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.

Requests for post-registration studies (PRS), patients follow-up in actual practice: Changes in the role of databases.

Early market access of health products is associated with a larger number of requests for information by the health authorities. Compared with these expectations, the growing expansion of health databases represents an opportunity for responding to questions raised by the authorities. The computerised nature of the health system provides numerous sources of data, and first and foremost medical/administrative databases such as the French National Inter-Scheme Health Insurance Information System (SNIIRAM) database. These databases, although developed for other purposes, have already been used for many years with regard to post-registration studies (PRS). The use thereof will continue to increase with the recent creation of the French National Health Data System (SNDS [2016 health system reform law]). At the same time, other databases are available in France, offering an illustration of "product use under actual practice conditions" by patients and health professionals (cohorts, specific registries, data warehouses, etc.). Based on a preliminary analysis of requests for PRS, approximately two-thirds appeared to have found at least a partial response in existing databases. Using these databases has a number of disadvantages, but also numerous advantages, which are listed. In order to facilitate access and optimise their use, it seemed important to draw up recommendations aiming to facilitate these developments and guarantee the conditions for their technical validity. The recommendations drawn up notably include the need for measures aiming to promote the visibility of research conducted on databases in the field of PRS. Moreover, it seemed worthwhile to promote the interoperability of health data warehouses, to make it possible to match information originating from field studies with information originating from databases, and to develop and share algorithms aiming to identify criteria of interest (proxies). Methodological documents, such as the French National Authority for Health (HAS) recommendations on "Les études post-inscription sur les technologies de santé (médicaments, dispositifs médicaux et actes). Principes et méthodes" [Post-registration studies on health technologies (medicinal products, medical devices and procedures). Principles and methods] should be updated to incorporate these developments.

Assessment and non-clinical impact of medical devices.

Medical devices (MDs) cover a wide variety of products. They accompany changes in medical practice in step with technology innovations. Innovations in the field of MDs can improve the conditions of use of health technology and/or modify the organisation of care beyond the strict diagnostic or therapeutic benefit for the patients. However, these non purely clinical criteria seem to be only rarely documented or taken into account in the assessment of MDs during reimbursement decisions at national level or for formulary listing by hospitals even though multidimensional models for the assessment of health technologies have been developed that take into account the views of all stakeholders in the healthcare system In this article, after summarising the background concerning the assessment of health technologies in France, a definition of non-clinical criteria for the assessment of MDs is proposed and a decision tree for the assessment of MDs is described. Future lines of approach are proposed as a conclusion.

Telemedicine: what framework, what levels of proof, implementation rules.

The concept of telemedicine was formalised in France in the 2009 "Hospital, patients, health territories" (loi hôpital, patients, santé, territoire) law and the 2010 decree through which it was applied. Many experiments have been carried out and the regulatory institutions (Ministry, Regional Health Agency [Agence régionale de santé, ARS], French National Health Authority [Haute autorité de santé, HAS], etc.) have issued various guidance statements and recommendations on its organisation and on the expectations of its evaluation. With this background, the round table wanted to produce recommendations on different areas of medical telemonitoring (the role of telemonitoring, the regulatory system, the principles for assessment, methods of use and conditions for sustained and seamless deployment). Whilst many studies carried out on new medical telemonitoring approaches have led to the postulate that it offers benefit, both clinically and in terms of patient quality of life, more information is needed to demonstrate its impact on the organisation of healthcare and the associated medico-economic benefit (criteria, methods, resources). Similarly, contractual frameworks for deployment of telemonitoring do exist, although they are complicated and involve many different stakeholders (Director General fo the Care Offering [Direction générale de l'offre de soins, DGOS], ARS, HAS, Agency for Shared Health Information Systems [Agence des systèmes d'information partagés de santé, ASIP], French National Data Protection Commission [Commission nationale informatique et libertés, CNIL], French National Medical Council [Conseil national de l'Ordre des médecins, CNOM], etc.) that would benefit from a shared approach and seamless exchange between the partners involved. The current challenge is also to define the conditions required to validate a stable economic model in order to promote organisational change. One topical issue is placing the emphasis on its evaluation and operation. Access to patient data, particularly data from the health insurance funds and the use of these data, may enable the process to be more effective. In addition, the budgetary non-fungibility of the various financial envelopes for the different areas of work, restricts the consolidation of financial impact. Funding methods will need to be adapted to this new distribution of roles, both at the centre of the healthcare system and in the industrial ecosystem. All of these changes will help the leaders of our healthcare system to bring this new ambition closer to all of the people working in the health economy.

Scientific evaluation and pricing of medical devices and associated procedures in France.

Medical devices are many and various, ranging from tongue spatulas to implantable or invasive devices and imaging machines; their lifetimes are short, between 18 months and 5 years, due to incessant incremental innovation; and they are operator-dependent: in general, the clinical user performs a fitting procedure (hip implant or pacemaker), a therapeutic procedure using a non-implantable invasive device (arrhythmic site ablation probe, angioplasty balloon, extension spondyloplasty system, etc.) or follow-up of an active implanted device (long-term follow-up of an implanted cardiac defibrillator or of a deep brain stimulator in Parkinson's patients). A round-table held during the XXVIII(th) Giens Workshops meeting focused on the methodology of scientific evaluation of medical devices and the associated procedures with a view to their pricing and financing by the French National Health Insurance system. The working hypothesis was that the available data-set was sufficient for and compatible with scientific evaluation with clinical benefit. Post-registration studies, although contributing to the continuity of assessment, were not dealt with. Moreover, the focus was restricted to devices used in health establishments, where the association between devices and technical medical procedures is optimally representative. An update of the multiple regulatory protocols governing medical devices and procedures is provided. Issues more specifically related to procedures as such, to non-implantable devices and to innovative devices are then dealt with, and the proposals and discussion points raised at the round-table for each of these three areas are presented.