Developing a quality management system for the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA): toward European HTA collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was established in 2006 and comprises over eighty organizations from thirty European countries. In its fifth project phase (Joint Action 3), EUnetHTA set up a quality management system (QMS) to improve the efficiency and standardization of joint work. This article presents EUnetHTA's new QMS and outlines experiences and challenges during its implementation. METHODS: Several working groups defined processes and methods to support assessment teams in creating high-quality assessment reports. Existing guidelines, templates, and tools were refined and missing parts were newly created and integrated into the new QMS framework. EUnetHTA has contributed to Health Technology Assessment (HTA) capacity building through training and knowledge sharing. Continuous evaluation helped to identify gaps and shortcomings in processes and structures. RESULTS: Based on a common quality management concept and defined development and revision procedures, twenty-seven partner organizations jointly developed and maintained around forty standard operating procedures and other components of the QMS. All outputs were incorporated into a web-based platform, the EUnetHTA Companion Guide, which was launched in May 2018. Concerted efforts of working groups were required to ensure consistency and avoid duplication. CONCLUSIONS: With the establishment of a QMS for jointly produced assessment reports, EUnetHTA has taken a significant step toward a sustainable model for scientific and technical collaboration within European HTA. However, the definition of processes and methods meeting the numerous requirements of healthcare systems across Europe remains an ongoing and challenging task.

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA.

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support population-based decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.

Scientific Development of HTA-A Proposal by the Health Technology Assessment International Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee.

OBJECTIVES: To report from the Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) on activities that are being undertaken within HTAi regarding the promotion of scientific rigor in the field of health technology assessment (HTA). METHODS: Retrieval of definitions of HTA that the SDCB committee considered reflective of the current practice of HTA, followed by a narrative synthesis of the core components of HTA. RESULTS: Several definitions of HTA have been provided, all sharing the notion that HTA is the formal, systematic, and transparent inquiry into the meaning and value, broadly defined, of health technologies, when used in specific patient populations.Many frameworks and tools have been developed for assessing the quality of specific tasks that may be conducted in the context of HTA. Collating such frameworks and tools is likely to be helpful in developing standards and in providing guidance as to how the scientific quality of HTA may be secured. Two current trends in HTA were noted: a stronger health systems focus, and the need to involve stakeholders throughout the HTA process. A wider systems' perspective requires that plausible alternative scenarios are being developed, and wide consultation of various stakeholders is a prerequisite to the development of such scenarios with data from various sources. CONCLUSIONS: Current trends in HTA will lead to different demands on the HTA expert. The task of this emerging policy professional would be not just to provide technical information for problem-solving, but also to combine it with a new function of facilitating public deliberation and learning.

ARTHROSCOPIC SURGERY FOR KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: IMPACT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN GERMANY.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe how a negative reimbursement decision-based on the health technology assessment (HTA) report of a nondrug intervention-affects healthcare providers in Germany. METHODS: Knee arthroscopy was chosen as an example, because as of April 2016 this procedure is no longer reimbursed for osteoarthritis, but is still covered for other indications, including meniscal lesions. The exclusion followed an HTA report prepared by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Here, we examine how the decision to revoke reimbursement for arthroscopy was perceived by the surgical community. Information was collected from official hospital statistics, the internet, and informal interviews with orthopedic surgeons. RESULTS: In 2015, a total of 37,920 arthroscopic procedures were performed for knee osteoarthritis in Germany. Several surgical societies were unhappy with the negative decision, which was issued as a directive in November 2015, and they challenged the decision-making process as well as the underlying scientific evidence. In March 2016, fifteen societies issued joint recommendations on how to differentiate osteoarthritis from other knee diseases and how to document other diseases in a way that inspections by representatives of health insurance funds would not detect any deficiencies. In informal interviews, orthopedic surgeons indicated that miscoding of the principal diagnosis (meniscal tear rather than knee osteoarthritis) is to be expected, especially in the hospital sector. CONCLUSIONS: HTA can have a significant impact on the provision of health services, but various loopholes allow physicians to undermine policy decisions. Therefore, it is important to involve all stakeholders in HTA and to convince them of the benefits of evidence-based medicine.

ASPECTS OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN RARE DISEASES: A DISCUSSION PAPER.

OBJECTIVES: A patient reported outcome (PRO) is "any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else" (USFDA 2009). PROs are discussed widely, and many regard the patients' perspective on treatment benefit as very valuable. Although many PROs have shown satisfactory measurement properties including reliability, validity, and responsiveness, there is great concern about risk of bias, that is, in clinical trials. METHODS: Differences in perspectives of PRO measurement in rare diseases are given arising from methodology, clinical, HTA, and patient advocacy views. RESULTS: PROs are playing an important role in dealing with treatment benefit especially in small sample size as occurring often in rare diseases. Challenges remain especially regarding lack of responsiveness of generic measures, limited capture of all patient relevant aspects, study design and high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: PROs seem a valuable instrument to detect patient relevant aspects in rare diseases. They should be seen in addition to other approved assessment methods as randomized controlled trials but not as their substitute.

Developing the HTA core model for the online environment.

BACKGROUND: A framework for collaborative production and sharing of HTA information, the HTA Core Model, was originally developed within EUnetHTA in 2006-08. In this paper, we describe the further development of the Model to allow implementation and utilization of the Model online. The aim was to capture a generic HTA process that would allow effective use of the HTA Core Model and resulting HTA information while at the same time not interfering with HTA agencies' internal processes. METHODS: The work was coordinated by a development team in Finland, supported by an international expert group. Two pilot testing rounds were organized among EUnetHTA agencies and two extensive core HTA projects tested the tool in a real setting. The final work was also formally validated by a group of HTA agencies. RESULTS: The HTA Core Model Online--available at http://www.corehta.info--is a web site hosting a) a tool to allow electronic utilization of the HTA Core Model and b) a database of produced HTA information. While access to the HTA information is free to all, the production features are currently available to EUnetHTA member agencies only. A policy was crafted to steer the use of the Model and produced information. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully enabled electronic use of the HTA Core Model and agreed on a policy for its utilization. The system is already being used in subsequent HTA projects within EUnetHTA Joint Action 2. Identified shortcomings and further needs will be addressed in subsequent development.

[The curriculum Health Technology Assessment (HTA)]. / Das Curriculum Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

Information derived from Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports is increasingly used for decision-making in healthcare. The production of HTA reports requires well-qualified interdisciplinarily working specialists who are not yet available in sufficient number. The German HTA Society and the German Network for Evidence Based Medicine have now developed an HTA curriculum which may serve as a basis for training courses for users of HTA information as well as HTA authors. Structure and content of the curriculum were inspired by internationally established training courses. However, the specific aspects of technology regulation and decision-making in the healthcare systems of German-speaking countries are emphasised. The curriculum is subdivided into a total of 11 modules. These include principles of HTA, status and regulation of technologies, priority setting, management of knowledge and information, methods of conducting HTA reports and project management. In the next step, the application of the curriculum into an Internet-based training course is planned.

The contribution of handsearching European general health care journals to the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.

A fundamental aim of any systematic review is that all relevant studies should be identified and considered for inclusion. Limitations with searching bibliographic databases led the Cochrane Collaboration to search journals by hand for reports of trials. This article presents the results of a 3-year project to identify and make accessible reports of randomized trials published in European general health care journals. Overall, 21,620 reports of controlled trials were identified from 119 journals from 16 countries. More than three quarters (76%) were published in U.K. or German journals. Only 3,640 (17%) reports were indexed in MEDLINE as controlled trials, and 6,554 (30%) were not indexed in MEDLINE at all. Bibliographic details for all reports are available by searching The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register in The Cochrane Library. This project has ensured that a large proportion of trial reports not previously identifiable has been made accessible to those preparing systematic reviews.

[Experiences with synopses of clinical guidelines using the example of synopses for Disease Management Programmes (DMP)]. / Erfahrungen mit Leitliniensynopsen am Beispiel der Synopsen für Disease-Management-Programme (DMP).

UNLABELLED: Guideline synopses, i.e. the systematic synthesis of clinical practice guidelines, are used as a basis for Disease Management Programmes (DMPs) in Germany. One of the responsibilities of the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) is the preparation of guideline synopses for DMPs. The article describes the experiences with this methodology. METHODS: For the preparation of guideline synopses, a systematic search for evidence-based guidelines is conducted, and their recommendations are extracted and synthesised. In parallel, the quality of the guidelines is assessed using the AGREE instrument. The need for updating or supplementing a DMP is justified by means of the Grade of Recommendation (GoR) or, alternatively, the Level of Evidence (LoE). EXPERIENCES: Since 2006 IQWiG has synthesised recommendations from 256 evidence-based guidelines in 12 guideline synopses for DMPs. The results are then used by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) to update DMPs. Using the example of the 12 synopses, several analyses were conducted. It was determined that a search for guidelines in guideline databases is sufficient and that a search in bibliographic databases can be dispensed with. Furthermore, the analyses showed that a large proportion of recommendations in evidence-based guidelines are not clearly linked to a GoR or LoE. If GoR and LoE are provided, only about 42% of recommendations with a strong GoR also refer to a strong LoE. It was also shown that only 21 % of the analysed guideline providers supplied information on the handling of unpublished data. With consistent average to high values, the assessment of the methodological quality across all of the prepared synopses allows for the conclusion of a basically acceptable guideline quality, but with a need for improvement. OUTLOOK: A guideline synopsis is an established tool for identifying health care standards as a basis for developing and updating DMPs. Further methodological development, particularly in collaboration with guideline providers, appears to be reasonable. It should be examined whether guideline synopses are suitable not only for guideline and DMP development, but also for other health care issues.

Tools for assessing the content of guidelines are needed to enable their effective use--a systematic comparison.

BACKGROUND: To ensure that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) form a sound basis for decision-making in health care, it is necessary to be able to reliably assess and ensure their quality. This results in the need to assess the content of guidelines systematically, particularly with regard to the validity of their recommendations.The aim of the present analysis was to determine the suitability and applicability of frequently used assessment tools for evidence syntheses with regard to the assessment of guideline content. METHODS: We conducted a systematic comparison and analysis of established tools for the assessment of evidence syntheses (guidelines, systematic reviews, health technology assessments). The tools analyzed were: ADAPTE, AGREE II, AMSTAR, GLIA and the INAHTA checklist. We analyzed methodological steps related to the assessment of the reliability and validity of guideline recommendations. Data were extracted and analyzed by two persons independently of one another. RESULTS: Widely used tools for the methodological assessment of evidence syntheses are not suitable for a comprehensive content-related assessment. They remain mostly at the level of assessment of the documentation of processes. Some tools assess selected content-related aspects, but operationalization is either unspecific or lacking. CONCLUSION: None of the tools analyzed enables the structured and comprehensive assessment of the content of guideline recommendations with special regard to their reliability and validity. All tools contribute towards the judicious use of evidence syntheses by supporting their systematic development or assessment. However, further progress is needed, particularly with regard to the assessment of content quality. This includes comprehensive operationalization and documentation of the assessment process to ensure reliability and validity, and therefore to enable the effective use of trustworthy guidelines in the health care system.

[Management of chronic heart failure - a systematic review of guidelines in the context of the DMP revision]. / Versorgung der chronischen Herzinsuffizienz - eine systematische Leitliniensynopse im Rahmen der geplanten DMP-Aktualisierung.

BACKGROUND: Disease Management Programmes (DMPs) are structured treatment programmes for chronic diseases. The DMP requirements are primarily derived from evidence-based guidelines. DMPs are regularly revised to ensure that they reflect current best practice and medical knowledge. The aim of this study was to assess the need for updating the German DMP module on heart failure by comparing it to relevant guidelines and identifying recommendations that should be revised. METHODS: We systematically searched for clinical guidelines on heart failure published in German, English or French, and extracted relevant guideline recommendations. All included guidelines were assessed for methodological quality. To identify revision needs in the DMP, we performed a synoptic analysis of the extracted guideline recommendations and DMP requirements. RESULTS: 27 guidelines were included. The extracted recommendations covered all aspects of the management of heart failure. The comparison of guideline recommendations with DMP requirements showed that, overall, guideline recommendations were more detailed than DMP requirements, and that the guidelines covered topics not included in the DMP module. CONCLUSIONS: The DMP module is largely consistent with current guidelines on heart failure. We did not identify any need for significant revision of the DMP requirements. However, some specific recommendations of the DMP module could benefit from revision.