Overcoming Barriers in Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA): International Expert Panel Consensus.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the common facilitators and barriers associated with the implementation of hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) across diverse hospital settings in seven countries. Through a two-round Delphi study, insights were gathered from a panel of 15 HTA specialists from France, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Poland, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Experts initially conducted a comprehensive review of the HB-HTA implementation in their respective countries, identifying the barriers and facilitators through descriptive analysis. Subsequently, panel experts ranked these identified barriers and facilitators on a seven-point Likert scale. A median agreement score ≥ 6 and interquartile range (IQR) ≤ 1 was accepted as reaching a consensus. Out of the 12 statements categorized as external and internal barriers and facilitators, the expert panel reached consensus on six statements (two barriers and four facilitators). The external barrier, which achieved consensus, was the lack of the formal recognition of the role of HB-HTA in national or regional legislations. The internal barrier reaching consensus was the limited availability of human resources dedicated to HB-HTA. This qualitative study indicates that HB-HTA still has progress to make before being formally accepted and integrated across most countries, although by building on the facilitating factors we identified there may be an opportunity for the implementation of internationally developed strategies to strengthen HB-HTA practices.

Suitability of the Current Health Technology Assessment of Innovative Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices: Scoping Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based medical devices have garnered attention due to their ability to revolutionize medicine. Their health technology assessment framework is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the suitability of each health technology assessment (HTA) domain for the assessment of AI-based medical devices. METHODS: We conducted a scoping literature review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library), gray literature, and HTA agency websites. RESULTS: A total of 10.1% (78/775) of the references were included. Data quality and integration are vital aspects to consider when describing and assessing the technical characteristics of AI-based medical devices during an HTA process. When it comes to implementing specialized HTA for AI-based medical devices, several practical challenges and potential barriers could be highlighted and should be taken into account (AI technological evolution timeline, data requirements, complexity and transparency, clinical validation and safety requirements, regulatory and ethical considerations, and economic evaluation). CONCLUSIONS: The adaptation of the HTA process through a methodological framework for AI-based medical devices enhances the comparability of results across different evaluations and jurisdictions. By defining the necessary expertise, the framework supports the development of a skilled workforce capable of conducting robust and reliable HTAs of AI-based medical devices. A comprehensive adapted HTA framework for AI-based medical devices can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and societal impact of AI-based medical devices, guiding their responsible implementation and maximizing their benefits for patients and health care systems.

Impact of Early Access Reform on Oncology Innovation in France: Approvals, Patients, and Costs.

BACKGROUND: An ambitious reform of the early access (EA) process was set up in July 2021 in France, aiming to simplify procedures and accelerate access to innovative drugs. OBJECTIVE: This study analyzes the characteristics of oncology drug approvals through the EA process and its impact on real-life data for oncology patients. METHODS: The number and characteristics of EA demands concerning oncology drugs submitted to the National Health Authority (HAS, Haute Autorité de Santé) were reviewed until 31 December 2022. A longitudinal retrospective study on patients treated with an EA oncology drug between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022 was also performed using the French nationwide claims database (Systeme National des Données de Santé [SNDS]) to assess the impact of the reform on the number of indications and patients, and the costs. RESULTS: Among 110 published decisions, the HAS granted 88 (80%) EA indications within 70 days of assessment on average, including 46 (52%) in oncology (67% in solid tumors and 33% in hematological malignancies). Approved indications were mostly supported by randomized phase III trials (67%), whereas refused EA relied more on non-randomized (57%) trials. Overall survival was the primary endpoint of 28% of EA approvals versus none of denied EAs. In the SNDS data, the annual number of patients with cancer treated with an EA drug increased from 3137 patients in 2019 to 18,341 in 2022 (+ 484%), whereas the number of indications rose from 12 to 62, mainly in oncohematology (n = 17), lung (n = 12), digestive (n = 9) and breast cancer (n = 9). Reimbursement costs for EA treatments surged from €42 to €526 million (+ 1159%). CONCLUSION: The French EA reform contributed to enabling rapid access to innovations in a wide range of indications for oncology patients. However, the findings highlight ongoing challenges in financial sustainability, warranting continued evaluation and adjustments.

Genicular artery embolization for knee osteoarthritis: Results of the LipioJoint-1 trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transient genicular artery embolization (GAE) using an ethiodized oil-based emulsion for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, first-in-human cohort trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04733092). The main inclusion criterion was diagnosis of KOA according to a visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score ≥ 40 mm (score range: 0-100 mm), despite conservative treatment for at least three months. Treatment efficacy was assessed using changes in VAS pain score, Mean Western Ontario & McMaster Universities osteoarthritis (WOMAC) function score (normalized to 100; score ranging from 0 to100) and outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society (OARSI) set of responder criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-two consecutive participants (13 women; mean age, 66 ± 9 [standard deviation (SD)]) were included and underwent GAE. Emulsion consisted in a mixture of ioversol and ethiodized oil (ratio 1:3, respectively) prepared extemporaneously. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to GAE within one month was 5% (1/22), corresponding to reversible worsening of renal function. Immediate technical success rate was 100%. Mean VAS pain score dropped from 74.4 ± 16.5 (SD) mm at baseline to 37.2 ± 26.7 (SD) mm at three months (P < 0.001). Mean WOMAC function score (normalized to 100: score ranging from 0 to 100) decreased from 57.3 ± 17.1 (SD) at baseline to 33.5 ± 25.9 (SD) at three months (P < 0.001). At three months, 16 out of 22 participants (73%) were considered responders according to the OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria, including high improvement in either pain or WOMAC function, or improvement in both pain and WOMAC function. CONCLUSION: GAE using an ethiodized oil-based emulsion is safe and improves pain and function in participants with KOA for at least three months.

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

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

Are current clinical studies on artificial intelligence-based medical devices comprehensive enough to support a full health technology assessment? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial Intelligence-based Medical Devices (AI-based MDs) are experiencing exponential growth in healthcare. This study aimed to investigate whether current studies assessing AI contain the information required for health technology assessment (HTA) by HTA bodies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology to extract articles published between 2016 and 2021 related to the assessment of AI-based MDs. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, technology, algorithms, comparators, and results. AI quality assessment and HTA scores were calculated to evaluate whether the items present in the included studies were concordant with the HTA requirements. We performed a linear regression for the HTA and AI scores with the explanatory variables of the impact factor, publication date, and medical specialty. We conducted a univariate analysis of the HTA score and a multivariate analysis of the AI score with an alpha risk of 5 %. RESULTS: Of 5578 retrieved records, 56 were included. The mean AI quality assessment score was 67 %; 32 % of articles had an AI quality score ≥ 70 %, 50 % had a score between 50 % and 70 %, and 18 % had a score under 50 %. The highest quality scores were observed for the study design (82 %) and optimisation (69 %) categories, whereas the scores were lowest in the clinical practice category (23 %). The mean HTA score was 52 % for all seven domains. 100 % of the studies assessed clinical effectiveness, whereas only 9 % evaluated safety, and 20 % evaluated economic issues. There was a statistically significant relationship between the impact factor and the HTA and AI scores (both p = 0.046). DISCUSSION: Clinical studies on AI-based MDs have limitations and often lack adapted, robust, and complete evidence. High-quality datasets are also required because the output data can only be trusted if the inputs are reliable. The existing assessment frameworks are not specifically designed to assess AI-based MDs. From the perspective of regulatory authorities, we suggest that these frameworks should be adapted to assess the interpretability, explainability, cybersecurity, and safety of ongoing updates. From the perspective of HTA agencies, we highlight that transparency, professional and patient acceptance, ethical issues, and organizational changes are required for the implementation of these devices. Economic assessments of AI should rely on a robust methodology (business impact or health economic models) to provide decision-makers with more reliable evidence. CONCLUSION: Currently, AI studies are insufficient to cover HTA prerequisites. HTA processes also need to be adapted because they do not consider the important specificities of AI-based MDs. Specific HTA workflows and accurate assessment tools should be designed to standardise evaluations, generate reliable evidence, and create confidence.

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

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

Real-world data and evidence in health technology assessment: When are they complementary, substitutes, or the only sources of data compared to clinical trials?

Within the life-cycle assessment of health technologies, real-world data (RWD) have until now been of secondary importance to clinical trial data. The availability of massive, better quality RWD, particularly with the emergence of connected devices, the improvement of methods for characterizing populations, make it possible to have a better insight into the effects of treatment, sometimes on a national scale the importance of RWD is likely to progress in the eyes of health technology assessors, going from being traditionally complementary to possibly replacing clinical trial data. This is the fundamental question that the round table, involving experts from the academic and/or hospital, institutional, and industrial worlds, set out to answer. This work served first to establish the current role of RWD in health technology assessment, by distinguishing the main purposes of RWD, the timing of the evaluation in relation to the life cycle of the technology, and then according to the party commissioning or receiving the outcomes of RWD-based studies. Secondly, the round table proposed six general recommendations for more intensive and decisive use of RWD in the assessment and decision-making process.

Safety and efficacy of the VenaTech™ Retrievable inferior vena cava filter: a first-in-man single-center prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent condition worldwide, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Though its primary treatment is anticoagulation, the placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is recommended in patients with some comorbidities. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of the Venatech® retrievable IVC filter. This open-label prospective single-center study was conducted on 40 consecutive patients requiring temporary or permanent IVC filtration. Patient characteristics, technical success rates of filter placement and removal, and the occurrence of complications were assessed. Follow-up imaging was performed using CT-scan before retrieval or at 6 months in the permanent indication population. RESULTS: The filter was successfully implanted at the intended location in all the patients. Retrieval was attempted in 21 (52.5%) patients after a mean period of 50 days (range: 6-94 days), and the filter was successfully removed in 18 patients (85.7%). Reason for retrieval failure was filter with trapped thrombus (n = 2) and a > 15° tilt (n = 1). No complication was observed during the filter placement and retrieval. Follow-up imaging available in 30 patients (75%) demonstrated deep filter penetration (> 3 mm) in four patients (13.3%), severe filter tilt (> 15o) in five patients (16.7%), filter with trapped thrombus in three patients (10%), but no fracture or IVC thrombosis. CONCLUSION: This prospective study showed encouraging preliminary results of the safety and efficacy of the Venatech® retrievable IVC filter. The filter was easily delivered in the intended position and successfully removed in a high percentage of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02674672.

Robot-Assisted Surgery vs Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

Prostate cancer is the most common men cancer in France. Continuous progress in oncology led to develop robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomies (rRP) and robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy (rSBRT). The present study aims at comparing economic and clinical impacts of prostate cancer treatments performed either with rSBRT or rRP in France. A Markov model using TreeAge Pro software was chosen to calculate annual costs; utilities and transition probabilities of localized prostate cancer treatments. Patients were eligible for radiotherapy or surgery and the therapeutic decision was a robot-assisted intervention. Over a 10-year period, rSBRT yielded a significantly higher number of quality-adjusted life years than rRP (8.37 vs 6.85). In France, rSBRT seemed more expensive than rRP (€19,475 vs €18,968, respectively). From a societal perspective, rRP was more cost-saving (incremental cost effectiveness ratio = €332/QALY). The model was sensitive to variations of costs of the initial and recurrence state in one-way sensitivity analyses. Robot-assisted stereotactic body radiotherapy seems more cost-effective than Radical Prostatectomy in terms of QALY despite the slightly higher initial cost due to the use of radiotherapy. It would be interesting to conduct comparative quality of life studies in France over longer periods of time.

Quality of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in peripheral artery disease: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a systematic review of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) in peripheral artery disease (PAD) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies reporting on the use of DCBs and DESs in PAD. The methodological and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. RESULTS: Six articles were included in this review of the 1,728 publications identified. Four studies were cost-effectiveness analyses and two cost-utility analyses. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the studies used good-quality data sources. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, baseline clinical data, and costs was of high quality in general. In contrast, an evaluation of the reporting quality suggested that essential information was lacking. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that clinical data used in economic evaluations of DCBs and DESs in PAD are from clinical studies of high quality in general. However, the quality of reporting represents a concern when interpreting the results provided by these economic studies.

Lifecycle evidence requirements for high-risk implantable medical devices: a European perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The new European Union (EU) Regulations on medical devices and on in vitro diagnostics provide manufacturers and Notified Bodies with new tools to improve pre-market and post-market clinical evidence generation especially for high-risk products but fail to indicate what type of clinical evidence is appropriate at each stage of the whole lifecycle of medical devices. In this paper we address: i) the appropriate level and timing of clinical evidence throughout the lifecycle of high-risk implantable medical devices; and ii) how the clinical evidence generation ecosystem could be adapted to optimize patient access. AREAS COVERED: The European regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) contexts are reviewed, in relation to the lifecycle of high-risk medical devices and clinical evidence generation recommended by international network or endorsed by regulatory and HTA agencies in different jurisdictions. EXPERT OPINION: Four stages are relevant for clinical evidence generation: i) pre-clinical, pre-market; ii) clinical, pre-market; iii) diffusion, post-market; and iv) obsolescence & replacement, post-market. Each stage has its own evaluation needs and specific studies are recommended to generate the appropriate evidence. Effective lifecycle planning requires anticipation of what evidence will be needed at each stage.

Quality of economic evaluations of ventricular assist devices: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Because of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. RESULTS: Of the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost-utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15-19) according to the CHEERS checklist. CONCLUSION: The current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

Evaluation of 3D printing costs in surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The use of three-dimensional (3D) printing in surgery is expanding and there is a focus on comprehensively evaluating the clinical impact of this technology. However, although additional costs are one of the main limitations to its use, little is known about its economic impact. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the costs associated with its use and highlight the first quantitative data available. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in the PubMed and Embase databases and in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) at the University of York. Studies that reported an assessment of the costs associated with the use of 3D printing for surgical application and published between 2009 and 2019, in English or French, were included. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in our review. Nine types of costs were identified, the three main ones being printing material costs (n = 6), staff costs (n = 3), and operating room costs (n = 3). The printing cost ranged from less than U.S. dollars (USD) 1 to USD 146 (in USD 2019 values) depending on the criteria used to calculate this cost. Three studies evaluated the potential savings generated by the use of 3D printing technology in surgery, based on operating time reduction. CONCLUSION: This literature review highlights the lack of reliable economic data on 3D printing technology. Nevertheless, this review makes it possible to identify expenditures or items that should be considered in order to carry out more robust studies.

The learning curve in transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical studies: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) has become an essential alternative to surgical aortic-valve replacement in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and this procedure requires technical expertise. The aim of this study was to identify prospective studies on TAVI from the past 10 years, and then to analyze the quality of information reported about the learning curve. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of articles published between 2007 and 2017 was performed using PubMed and the EMBASE database. Prospective studies regarding TAVI were included. The quality of information reported about the learning curve was evaluated using the following criteria: mention of the learning curve, the description of a roll-in phase, the involvement of a proctor, and the number of patients suggested to maintain skills. RESULTS: A total of sixty-eight studies met the selection criteria and were suitable for analysis. The learning curve was addressed in approximately half of the articles (n = 37, 54 percent). However, the roll-in period was mentioned by only eight studies (12 percent) and with very few details. Furthermore, a proctorship was disclosed in three articles (4 percent) whereas twenty-five studies (37 percent) included authors that were proctors for manufacturers of TAVI. CONCLUSION: Many prospective studies on TAVI over the past 10 years mention learning curves as a core component of successful TAVI procedures. However, the quality of information reported about the learning curve is relatively poor, and uniform guidance on how to properly assess the learning curve is still missing.

Early patient access to health technologies: Is innovation needed for early management?

The question of early patient access to innovative health technologies arises from the assumption that, once a certain level of effectiveness or efficiency is achieved, waiting for mainstream coverage would represent a loss of opportunity for patients or for the community. This was the premise on which the round table based its dialogue. Early access is understood as the funding of a technology that comes within this field and is CE-marked but has not yet attained "mainstream" coverage. There are several early access schemes in France ("forfait innovation", early coverage, exceptional coverage, RIHN). This round table was an opportunity to establish mapping, extended to devices not dedicated to early access but which could nevertheless provide some patients with access to non-mainstreamed technologies (Article 51, ETAPES experiments, DGOS call for projects, local schemes). It is an initial step that would need to be further developed and complemented by the dissemination of common communication materials available to all, including patients. The existing schemes are in fact still poorly known. Consideration would also have to be given to the advisability of developing these schemes in order to adapt them to the new European requirements. More generally, early access schemes must be integrated into an ecosystem that is conducive for their relevance: consideration of procedures associated with medical devices benefiting from early access; short time frames of examination; patient information. Finally, the round table proposes the creation of a new early access scheme, complementary to those that exist and that would be positioned, after CE marking, between the "forfait innovation" and mainstreaming: PRESTO (Prise En charge Sécurisée et Temporaire de technologies innOvantes) (secure and temporary coverage for innovative technologies).

Benefits of 3D printing applications in jaw reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) printing has changed surgical practice over the past few years, especially in maxillofacial surgery. However, little is known about its real clinical impact. The objectives of our study were to identify clinical outcomes that have been evaluated in the literature regarding 3D printing applications in jaw reconstruction, and to quantify the impact of this technology on operating times. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed and EMBASE to collect comparative studies on 3D printing applications in jaw reconstruction. A meta-analysis of operating times was then performed. A Cochran's Q test was used to determine heterogeneity, and the overall effect size was calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in our review. Eighteen clinical end-points were identified, of which the most frequently reported were operating time (n = 5; 35.7%) and the final aesthetic result (n = 4; 28.6%). Operating times were significantly lower in the 3D printing groups, with an overall estimated effect of 21.2% (95% CI 10-33%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of 3D printing in jaw reconstruction was associated with a significant reduction in operating times. The end-points evaluated differed largely among the studies. More studies with higher levels of evidence are needed to confirm our results.