Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation.

Background: Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome. Methods: We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing. Results: We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery. Limitations: Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which puts people at a higher risk of getting bowel cancer, womb cancer and ovarian cancer. Although people with Lynch syndrome are more likely to get these cancers, they are more likely to survive cancer if they get it. People diagnosed with Lynch syndrome get regular testing (surveillance) using a camera to check for bowel cancer or polyps. For womb and ovarian cancer, surveillance may also be an option, but it is less well studied in these cancers. This means that many women are not offered surveillance. Women with Lynch syndrome are recommended to have risk-reducing surgery when their risk starts rising, if they do not want any more children. We wanted to find out whether surveillance for womb and ovarian cancer would work and would be good value for money. Doctors and patients have said that these are important research questions. We searched for published research on this subject and found a lot of studies, but these studies were often small or not well designed, so they could only tell us a limited amount. Studies did not always measure the things that patients want to know. There was some evidence that people having surveillance might live longer than people not having surveillance, but there was also some evidence that risk-reducing surgery is better than surveillance. Surveillance has detected some cancers which had no symptoms, but there are also cancers diagnosed soon after a surveillance visit where nothing was found. People often find surveillance painful, but experiences vary. Our work shows that surveillance and surgery could be good value for money for many women with Lynch syndrome. We need better research to help patients and doctors decide whether surveillance is right for them.

Image directed redesign of bladder cancer treatment pathways: the BladderPath RCT.

Background: Transurethral resection of bladder tumour has been the mainstay of bladder cancer staging for > 60 years. Staging inaccuracies are commonplace, leading to delayed treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging offers rapid, accurate and non-invasive staging of muscle-invasive bladder cancer, potentially reducing delays to radical treatment. Objectives: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of the introducing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging ahead of transurethral resection of bladder tumour in the staging of suspected muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Design: Open-label, multistage randomised controlled study in three parts: feasibility, intermediate and final clinical stages. The COVID pandemic prevented completion of the final stage. Setting: Fifteen UK hospitals. Participants: Newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients of age ≥ 18 years. Interventions: Participants were randomised to Pathway 1 or 2 following visual assessment of the suspicion of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer or muscle-invasive bladder cancer at the time of outpatient cystoscopy, based upon a 5-point Likert scale: Likert 1-2 tumours considered probable non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; Likert 3-5 possible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In Pathway 1, all participants underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumour. In Pathway 2, probable non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer participants underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumour, and possible muscle-invasive bladder cancer participants underwent initial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Subsequent therapy was determined by the treating team and could include transurethral resection of bladder tumour. Main outcome measures: Feasibility stage: proportion with possible muscle-invasive bladder cancer randomised to Pathway 2 which correctly followed the protocol. Intermediate stage: time to correct treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Results: Between 31 May 2018 and 31 December 2021, of 638 patients approached, 143 participants were randomised; 52.1% were deemed as possible muscle-invasive bladder cancer and 47.9% probable non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Feasibility stage: 36/39 [92% (95% confidence interval 79 to 98%)] muscle-invasive bladder cancer participants followed the correct treatment by pathway. Intermediate stage: median time to correct treatment was 98 (95% confidence interval 72 to 125) days for Pathway 1 versus 53 (95% confidence interval 20 to 89) days for Pathway 2 [hazard ratio 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 8.1)], p = 0.040. Median time to correct treatment for all participants was 37 days for Pathway 1 and 25 days for Pathway 2 [hazard ratio 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.0)]. Limitations: For participants who underwent chemotherapy, radiotherapy or palliation for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-diagnosed stage T2 or higher disease, it was impossible to conclusively know whether these were correct treatments due to the absence of histopathologically confirmed muscle invasion, this being confirmed radiologically in these cases. All patients had histological confirmation of their cancers. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were unable to realise the final stage. Conclusion: The multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-directed pathway led to a substantial 45-day reduction in time to correct treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, without detriment to non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer participants. Consideration should be given to the incorporation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging ahead of transurethral resection of bladder tumour into the standard pathway for all patients with suspected muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The improved decision-making accelerated time to treatment, even though many patients subsequently needed transurethral resection of bladder tumour. A proportion of patients can avoid transurethral resection of bladder tumour completely, reducing costs and morbidity, given the much lower cost of magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy compared to transurethral resection of bladder tumour. Future work: Further work to cross-correlate with the recently developed Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System will improve accuracy and aid dissemination. Longer follow-up to examine the effect of the pathway on outcomes is also required. Incorporation of liquid deoxyribonucleic acid-based biomarkers may further improve the quality of decision-making and should also be investigated further. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN 35296862. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135775) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 42. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The BladderPath trial explored how to accelerate diagnosis and avoid unnecessary surgery for patients with bladder cancer which had grown into the muscle wall of the bladder, referred to as muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Following initial outpatient diagnosis, bladder cancer patients currently undergo inpatient or day-case surgical tumour removal using a telescope (transurethral resection of bladder tumour). This surgery is fundamental to the treatment of early bladder cancer (non-muscle-invasive). However, for muscle-invasive disease, the main role of transurethral resection of bladder tumour is to confirm that the tumour has grown into the bladder muscle, and this is often inaccurate; the actual correct treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients should include chemotherapy, radiotherapy and/or bladder removal. For these patients, having transurethral resection of bladder tumour may delay this correct treatment and impact survival. Additionally, for patients determined to need palliative care due to advanced disease, the transurethral resection of bladder tumour may represent over-treatment. A magnetic resonance imaging scan with contrast agent (called multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging) gives a clearer picture of the bladder than normal scans, allowing distinction between invasive and non-invasive tumours. The BladderPath trial investigated adding multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for patients with suspected muscle-invasive bladder cancer and the effect on treatment times. Subsequent therapy could include transurethral resection of bladder tumour if clinically determined as necessary by the treating team. Trial participants were randomly allocated either to the standard pathway (Pathway 1: all underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumour) or to a new pathway (Pathway 2). In Pathway 2, urologists conducting the initial outpatient diagnostic bladder inspections used a scale to assess whether tumours appeared to be either probably non-muscle-invasive or possibly muscle-invasive. Participants whose tumours appeared possibly muscle-invasive had initial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as their next investigation instead of transurethral resection of bladder tumour. We then compared the duration of time from initial diagnosis to receiving the correct treatment for participants in each pathway. Of the 143 participants, 75 (52.1%) were diagnosed as possibly muscle invasive. In Pathway 1, the duration for half of the participants in the group to have received their correct treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer was 98 days, which reduced to 53 days in Pathway 2. Furthermore, the duration for half of all the participants in the two groups to have received their correct treatment was 37 days for Pathway 1 and 31 days for Pathway 2. In summary, use of initial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in suspected muscle-invasive bladder cancer participants substantially reduced the time to correct treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy or instigation of palliative care) and avoided unnecessary surgery. There was no negative impact on participants with non-invasive disease. Adopting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging into the pathway ahead of transurethral resection of bladder tumour for patients with suspected muscle-invasive bladder cancer is recommended.

The effects and safety of testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism: the TestES evidence synthesis and economic evaluation.

Background: Low levels of testosterone cause male hypogonadism, which is associated with sexual dysfunction, tiredness and reduced muscle strength and quality of life. Testosterone replacement therapy is commonly used for ameliorating symptoms of male hypogonadism, but there is uncertainty about the magnitude of its effects and its cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety. Aims of the research: The primary aim was to evaluate the safety of testosterone replacement therapy. We also assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness of testosterone replacement therapy for men with male hypogonadism, and the existing qualitative evidence on men's experience and acceptability of testosterone replacement therapy. Design: Evidence synthesis and individual participant data meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety, qualitative evidence synthesis and model-based cost-utility analysis. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched from 1992 to February 2021 and were restricted to English-language publications. Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data according to current methodological standards. Evidence was considered from placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of any formulation of testosterone replacement therapy in men with male hypogonadism. Primary outcomes were mortality and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Data were extracted by one reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed one-stage meta-analyses using the acquired individual participant data and two-stage meta-analyses to integrate the individual participant data with data extracted from eligible studies that did not provide individual participant data. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost per quality-adjusted life-years of the use of testosterone replacement therapy in cohorts of patients of different starting ages. Results: We identified 35 trials (5601 randomised participants). Of these, 17 trials (3431 participants) provided individual participant data. There were too few deaths to assess mortality. There was no difference between the testosterone replacement therapy group (120/1601, 7.5%) and placebo group (110/1519, 7.2%) in the incidence of cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular events (13 studies, odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.42; p = 0.62). Testosterone replacement therapy improved quality of life and sexual function in almost all patient subgroups. In the testosterone replacement therapy group, serum testosterone was higher while serum cholesterol, triglycerides, haemoglobin and haematocrit were all lower. We identified several themes from five qualitative studies showing how symptoms of low testosterone affect men's lives and their experience of treatment. The cost-effectiveness of testosterone replacement therapy was dependent on whether uncertain effects on all-cause mortality were included in the model, and on the approach used to estimate the health state utility increment associated with testosterone replacement therapy, which might have been driven by improvements in symptoms such as sexual dysfunction and low mood. Limitations: A meaningful evaluation of mortality was hampered by the limited number of defined events. Definition and reporting of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and methods for testosterone measurement varied across trials. Conclusions: Our findings do not support a relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events in the short-to-medium term. Testosterone replacement therapy improves sexual function and quality of life without adverse effects on blood pressure, serum lipids or glycaemic markers. Future work: Rigorous long-term evidence assessing the safety of testosterone replacement therapy and subgroups most benefiting from treatment is needed. Study registration: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018111005. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/68/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 43. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Testosterone is a hormone which is vital for sexual activity, bone growth and muscle development in men. Men with low testosterone levels may experience problems with erections and may suffer from brittle bones (osteoporosis), weakness, feeling down (low mood) and tiredness. The manifestations of low testosterone can be treated with testosterone replacement therapy. However, there is current uncertainty about the positive effects of testosterone replacement therapy and its safety. We brought together results from all available medical studies that looked at the use of testosterone replacement therapy in men with low testosterone and contacted the doctors who led these studies to gather further information on their participants. We found 35 studies (5601 participants) conducted in different countries, 17 of which provided additional information on their participants. We did not find any evidence to show that testosterone replacement therapy increases the risk of heart problems, or any evidence to show that some men who take testosterone replacement therapy benefit more than others. Men with low testosterone reported having low mood, poor concentration and lack of energy; however, medical studies often failed to prove that these manifestations improved with testosterone replacement therapy. Most medical studies were conducted among white men in North America using questionnaires designed specifically for them; therefore, the results may not reflect the experiences of men in other countries and from more diverse ethnic backgrounds. There is too much uncertainty about the benefits of testosterone replacement therapy to accurately estimate its value for money for the NHS. We think our findings offer some reassurance to doctors and patients that testosterone replacement therapy does not increase the risk of heart problems. New studies are needed to find out whether some groups of men (such as older or younger men) are more likely to benefit from testosterone replacement therapy more than others. It is also important to develop tools which better reflect the experience of men from a diverse range of social and ethnic backgrounds. To inform men with low testosterone about our findings, we are creating a website with dedicated YouTube video clips.

Feasibility of in-home monitoring for people with glaucoma: the I-TRAC mixed-methods study.

Background: Glaucoma is a chronic disease of the optic nerve and a leading cause of severe visual loss in the UK. Once patients have been diagnosed, they need regular monitoring at hospital eye services. Recent advances in technology mean patients with glaucoma can now monitor their disease at home. This could be more convenient for patients and potentially reduce costs and increase capacity for the NHS. However, it is uncertain whether self-monitoring would be acceptable or possible for patients with glaucoma. Objectives: The objectives were to: identify which patients are most appropriate for home monitoring; understand views of key stakeholders (patients, clinicians, researchers) on whether home glaucoma monitoring is feasible and acceptable; develop a conceptual framework for the economic evaluation of home glaucoma monitoring; and explore the need for and provide evidence on the design of a future study to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of digital technologies for home monitoring of glaucoma. Design: In-home Tracking of glaucoma: Reliability, Acceptability, and Cost (I-TRAC) was a multiphase mixed-methods feasibility study with key components informed by theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Setting: Expert glaucoma specialists in the UK recruited through professional glaucoma societies; study site staff and patient participants recruited through three UK hospital eye services (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland); and UK research teams recruited though existing networks. Intervention: Home tonometer that measures intraocular pressure and a tablet computer with a visual function application. Patients were asked to use the technology weekly for 12 weeks. Results: Forty-two patients were recruited. Retention and completion of follow-up procedures was successful, with 95% (n = 40) completing the 3-month follow-up clinic visits. Adherence to the interventions was generally high [adherence to both devices (i.e. ≥ 80% adherence) was 55%]. Overall, patients and healthcare professionals were cautiously optimistic about the acceptability of digital technologies for home monitoring of patients with glaucoma. While most clinicians were supportive of the potential advantages glaucoma home monitoring could offer, concerns about the technologies (e.g. reliability and potential to miss disease progression) and how they would fit into routine care need to be addressed. Additionally, clarity is required on defining the ideal population for this intervention. Plans for how to evaluate value for money in a future study were also identified. However, the study also highlighted several unknowns relating to core components of a future evaluative study that require addressing before progression to a definitive effectiveness trial. Limitations: The main limitation relates to our sample and its generalisability, for example, the over-representation of educated persons of white ethnicity who were generally experienced with technology and research motivated. Conclusions: The In-home Tracking of glaucoma: Reliability, Acceptability, and Cost study has demonstrated 'cautious optimism' when considering patients' and healthcare professionals' views on the acceptability of digital technologies for home monitoring of patients with glaucoma. However, the study also highlighted several unknowns relating to the research question and design of a future evaluative study that require addressing before progression to a randomised controlled trial. Future work: Further research is required to determine the appropriate population (i.e. low vs. high risk of progression) and further refine the intervention components and delivery for planning of future evaluation studies. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry #6213. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129248) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 44. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The In-home Tracking of glaucoma: Reliability, Acceptability, and Cost study explored whether glaucoma patients who would normally be monitored in hospital could do some monitoring themselves at home, and whether self-monitoring at home would be acceptable or possible for them. We delivered In-home Tracking of glaucoma: Reliability, Acceptability, and Cost in four phases by: Surveying expert glaucoma specialists to understand which patients would benefit most from home monitoring. Providing glaucoma patients with an iPad tablet and a device which measures eye pressure to use once a week for 3 months. The patients who participated and the clinical staff delivering the study were interviewed about their experiences. Interviewing researchers with experience of running large studies testing digital technologies to monitor patients' health at home to understand challenges. Reviewing other researchers' work and comparing it with ours to help us understand whether home monitoring of glaucoma could be good value for money. Overall, patients and healthcare professionals were cautiously optimistic about the digital technologies for home monitoring of glaucoma. Most patient participants were able to use the technologies, and half told us they preferred home monitoring. Most clinicians recognised the potential advantages of glaucoma home monitoring but had concerns about the technologies (specifically reliability and the risk of missing disease progression) and how they would fit into routine care. Plans for how to evaluate value for money in a future study were identified. The study did not aim to identify whether the digital technology was better than what happens currently; a different study design with many more patients would be required to answer that question. The study did identify several important questions to answer before designing a future larger study; for example, how to ensure diverse patient participation. These questions should be the focus of future research in this area.

An international consensus panel on the potential value of Digital Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The use of digital technology in surgery is increasing rapidly, with a wide array of new applications from presurgical planning to postsurgical performance assessment. Understanding the clinical and economic value of these technologies is vital for making appropriate health policy and purchasing decisions. We explore the potential value of digital technologies in surgery and produce expert consensus on how to assess this value. DESIGN: A modified Delphi and consensus conference approach was adopted. Delphi rounds were used to generate priority topics and consensus statements for discussion. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An international panel of 14 experts was assembled, representing relevant stakeholder groups: clinicians, health economists, health technology assessment experts, policy-makers and industry. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A scoping questionnaire was used to generate research questions to be answered. A second questionnaire was used to rate the importance of these research questions. A final questionnaire was used to generate statements for discussion during three consensus conferences. After discussion, the panel voted on their level of agreement from 1 to 9; where 1=strongly disagree and 9=strongly agree. Consensus was defined as a mean level of agreement of >7. RESULTS: Four priority topics were identified: (1) how data are used in digital surgery, (2) the existing evidence base for digital surgical technologies, (3) how digital technologies may assist surgical training and education and (4) methods for the assessment of these technologies. Seven consensus statements were generated and refined, with the final level of consensus ranging from 7.1 to 8.6. CONCLUSION: Potential benefits of digital technologies in surgery include reducing unwarranted variation in surgical practice, increasing access to surgery and reducing health inequalities. Assessments to consider the value of the entire surgical ecosystem holistically are critical, especially as many digital technologies are likely to interact simultaneously in the operating theatre.

Exploration of Eye-Tracking Methodologies in Usability Testing of Digital Health Technology: A Rapid Review.

Eye-tracking is deemed a promising methodology for usability evaluation studies in healthcare, however clear theoretical guidance and practice remains lacking. A rapid review was performed on current use of eye tracking as a usability evaluation method on digital health technologies in the period of 2019 to 2024. Usability evaluation studies were included when they described a digital health technology intervention in which eye-tracking technologies were applied. To gain insight into how eye-tracking technologies contributed to measuring digital health technologies' usability, data was extracted on the use of eye-tracking for usability and key study findings. Seventeen papers were included in the review. Findings show that eye-tracking is frequently combined with other usability evaluation methods, with high methodological diversity, to test the usability of DHT. Future research is needed to enhance understanding of the effectiveness of eye-tracking outcomes in DHT usability testing when combined with other usability evaluation methods in order to provide (usability) researchers theoretical guidance on its application.

Usability Checklists for Health Technology: Case Study and Experts' Opinions.

Application of usability evaluations throughout the health technology lifecycle is necessary to improve the efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of health service delivery. Unfortunately, technology vendors and healthcare organizations may not have funding, time or expertise to conduct usability studies. In this paper, we describe how usability checklists can potentially fill this gap. First, we introduce a case study using a checklist to identify usability issues with a primary care dashboard. Then we provide an expert summary of the strengths and limitations of usability checklists. Findings suggest that checklists are efficient to identify important usability issues. They can be used effectively by project team members - including clinicians - without formal usability training. However, checklists should complement rather than replace usability evaluations with representative users.

How to mobilise users' experiential knowledge in the evaluation of advanced technologies and practices in Quebec? The example of the permanent users' and relatives' panel.

INTRODUCTION: With the purpose of supporting scientific professionals and helping them to better integrate the expertise of users in their work, a users' and relatives' panel (URP) was set up at the National Institute for Excellence in Health and Social Services in Quebec (INESSS), Canada for the social services and mental health directorate. URPs are advisory structures that mobilise the experiential knowledge of people affected by various issues. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess from a diverse stakeholders' perceptions: (1) the experience of developing and implementing the URP within the context of an Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (AHTAASS), (2) the contribution of such a URP, (3) the challenges encountered and (4) the perspectives of improvement for the following years. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a qualitative descriptive evaluation study. Nineteen interviews were conducted: six with URP members and 13 with staff representatives. The documents related to the creation of the panel, the URP minutes summarising the discussions and the reports published during that period were collected and analysed. Following a preliminary round of data analysis, a debriefing meeting was conducted with a few participants to validate the results. RESULTS: The panel was set up as part of the INESSS' desire to better integrate experiential knowledge into its recommendations. Twelve projects were presented to the panel on various themes. The URP enabled health professionals to consider dimensions they had not identified, to better integrate the experiential data collected from users into their work and to develop recommendations that made more sense to users. Panel members and INESSS professionals learned to work together, moving the working methods from consultation to collaboration and even coconstruction. Based on the panel's significant contribution, the INESSS decided to maintain it and to strengthen its place in its system to better integrate the experiential knowledge of users into its work. CONCLUSION: This research illustrates how AHTAASS can set up a URP composed exclusively of users, and how it can contribute and be evaluated. It shows that URPs are structures that value the sharing of experiential knowledge of its members, humanise decision-making and give meaning to the work done by scientific professionals. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One patient-researcher has contributed to the preparation and writing of this manuscript.

Acceptability of the use of health related quality of life measurements for decision-making in healthcare science in Vietnam: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted with the objective of exploring the usage of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes and willingness of health technology assessment (HTA) and public health stakeholders to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument in healthcare decision-making processes in Vietnam. METHOD: In this qualitative study, 11 interviews were held with key stakeholders involved in healthcare decision-making for HTA between June 2021 and June 2022. The interviewees included members of the Vietnamese pharmacoeconomic council and public-health professionals from a diverse array of regions of Vietnam. The data collection involved obtaining verbal consent, warm-up discussions and interviews conducted via Zoom, with subsequent verification by interviewees. The analysis employed a theoretical thematic approach, adopting a deductive methodology to identify and analyse underlying ideas and meanings within the empirical data. RESULTS: This study highlights the general importance and viability of HRQOL measures, and more particularly the EQ-5D-5L instrument, in healthcare decision-making in Vietnam. Challenges have been identified, including insufficient recognition, interpretation, standardisation and educational initiatives relating to HRQOL measurements. This study advocates for official training programmes on HRQOL measurements, guidelines for the application of the EQ-5D-5L and an open HRQOL database in Vietnam. Concerns regarding validity and outcome variation in HRQOL measurements underline the necessity for continuous psychometric properties assessments and regular updates to national HRQOL data in the Vietnamese context. CONCLUSION: HRQOL outcomes are important, and Vietnamese stakeholders express a readiness to employ the EQ-5D-5L in healthcare decision-making, especially HTA. Nevertheless, HRQOL measurements, including the EQ-5D-5L, are currently inadequately used in Vietnam, and further efforts are required to improve utilisation.

Lessons on the use of real-world data in medical device research: findings from the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Test-Cases.

Aim: Although the US FDA encourages manufacturers of medical devices to submit real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decisions, the ability of real-world data (RWD) to generate evidence suitable for decision making remains unclear. The 2017 Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA IV), authorized the National Evaluation System for health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc) to conduct pilot projects, or 'Test-Cases', to assess whether current RWD captures the information needed to answer research questions proposed by industry stakeholders. We synthesized key lessons about the challenges conducting research with RWD and the strategies used by research teams to enhance their ability to generate evidence from RWD based on 18 Test-Cases conducted between 2020 and 2022. Materials & methods: We reviewed study protocols and reports from each Test-Case team and conducted 49 semi-structured interviews with representatives of participating organizations. Interview transcripts were coded and thematically analyzed. Results: Challenges that stakeholders encountered in working with RWD included the lack of unique device identifiers, capturing key data elements and their appropriate meaning in structured data, limited reliability of diagnosis and procedure codes in structured data, extracting information from unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data, limited capture of long-term study end points, missing data and data sharing. Successful strategies included using manufacturer and supply chain data, leveraging clinical registries and registry reporting processes to collect and aggregate data, querying standardized EHR data, implementing natural language processing algorithms and using multidisciplinary research teams. Conclusion: The Test-Cases identified numerous challenges working with RWD but also opportunities to address these challenges and improve researchers' ability to use RWD to generate evidence on medical devices.

Automated devices for identifying peripheral arterial disease in people with leg ulceration: an evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Peripheral artery disease is a common condition caused by narrowing/blockage of the arteries, resulting in reduced blood supply. Peripheral artery disease is associated with an increased risk of vascular complications, but early treatment reduces mortality and morbidity. Leg ulcers are long-lasting wounds, usually treated by compression therapy. Compression therapy is not suitable for people with peripheral artery disease, as it can affect the arterial blood supply. In clinical practice, people with peripheral artery disease are identified by measurement of the ankle-brachial pressure index using a sphygmomanometer and manual Doppler device. However, this method can be uncomfortable for people with leg ulcers and automated devices have been proposed as a more acceptable alternative. The objective of this appraisal was to summarise the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence on the use of automated devices to detect peripheral artery disease in people with leg ulcers. Methods: . Clinical effectiveness: To identify reports of relevant studies, we searched major electronic databases and scrutinised the information supplied by the manufacturers of the automated devices under investigation. Due to the lack of evidence on people with leg ulcers, we considered evidence from studies of any design assessing automated devices versus an acceptable reference device in any population receiving ankle-brachial pressure index assessment. We summarised information on diagnostic accuracy of the automated devices and level of agreement with the reference device. For each device, when data permit, we pooled data across studies by conducting random-effects meta-analyses using a Hierarchical Summary Receiving Operating Characteristics model. Cost-effectiveness: An economic model comprising a decision tree (24 weeks) and Markov models to capture lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with venous, arterial and mixed aetiology disease in leg ulcer patients. Analyses were conducted from a United Kingdom National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5% per year. Deterministic and several probabilistic analyses were used to capture uncertainty surrounding a range of optimistic and pessimistic assumptions about the impact of automated tests on health outcomes (ulcer healing and requirement for invasive management of arterial disease). Results: . Clinical effectiveness: From the 116 records retrieved by the electronic searches, we included 24 studies evaluating five devices (BlueDop Vascular Expert, BOSO ABI-System 100, Dopplex Ability, MESI ankle-brachial pressure index MD and WatchBP Office ABI). Two studies assessing people with leg ulcers found that automated devices often gave higher ankle-brachial pressure index readings than manual Doppler (underestimation of arterial disease). In the 22 studies involving people without leg ulcers, automated devices generally demonstrated good specificity and moderate specificity. Meta-analysis of 12 studies showed a pooled sensitivity of 64% (95% confidence interval 57% to 71%) and a pooled specificity of 96% (95% confidence interval 92% to 98%) for detection of peripheral artery disease. Cost-effectiveness: Automated devices cost less than manual Doppler to deliver. However, increased risks of invasive treatment requirements for inappropriately compressed arterial/mixed ulcers due to false-negative results, and increased healing times due to delayed compression of false-positive test results mean that in most scenarios manual Doppler was less costly and had slightly higher quality-adjusted life-years than automated devices. Results are highly uncertain, dependent on many assumptions and should be interpreted cautiously. Limitations and conclusions: The limited evidence identified for each automated device, especially in people with leg ulcers, and its clinical heterogeneity precludes any firm conclusions on the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of these devices in clinical practice. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022327588. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135478) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 37. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Leg ulcers are long-lasting wounds mostly caused by problems in blood flow in the veins, which are treated by applying bandages or stockings to create a 'compression' effect. However, compression should not be used in people with a condition called peripheral artery disease. To identify people with peripheral artery disease who should not receive compression therapy, health professionals perform a test called 'ankle­brachial pressure index', which involves taking blood pressure of the arms and ankles using a device called 'Doppler ultrasound'. The procedure is time-consuming and people with leg ulcers often find it uncomfortable. Automated devices have been proposed as a more acceptable option for assessing leg ulcers. However, we need to know whether these devices produce reliable results and represent good value for money for the National Health Service. We found 24 clinical studies that assessed 5 automated devices to measure ankle­brachial pressure index. The type of patients and clinical setting varied between studies. Two studies assessed people with leg ulcers and showed that the automated devices tended to give higher readings than standard Doppler and, therefore, may underestimate the presence of peripheral artery disease. Results of the 22 studies assessing people without leg ulcers showed that the automated devices could correctly identify people who did not have peripheral artery disease but were less precise in identifying people with peripheral artery disease. However, there was not enough evidence to confirm if these devices are reliable enough to be used in clinical practice. Compared to manual Doppler, the automated devices were less costly to deliver in clinical practice but had increased costs due to potentially inaccurate results. Our evaluation required many assumptions about how the devices would be used in practice, and there were no data on their impact on patient outcomes. Results are highly uncertain and should be interpreted cautiously. Given current evidence, it is unlikely that automated tests are a convenient option for the National Health Service.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for advanced heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Background: Selected patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplantation could benefit from left ventricular assist device therapy as 'destination therapy'. There is evidence of the efficacy of destination therapy; however, it is not currently commissioned within the United Kingdom National Health Service due to the lack of economic evidence. Objective: What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a left ventricular assist device compared to medical management for patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplantation (destination therapy)? Methods: A systematic review of evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy was undertaken including, where feasible, a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect estimate of the relative effectiveness of currently available left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management. For the systematic reviews, data sources searched (up to 11 January 2022) were Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid for primary studies, and Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant systematic reviews. Trial registers were also searched, along with data and reports from intervention-specific registries. Economic studies were identified in EconLit, CEA registry and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). The searches were supplemented by checking reference lists of included studies. An economic model (Markov) was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties. Where possible, all analyses focused on the only currently available left ventricular assist device (HeartMate 3TM, Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) in the United Kingdom. Results: The clinical effectiveness review included 134 studies (240 articles). There were no studies directly comparing HeartMate 3 and medical management (a randomised trial is ongoing). The currently available left ventricular assist device improves patient survival and reduces stroke rates and complications compared to earlier devices and relative to medical management. For example, survival at 24 months is 77% with the HeartMate 3 device compared to 59% with the HeartMate II (MOMENTUM 3 trial). An indirect comparison demonstrated a reduction in mortality compared to medical management [relative risk of death 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); 24 months; this study]. The cost-effectiveness review included 5 cost analyses and 14 economic evaluations covering different generations of devices and with different perspectives. The reported incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared to medical management were lower for later generations of devices [as low as £46,207 (2019 prices; United Kingdom perspective; time horizon at least 5 years)]. The economic evaluation used different approaches to obtain the relative effects of current left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. All gave similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £53,496-58,244 per quality-adjusted life-year gained - lifetime horizon. Model outputs were sensitive to parameter estimates relating to medical management. The findings did not materially differ on exploratory subgroup analyses based on the severity of heart failure. Limitations: There was no direct evidence comparing the clinical effectiveness of HeartMate 3 to medical management. Indirect comparisons made were based on limited data from heterogeneous studies regarding the severity of heart failure (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support score distribution) and possible for survival only. Furthermore, the cost of medical management of advanced heart failure in the United Kingdom is not clear. Conclusions: Using cost-effectiveness criteria applied in the United Kingdom, left ventricular assist devices compared to medical management for patients with advanced heart failure ineligible for heart transplant may not be cost-effective. When available, data from the ongoing evaluation of HeartMate 3 compared to medical management can be used to update cost-effectiveness estimates. An audit of the costs of medical management in the United Kingdom is required to further decrease uncertainty in the economic evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020158987. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128996) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The majority of patients with advanced heart failure would be unsuitable for heart transplantation due to their age and comorbidities but selected patients could benefit from a left ventricular assist device. Left ventricular assist device therapy for such patients is known as 'destination therapy'. This is a long-term therapy that involves implanting a battery-powered pump to support the patient's heart. The purpose of this project was to collect and assess the research evidence on the effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices when used for destination therapy, and to estimate value for money compared to medical management from the United Kingdom National Health Service/personal social service perspective. This research identified that the currently available left ventricular assist device improves patient survival as well as reducing stroke rates and complications compared to earlier devices and relative to medical management. However, there is uncertainty in the evidence due to the absence of studies directly comparing the current device to medical therapy alone. An ongoing clinical trial is currently assessing this. It also means there is uncertainty about whether left ventricular assist devices could provide value for money as determined currently for the United Kingdom National Health Service.

Reliable Contactless Monitoring of Heart Rate, Breathing Rate, and Breathing Disturbance During Sleep in Aging: Digital Health Technology Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal monitoring of vital signs provides a method for identifying changes to general health in an individual, particularly in older adults. The nocturnal sleep period provides a convenient opportunity to assess vital signs. Contactless technologies that can be embedded into the bedroom environment are unintrusive and burdenless and have the potential to enable seamless monitoring of vital signs. To realize this potential, these technologies need to be evaluated against gold standard measures and in relevant populations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of heart rate and breathing rate measurements of 3 contactless technologies (2 undermattress trackers, Withings Sleep Analyzer [WSA] and Emfit QS [Emfit]; and a bedside radar, Somnofy) in a sleep laboratory environment and assess their potential to capture vital signs in a real-world setting. METHODS: Data were collected from 35 community-dwelling older adults aged between 65 and 83 (mean 70.8, SD 4.9) years (men: n=21, 60%) during a 1-night clinical polysomnography (PSG) test in a sleep laboratory, preceded by 7 to 14 days of data collection at home. Several of the participants (20/35, 57%) had health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and arthritis, and 49% (17) had moderate to severe sleep apnea, while 29% (n=10) had periodic leg movement disorder. The undermattress trackers provided estimates of both heart rate and breathing rate, while the bedside radar provided only the breathing rate. The accuracy of the heart rate and breathing rate estimated by the devices was compared with PSG electrocardiogram-derived heart rate (beats per minute) and respiratory inductance plethysmography thorax-derived breathing rate (cycles per minute), respectively. We also evaluated breathing disturbance indexes of snoring and the apnea-hypopnea index, available from the WSA. RESULTS: All 3 contactless technologies provided acceptable accuracy in estimating heart rate (mean absolute error <2.12 beats per minute and mean absolute percentage error <5%) and breathing rate (mean absolute error ≤1.6 cycles per minute and mean absolute percentage error <12%) at 1-minute resolution. All 3 contactless technologies were able to capture changes in heart rate and breathing rate across the sleep period. The WSA snoring and breathing disturbance estimates were also accurate compared with PSG estimates (WSA snore: r2=0.76; P<.001; WSA apnea-hypopnea index: r2=0.59; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Contactless technologies offer an unintrusive alternative to conventional wearable technologies for reliable monitoring of heart rate, breathing rate, and sleep apnea in community-dwelling older adults at scale. They enable the assessment of night-to-night variation in these vital signs, which may allow the identification of acute changes in health, and longitudinal monitoring, which may provide insight into health trajectories. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.3390/clockssleep6010010.

Scenario analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis to explore alternative reimbursement pathways for whole genome sequencing for blood cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has transformative potential for blood cancer management, but reimbursement is hindered by uncertain benefits relative to added costs. This study employed scenario planning and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate stakeholders' preferences for alternative reimbursement pathways, informing future health technology assessment (HTA) submission of WGS in blood cancer. METHODS: Key factors influencing WGS reimbursement in blood cancers were identified through a literature search. Hypothetical scenarios describing various evidential characteristics of WGS for HTA were developed using the morphological approach. An online survey, incorporating MCDA weights, was designed to gather stakeholder preferences (consumers/patients, clinicians/health professionals, industry representatives, health economists, and HTA committee members) for these scenarios. The survey assessed participants' approval of WGS reimbursement for each scenario, and scenario preferences were determined using the geometric mean method, applying an algorithm to improve reliability and precision by addressing inconsistent responses. RESULTS: Nineteen participants provided complete survey responses, primarily clinicians or health professionals (n = 6; 32 %), consumers/patients and industry representatives (both at n = 5; 26 %). "Clinical impact of WGS results on patient care" was the most critical criterion (criteria weight of 0.25), followed by "diagnostic accuracy of WGS" (0.21), "cost-effectiveness of WGS" (0.19), "availability of reimbursed treatment after WGS" (0.16), and "eligibility criteria for reimbursed treatment based on actionable WGS results" and "cost comparison of WGS" (both at 0.09). Participants preferred a scenario with substantial clinical evidence, high access to reimbursed targeted treatment, cost-effectiveness below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and affordability relative to standard molecular tests. Reimbursement was initially opposed until criteria such as equal cost to standard tests and better treatment accessibility were met. CONCLUSION: Payers commonly emphasize acceptable cost-effectiveness, but strong clinical evidence for many variants and comparable costs to standard tests are likely to drive positive reimbursement decisions for WGS.

Development of stakeholder-informed recommendations for inclusion of family spillover effects in health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: The impacts of disease and treatment on a patient's family members and informal caregivers are known as "family spillover effects." Although many formal value frameworks call for the consideration of these effects, they are often not included in health technology assessments (HTAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). A formal evaluation of stakeholder perspectives may help address the disconnect for inclusion of family spillover effects observed in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop stakeholder-driven recommendations for the measurement and use of family spillover effects in the United States and to identify research opportunities. METHODS: We first conducted a targeted literature review of US-based CEAs and HTA reports from the past 10 years to assess the current use of family spillover effects. We then used a purposeful sampling technique to conduct 25 qualitative interviews with outcomes researchers, patient advocates, health economists, and health policy and payer experts to gather perspectives on when and how family spillover effects should be considered in HTA processes. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts to identify key themes and develop preliminary recommendations. Finally, we conducted an online workshop with 8 stakeholders to discuss, rate, and refine preliminary recommendations to develop final recommendations. RESULTS: A key theme identified in the stakeholder interviews was the role that data availability, analyst preferences, and prior precedence play in limiting the inclusion of spillover effects in HTAs. Additional themes included support for the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative spillover effects and the need to capture broad and diverse impacts across populations. We developed 15 recommendations from the consensus building workshop addressing measurement, CEA modeling, and HTA processes. Key recommendations included (1) a transparent process for deciding when family spillover effects should be included, (2) measurement of direct and indirect costs with priority based on the magnitude of impact, (3) the use of validated measures, (4) the use of proxy information and expert elicitation when quality data are unavailable, and (5) the use of a modified impact inventory table for transparency of included effects. Research opportunities included patient involvement in family spillover effect research and HTAs, mapping algorithms and non-preference-based caregiver measures to generate utilities, and consensus best practices for modeling. CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistent inclusion of family spillover effects in HTAs and CEAs remains a persistent challenge. The stakeholder-driven recommendations and research opportunities identified in this study may help improve the transparency, measurement, and use of family spillover effects in assessing the clinical and economic value of novel medical technologies.

The maze of real-world evidence frameworks: from a desert to a jungle! An environmental scan and comparison across regulatory and health technology assessment agencies.

Aim: Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have increasingly published frameworks, guidelines, and recommendations for the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in healthcare decision-making. Variations in the scope and content of these documents, with updates running in parallel, may create challenges for their implementation especially during the market authorization and reimbursement phases of a medicine's life cycle. This environmental scan aimed to comprehensively identify and summarize the guidance documents for RWE developed by most well-established regulatory and reimbursement agencies, as well as other organizations focused on healthcare decision-making, and present their similarities and differences. Methods: RWE guidance documents, including white papers from regulatory and HTA agencies, were reviewed in March 2024. Data on scope and recommendations from each body were extracted by two reviewers and similarities and differences were summarized across four topics: study planning, choosing fit-for-purpose data, study conduct, and reporting. Post-authorization or non-pharmacological guidance was excluded. Results: Forty-six documents were identified across multiple agencies; US FDA produced the most RWE-related guidance. All agencies addressed specific and often similar methodological issues related to study design, data fitness-for-purpose, reliability, and reproducibility, although inconsistency in terminologies on these topics was noted. Two HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and Canada's Drug Agency) each centralized all related RWE guidance under a unified framework. RWE quality tools and checklists were not consistently named and some differences in preferences were noted. European Medicines Agency, NICE, Haute Autorité de Santé, and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care included specific recommendations on the use of analytical approaches to address RWE complexities and increase trust in its findings. Conclusion: Similarities in agencies' expectations on RWE studies design, quality elements, and reporting will facilitate evidence generation strategy and activities for manufacturers facing multiple, including global, regulatory and reimbursement submissions and re-submissions. A strong preference by decision-making bodies for local real-world data generation may hinder opportunities for data sharing and outputs from international federated data networks. Closer collaboration between decision-making agencies towards a harmonized RWE roadmap, which can be centrally preserved in a living mode, will provide manufacturers and researchers clarity on minimum acceptance requirements and expectations, especially as novel methodologies for RWE generation are rapidly emerging.

A scoping review of the use of minimally important difference of EQ-5D utility index and EQ-VAS scores in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Estimates of minimally important differences (MID) can assist interpretation of data collected using patient-reported outcomes (PRO), but variability exists in the emphasis placed on MIDs in health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. This study aimed to identify to what extent information on the MID of a commonly used PRO, the EQ-5D, is required and utilised by selected HTA agencies. METHODS: Technology appraisal (TA) documents from HTA agencies in England, France, Germany, and the US between 2019 and 2021 were reviewed to identify documents which discussed MID of EQ-5D data as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint. RESULTS: Of 151 TAs utilising EQ-5D as a COA endpoint, 58 (38%) discussed MID of EQ-5D data. Discussion of MID was most frequent in Germany, in 75% (n = 12/16) of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) and 44% (n = 34/78) of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, (IQWiG) TAs. MID was predominantly applied to the EQ-VAS (n = 50), most frequently using a threshold of > 7 or > 10 points (n = 13). G-BA and IQWiG frequently criticised MID analyses, particularly the sources of MID thresholds for the EQ-VAS, as they were perceived as being unsuitable for assessing the validity of MID. CONCLUSION: MID of the EQ-5D was not frequently discussed outside of Germany, and this did not appear to negatively impact decision-making of these HTA agencies. While MID thresholds were often applied to EQ-VAS data in German TAs, analyses were frequently rejected in benefit assessments due to concerns with their validity. Companies should pre-specify analyses of continuous data in statistical analysis plans to be considered for treatment benefit assessment in Germany.

Considerations for US coverage and reimbursement: Which digital health products to evaluate? Findings from a modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The rapid growth of digital health tools, including digital applications, wearables, sensors, diagnostics, digital therapeutics (DTx), and prescription DTx, offers new ways to treat patients and close gaps in care. Payers need transparent, credible, and efficient processes to differentiate products for potential reimbursement from the larger universe of digital health products. OBJECTIVE: To identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and rationale for payers to determine which digital health products should be evaluated for formulary consideration and to develop generalizable criteria for health care decision-makers developing policies and approaches for digital health products. METHODS: Experts from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy DTx Advisory Group Payer Evaluation subcommittee rated whether a pharmacy and therapeutics committee, health technology assessment group, or an innovation center within a health plan or pharmacy benefit manager should consider 14 hypothetical products for potential formulary coverage. Using a 4-step modified Delphi approach, experts rated whether it was appropriate for a payer to evaluate each product on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Quantitative agreement was assessed using terciles of responses, medians, and the distribution of appropriateness scores. The corresponding discussions are summarized to identify generalizable criteria for payers to consider as they develop approaches to determine which digital health products to evaluate. RESULTS: Among the 14 hypothetical products, 4 achieved quantitative agreement that payers should evaluate the product. 5 products had quantitative disagreement, and the remaining were indeterminant. Payers were most likely to review a product if it (1) was reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration, (2) required a prescription, (3) was intended to be paid for using premium dollars, (4) treated rather than diagnosed or monitored a clinical condition, (5) had a low clinical opportunity cost, and (6) could address population health metrics. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid availability of digital health and DTx options can be daunting for health care decision-makers when determining which products to evaluate. These generalizable criteria can help payers develop a more efficient process.

Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Technologies in the United States: Systematic Literature Review and Framework Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Digital mental health technologies (DMHTs) have the potential to enhance mental health care delivery. However, there is little information on how DMHTs are evaluated and what factors influence their use. OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review was conducted to understand how DMHTs are valued in the United States from user, payer, and employer perspectives. METHODS: Articles published after 2017 were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, the Health Technology Assessment Database, and digital and mental health congresses. Each article was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers to identify US studies reporting on factors considered in the evaluation of DMHTs targeting mental health, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative and Cohort Studies Checklists. Studies were coded and indexed using the American Psychiatric Association's Mental Health App Evaluation Framework to extract and synthesize relevant information, and novel themes were added iteratively as identified. RESULTS: Of the 4353 articles screened, data from 26 unique studies from patient, caregiver, and health care provider perspectives were included. Engagement style was the most reported theme (23/26, 88%), with users valuing DMHT usability, particularly alignment with therapeutic goals through features including anxiety management tools. Key barriers to DMHT use included limited internet access, poor technical literacy, and privacy concerns. Novel findings included the discreetness of DMHTs to avoid stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Usability, cost, accessibility, technical considerations, and alignment with therapeutic goals are important to users, although DMHT valuation varies across individuals. DMHT apps should be developed and selected with specific user needs in mind.

Equity in national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines: Essential or extraneous?

BACKGROUND: The focus on health maximisation in a healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) - that is health gains are of equal value regardless of the recipient- has significant implications as health systems attempt to address persistent and growing health inequities. This study aimed to systematically compare and contrast the equity principles of different health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and how equity is addressed in HEE guidelines. METHODS: HTA agencies were identified through the ISPOR, GEAR, iDSI, HTAi, INAHTA, HTAsiaLink, and RedETSA websites in June 2021 and updated in August 2023. Agencies websites were then searched to retrieve HEE guidelines. The guidelines were grouped into two categories: well-established and newly-developed agency guidelines, based on whether or not they published their first guidelines before 2009. Data extracted summarised the methodological details in the reference cases, including specifics on how equity featured and in what role. In those agencies where equity did not feature explicitly in the HEE guidelines, an additional search of the agency website was undertaken to understand if equity featured in those agencies' decision-making frameworks. RESULTS: The study included 46 guidelines from 51 countries. Only 30% of the guidelines were explicit about the equity assumptions. Health equity (using a broad definition) was mentioned in 29 guidelines and 14 included a specific definition while only seven recommended specific methods to incorporate inequalities. Addressing equity concerns was usually suggested as an additional analyses rather than a key part of the assessment. It was unclear how equity was incorporated into decision-making processes. In addition, equity was mentioned in other guidance - such as decision-making frameworks - provided by five agencies that did not mention it in the HEE guidelines, and 7 of 14 topic selection criteria that were identified. CONCLUSION: Equity is given less attention than efficiency in HEE guidelines. This indicates that HTA agencies while subscribing to an extra-welfarist approach have a narrow evaluative space - focusing on maximising health and not considering the opportunity cost of the equity constraint. The omission of equity and the lack of systematic approaches in guidelines poses a threat to the international endeavours to reduce inequities. It is timely for HTA agencies to reconsider their positions on equity explicitly.