may be cost-effective compared with SOC but that reimbursement rates may not completely cover the real costs, which are partially sustained by the patients. A more efficient policy for covering the real costs may be beneficial for both clinical centers and patients.

An accelerated access pathway for innovative high-risk medical devices under the new European Union Medical Devices and health technology assessment regulations? Analysis and recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: The new European Union (EU) Regulations for medical devices (MDs) and health technology assessment (HTA) are welcome developments that should increase the quality of clinical evidence for MDs and reduce fragmentation in the EU market access process. To fully exploit anticipated benefits, their respective assessment processes should be closely coordinated, particularly for promising, highly innovative MDs. Accelerated approval is worth exploring for certain categories of high-risk MDs to keep the EU regulatory process competitive compared to accelerated MD approval programs elsewhere (e.g. US). AREAS COVERED: Problems observed in worldwide accelerated drug and MD regulatory approval programs are reviewed, including greater uncertainty in premarket clinical evidence generation and lack of oversight for post approval evidence requirements. Implications for MD approval, HTA and coverage are explored. EXPERT OPINION: Through analysis of two decades of drug and MD accelerated approval programs worldwide, recommendations for an Accelerated Access Pathway for select innovative, high-risk MDs are proposed to fit the EU context, leverage the two new regulations, increase opportunities for Expert Panels to provide timely advice regarding manufacturers' evidence generation plans along the MD lifecycle (pre, postmarket), and safely speed patient access while promoting increased collaboration among Member States on coverage decisions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalised versus standard dosimetry for selective internal radiation therapy with TheraSphere in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Aims: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing personalised dosimetry with standard dosimetry in the context of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with TheraSphere for the management of adult patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the Italian Healthcare Service perspective. Materials and methods: A partition survival model was developed to project costs and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were retrieved from a published randomised controlled trial. Health resource utilisation inputs were extracted from the questionnaires administered to clinicians in three oncology centres in Italy, respectively. Cost parameters were based on Italian official tariffs. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, the model estimated the average QALYs of 1.292 and 0.578, respectively, for patients undergoing personalised and standard dosimetry approaches. The estimated mean costs per patient were €23,487 and €19,877, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of personalised versus standard dosimetry approaches was €5,056/QALY. Conclusions: Personalised dosimetry may be considered a cost-effective option compared to standard dosimetry for patients undergoing SIRT for HCC in Italy. These findings provide evidence for clinicians and payers on the value of personalised dosimetry as a treatment option for patients with HCC.

Pushing the boundaries of evaluation, diffusion, and use of medical devices in Europe: Insights from the COMED project.

The field of medical devices has attracted considerable interest from scholarly research in health economics in recent years. Medical devices are indispensable tools for quality health care delivery, but their assessment and appropriate use pose significant challenges to healthcare systems. More research is needed to overcome existing gaps associated with evaluation of digital technologies, address challenges in the use of real-world data in generating evidence for decision-making and to uncover drivers of variation in access to medical devices across countries. Furthermore, the translation of the results and recommendations stemming from research projects into health technology assessment practices needs to be strengthened. The European Union (EU) project COMED aimed to address these gaps by improving existing research and developing new research streams on the methods for evaluation and diffusion of medical devices. The project also intended to provide directly applicable policy advice and tools to inform decision-making, with the aim of impacting public health in the EU. This Health Economics Supplement, together with references of other published outputs of the project, is intended to be the main source for researchers and policy makers seeking information on the COMED project.

Recommendations for the design and implementation of an Early Feasibility Studies program for medical devices in the European Union.

INTRODUCTION: Early Feasibility Studies (EFS) are among the pre-market clinical investigations allowed by the International Standard for Clinical investigation of medical devices (MD) for human subjects. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced an EFS program in the US in 2013. The European Union (EU) MD Regulation, that entered into force in May 2021, opened the possibility of EFS in the EU. However, European countries at present have no standardized procedural framework for EFS. In this paper, we address the desirability of a European EFS program. AREAS COVERED: Characteristics of EFS conducted so far are reviewed, and perceptions of an expert, multidisciplinary panel of key stakeholders are explored regarding desirability and feasibility of a European EFS program and critical factors favoring or hampering its implementation. EXPERT OPINION: Implementing an EFS program in the EU would contribute to creating a favorable environment for early-stage clinical investigations, with positive effects on the quality and timeliness of clinical evidence for novel MDs, and attractiveness of the European system for pre- and post-market clinical research. Based on discussion with experts, also leveraging on the US experience, three dimensions should be considered for effective design and implementation: process, resources, and ethical issues.

Recommendations for developing a lifecycle, multidimensional assessment framework for mobile medical apps.

Digital health and mobile medical apps (MMAs) have shown great promise in transforming health care, but their adoption in clinical care has been unsatisfactory, and regulatory guidance and coverage decisions have been lacking or incomplete. A multidimensional assessment framework for regulatory, policymaking, health technology assessment, and coverage purposes based on the MMA lifecycle is needed. A targeted review of relevant policy documents from international sources was conducted to map current MMA assessment frameworks, to formulate 10 recommendations, subsequently shared amongst an expert panel of key stakeholders. Recommendations go beyond economic dimensions such as cost and economic evaluation and also include MMA development and update, classification and evidentiary requirements, performance and maintenance monitoring, usability testing, clinical evidence requirements, safety and security, equity considerations, organizational assessment, and additional outcome domains (patient empowerment and environmental impact). The COVID-19 pandemic greatly expanded the use of MMAs, but temporary policies governing their use and oversight need consolidation through well-developed frameworks to support decision-makers, producers and introduction into clinical care processes, especially in light of the strong international, cross-border character of MMAs, the new EU medical device and health technology assessment regulations, and the Next Generation EU funding earmarked for health digitalization.

The evolution of the Italian National Health Service.

40 years ago, Italy saw the birth of a national, universal health-care system (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale [SSN]), which provides a full range of health-care services with a free choice of providers. The SSN is consistently rated within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development among the highest countries for life expectancy and among the lowest in health-care spending as a proportion of gross domestic product. Italy appears to be in an envious position. However, a rapidly ageing population, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, rising demand, and the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed weaknesses in the system. These weaknesses are linked to the often tumultuous history of the nation and the health-care system, in which innovation and initiative often lead to spiralling costs and difficulties, followed by austere cost-containment measures. We describe how the tenuous balance of centralised versus regional control has shifted over time to create not one, but 20 different health systems, exacerbating differences in access to care across regions. We explore how Italy can rise to the challenges ahead, providing recommendations for systemic change, with emphasis on data-driven planning, prevention, and research; integrated care and technology; and investments in personnel. The evolution of the SSN is characterised by an ongoing struggle to balance centralisation and decentralisation in a health-care system, a dilemma faced by many nations. If in times of emergency, planning, coordination, and control by the central government can guarantee uniformity of provider behaviour and access to care, during non-emergency times, we believe that a balance can be found provided that autonomy is paired with accountability in achieving certain objectives, and that the central government develops the skills and, therefore, the legitimacy, to formulate health policies of a national nature. These processes would provide local governments with the strategic means to develop local plans and programmes, and the knowledge and tools to coordinate local initiatives for eventual transfer to the larger system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral nutritional supplements with nutritional counselling in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited evidence regarding the economic effects of nutrition support in cancer patients. This study aims at investigating the cost-effectiveness profile of systematic oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) and receiving nutritional counseling. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a RCT was performed to estimate direct medical costs, life years gained (LYG) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for nutritional counseling with or without ONS at 5-month and 6-year follow up time. Value of information analysis was performed to value the expected gain from reducing uncertainty through further data collection. RESULTS: ONS with nutritional counseling produced higher QALY than nutritional counseling alone (0.291 ± 0.087 vs 0.288 ± 0.087), however the difference was not significant (0.0027, P = 0.84). Mean costs were €987.60 vs €996.09, respectively in the treatment and control group (-€8.96, P = 0.98). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was -€3,277/QALY, with 55.4% probabilities of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000/QALY. The Expected Incremental Benefit was €95.16 and the Population Expected Value of Perfect Information was €8.6 million, implying that additional research is likely to be worthwhile. At a median 6-year follow up, the treatment group had a significantly better survival rate when adjusting for late effect (P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide the first evidence to inform decisions about funding and reimbursement of ONS in combination with nutritional counseling in HNC patients undergoing RT. ONS may improve quality of cancer care at no additional costs, however further research on the cost-effectiveness of nutritional supplementation is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02055833. Registered 5th February 2014 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02055833.

Establishing a national HTA program for medical devices in Italy: Overhauling a fragmented system to ensure value and equal access to new medical technologies.

Differing contexts have greatly influenced HTA development in various countries, with considerable effort recently made by international HTA networks (e.g., EUnetHTA) and the European Union (EU) to make HTA a more coherent, equal, and efficient process. Medical devices (MDs) present particular challenges for HTA because of frequent, rapid innovation, outcomes influenced by end-user competence, dynamic pricing and often low-quality scientific evidence. Our objective is to describe the development, structure and governance of a National HTA Program for MDs (PNHTADM) in Italy, a highly participatory, stakeholder-engaged, evidence-based process to reform a fragmented system of appraisal and approval. Based largely on EUnetHTA methods, the resulting process delineates a standardized system for proposing MDs by any stakeholders, accrediting HTA producers, setting criteria for prioritization and appraisals, and innovatively linking recommendations with coverage, reimbursement and procurement of MDs. Expected benefits include reduced disparities in pricing and reimbursement policies and improved access to new technologies across 21 regional healthcare systems in Italy's decentralized, universal system, complete with provisions to require additional evidence collection and centrally monitor diffusion. Though devised for Italy, the design, resources and underlying analysis provide a framework for other nations seeking to consolidate HTA initiatives, particularly in light of new EU regulation.

Do existing real-world data sources generate suitable evidence for the HTA of medical devices in Europe? Mapping and critical appraisal.

AIM: Technological and computational advancements offer new tools for the collection and analysis of real-world data (RWD). Considering the substantial effort and resources devoted to collecting RWD, a greater return would be achieved if real-world evidence (RWE) was effectively used to support Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and decision making on medical technologies. A useful question is: To what extent are RWD suitable for generating RWE? METHODS: We mapped existing RWD sources in Europe for three case studies: hip and knee arthroplasty, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and mitral valve repair (TMVR), and robotic surgery procedures. We provided a comprehensive assessment of their content and appropriateness for conducting the HTA of medical devices. The identification of RWD sources was performed combining a systematic search on PubMed with gray literature scoping, covering fifteen European countries. RESULTS: We identified seventy-one RWD sources on arthroplasties; ninety-five on TAVI and TMVR; and seventy-seven on robotic procedures. The number, content, and integrity of the sources varied dramatically across countries. Most sources included at least one health outcome (97.5%), with mortality and rehospitalization/reoperation the most common; 80% of sources included resource outcomes, with length of stay the most common, and comparators were available in almost 70% of sources. CONCLUSIONS: RWD sources bear the potential for the HTA of medical devices. The main challenges are data accessibility, a lack of standardization of health and economic outcomes, and inadequate comparators. These findings are crucial to enabling the incorporation of RWD into decision making and represent a readily available tool for getting acquainted with existing information sources.

Distinguishing features in the assessment of mHealth apps.

Introduction: The unparalleled surge in digital health adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the potential of mHealth apps. However, the quality of available evidence is generally low, and regulatory frameworks have focused on apps with medical purposes only, overlooking apps with significant interactions with patients that may require stronger oversight.Areas covered: To support this expanded evidence generation process, we identified the reasons that distinguish mHealth apps compared to medical devices at large and that should differentially feature their assessment. mHealth apps are characterized by the iterative nature of the corresponding interventions, frequent user interactions with a non-linear relationship between technology usage, engagement and outcomes, significant organizational implications, as well as challenges associated with genericization, their broad diagnostic potential, and price setting.Expert Opinion: The renewed reliance experienced during the pandemic and the unprecedented injection of resources through recovery instruments can further boost the development of apps. Only robust evidence of the benefits of mHealth apps will persuade health-care professionals and beneficiaries to systematically deploy them. Regulatory bodies will need to question their current approaches by adopting comprehensive evaluation processes that adequately consider the specific features of mHealth apps.

Endovascular versus surgical creation of arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to perform cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses comparing endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation to surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in hemodialysis patients from the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective in Italy. METHODS: A systematic literature review has been conducted to retrieve complications' rates after arteriovenous fistula creation procedures. One study comparing endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation, performed with WavelinQ device, to the surgical approach through propensity score matching was preferred to single-arm investigations to execute the economic evaluations. This study was chosen to populate a Markov model to project, on a time horizon of 1 year, quality adjusted life years and costs associated with endovascular arteriovenous fistula (WavelinQ) and surgical arteriovenous fistula options for both cohorts of incident and prevalent hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: For both incident and prevalent hemodialysis patients, endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation, performed with WavelinQ, was the dominant strategy over surgical arteriovenous fistula approach, showing less cost and better patients' quality of life. Compared to the current scenario, progressively increasing utilization rates of WavelinQ over surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in the next 5 years in incident hemodialysis patients are expected to save globally 30-36 million euros to the NHS. CONCLUSION: Endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation performed with WavelinQ could be a cost-saving strategy in comparison with the surgical approach for patients in hemodialysis. Future studies comparing different devices for endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation versus the surgical option would be needed to confirm or reject the validity of this preliminary evaluation. In the meantime, decision-makers can use these results to take decisions on the diffusion of endovascular procedures in Italy.

Harnessing Digital Health Technologies During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Context Matters.

A common development observed during the COVID-19 pandemic is the renewed reliance on digital health technologies. Prior to the pandemic, the uptake of digital health technologies to directly strengthen public health systems had been unsatisfactory; however, a relentless acceleration took place within health care systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, digital health technologies could not be prescinded from the organizational and institutional merits of the systems in which they were introduced. The Italian National Health Service is strongly decentralized, with the national government exercising general stewardship and regions responsible for the delivery of health care services. Together with the substantial lack of digital efforts previously, these institutional characteristics resulted in delays in the uptake of appropriate solutions, territorial differences, and issues in engaging the appropriate health care professionals during the pandemic. An in-depth analysis of the organizational context is instrumental in fully interpreting the contribution of digital health during the pandemic and providing the foundation for the digital reconstruction of what is to come after.