A systematic review of the early dialogue frameworks used within health technology assessment and their actual adoption from HTA agencies.

Introduction: Early advice in the process of developing health technologies allows manufacturers to plan their production and transfer to health care systems more accurately. This review aims to describe frameworks used within HTA and their current use by HTA Agencies. Material and methods: We carried out a systematic literature review in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and WoS, including all references published in Spanish and English. This was last updated in March 2022. We extracted all available information regarding the organizations involved, services offered, types of technology, collaborators involved, fees, output and impact. Websites of several HTA organizations and Google were also searched in order to update and complete the information obtained from this generic search. Results: Five-hundred and forty one articles were identified and screened, of which 26 met the eligibility criteria and were selected. Seven of them were non-systematic reviews that described two or more HTA organizations. Ten studies were focused on the advice offered by individual organizations, and eight described the EMA and EUnetHTA parallel or joint advice. We found variations in the technology assessed, services offered, stage of development and costs for advisory services. Conclusions: Early and scientific advice would help manufacturers focus their product development on what is needed for the management of specific diseases. Most of the examples or services found refer to drugs as well as to some medical devices and diagnostics. A common definition of the type of advice that could be offered for different health technologies by HTA bodies to ascertain health care systems and manufacturers' needs, in addition to the timeline in which that advice needs to be given, would help HTA bodies provide the right support at the right time. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020219401, PROSPERO CRD42020219401.

Variability in the prescription of drugs with uncertain effectiveness. The case of SYSADOA in the Basque Country.

Background: The majority of clinical practice guidelines do not recommend the use of SYSADOA (Symptomatic Slow Action Drugs for Osteoarthritis) for the treatment of osteoarthritis because of the lack of evidence or uncertainty around their efficacy. Nevertheless, the Spanish Public Health Service continues funding these drugs. Aim: The aim of this study is to describe the prescription status of SYSADOA in the primary care units of the Basque Country during 2011; to determine if variability exists among them; and to examine if the variability could be explained by the health care region each PC unit belongs to. Methods: Prescription data for SYSADOA during 2011 was obtained from the Basque Ministry for Health. In the Basque Country, primary care is divided into seven regions, each region consisting of several primary care units, which were used as the unit of analysis. Defined daily doses (DDD) per 1,000 inhabitant-days (DHD) were calculated. Data were standardized by sex and age using the total population of the Basque Country as the reference population. Small area statistics were calculated (extremal quotient, coefficient of variation and systematic component of variation). The influence of the region to which primary care units belonged was also analysed. R software (version R-2.15.0) was used for the analysis. Results: SYSADOA prescription during 2011 accounted for an expense of 4.5 million euros for the Basque Health Service. The crude rate of consumption of SYSADOA was 7.81 DDD per 1,000 inhabitant-days. The obtained external quotient was 13.67. The prescription of SYSADOA of the primary care units located in the 95th percentile was six times higher than the ones located in the 5th percentile. The region to which units belonged accounted for 57% of the observed variability. Discussion: The uncertainty around these drugs could be reflected in the existing variability of their prescription level. The analysis of the variability in the prescription of drugs with no demonstrated efficacy could help in allocating resources into other services or health technologies supported by evidence, thereby contributing to the improvement of health outcomes.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE FOR PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SUSTAINABILITY.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology financing is often based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are often the same ones used for licensing. Because they are designed to show the best possible results, typically Phase III studies are conducted under ideal and highly controlled conditions. Consequently, it is not surprising that technologies do not always perform in real life in the same way as controlled conditions. Because financing (and price paid) decisions can be made with overestimated results, health authorities need to ask whether health systems achieve the results they expect when they choose to pay for a technology. The optimal way to answer this question is to assess the performance of financed technologies in real-world settings. Health technology performance assessment (HTpA) refers to the systematic evaluation of the properties, effects, and/or impact of a health intervention or health technology in the real world to provide information for investment/disinvestment decisions and clinical guideline updates. The objective is to describe the development and principal aspects of the Guideline for HTpA commissioned by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. METHODS: Our methods used include extensive literature review, refinement with experts across countries, and public consultation. RESULTS: A comprehensive guideline was developed, which has been adopted by the Brazilian government. CONCLUSION: We believe the guideline, with its particular focus on disinvestment, along with the creation of a specific program for HTpA, will allow the institutionalization and continuous improvement of the scientific methods to use real-world evidence to optimize available resources not only in Brazil but across countries.

Early awareness and alert systems: an overview of EuroScan methods.

OBJECTIVES: Early awareness and alert (EAA) activities are increasingly recognized to be an important component of the health technology assessment (HTA) process. Sharing information on methods used in this discipline is vital to ensure the development of sustainable systems. The objectives of this study is to outline the approach taken to share the different methods that members of the EuroScan International Network use by producing a methods toolkit; and to provide an overview of the similarities and differences in methods adopted by EAA systems. METHODS: A Delphi technique was used to develop the methods toolkit. Structured questionnaires were used to identify the sources used in the identification of emerging technologies and to determine the methods used by agencies to carry out EAA activities. RESULTS: A methods toolkit incorporating guidance on all of the stages described by EuroScan members was produced. The toolkit and an accompanying checklist presents users with different methods that can be adopted to suit their needs. The comparative analysis demonstrates that different methods are being used by EAA systems dependent on resources available and customer requirements. Differences in identification, filtration, prioritization, and assessment are apparent along with the role of collaborators in these processes. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used by EAA systems are not homogeneous resulting in a toolkit constructed on the basis of "one size doesn't fit all." Methods in this discipline are developing continually to accommodate changes in health systems and the HTA world. Differences between agencies and the sharing of ideas and experiences enable EAA agencies to adapt to these developments.

Scanning the horizon of obsolete technologies: possible sources for their identification.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify and rank the sources for the detection of potentially obsolete technologies (POTs). METHODS: A specific questionnaire related to the search strategies and sources used for the identification of POTs and also for ineffective, inefficient or harmful health technologies was sent to the Health Technology Assessment International's Information Resources Group (HTAi-IRG) group. With the obtained information and taking into account the sources used for the identification of new and emerging technologies, a second questionnaire was elaborated and sent to EuroScan and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members, who had to select and score them. For the final ranking, the number of votes and the median score were taken into account. RESULTS: Seven HTAi-IRG members answered to the first questionnaire. Seventeen agencies answered to the second one (thirteen EuroScan members and four more members from INAHTA), but only seven had worked in the identification of POTs and one of them using only experts for it. The remaining six agencies answered the part related to devices, diagnostics, and procedures; five of them did it for settings and programmes and only three for drugs. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (5 votes; median = 2), Cochrane Collaboration (5 votes; median = 3), NICE (4 votes; median = 1), Food and Drug Administration (4 votes; median = 1.5), and EuroScan (4 votes, median = 2) were the most relevant sources for devices and diagnostics. CONCLUSIONS: There is little experience on POTs identification. The identified sources provide mostly indirect information and further research should take place to determine the best use of them.

Differences in the identification process for new and emerging health technologies: analysis of the EuroScan database.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the EuroScan Database and to describe and compare the characteristics of the included technologies and participating agencies. METHODS: Data of interest were exported from the EuroScan Database to Excel and to SPSS. A descriptive analysis depending on the agency, type of technology, stage of diffusion, and technology purpose was conducted. A frequency distribution analysis of the diffusion stage for different technology types and assigned purposes was made with the EpiCalc 2000 statistical calculator. A p value of less than .05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Four agencies introduced the great majority of the technologies (81 percent), with drugs representing the 46.26 percent of the total, followed by devices (21.21 percent). The purpose of 24.45 percent of the identified technologies was not specified, and 34.58 percent of them were identified at the investigational or phase III stage. The frequency distribution of diffusion stage at identification was found to be similar for devices and diagnostics (p = .543), whereas drugs were identified earlier than devices (p <.001). Some agencies were found to focus their work on drugs, whereas others focused mainly on devices. Interagency differences were also observed with regard to the stage of diffusion at which technologies were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first analysis of one of the most important databases on new and emerging health technologies. Our study suggests that more active strategies should be designed to provide an earlier identification, mainly in the case of devices.