Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation of elderly frail or pre-frail patients prior to elective surgery (PRAEP-GO) versus usual care - Protocol for a health economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation aims to improve patients' functional capacity before surgery to reduce perioperative complications, promote recovery and decrease probability of disability. The planned economic evaluation is performed alongside a large German multi-centre pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, randomized controlled trial on prehabilitation for frail elderly patients before elective surgery compared to standard care (PRAEP-GO RCT). The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of prehabilitation for frail elderly before an elective surgery. METHODS: The planned health economic evaluation comprises cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Analyses are conducted in the German context from different perspectives including the payer perspective, i.e. the statutory health insurance, the societal perspective and the health care provider perspective. Data on outcomes and costs, are collected alongside the ongoing PRAEP-GO RCT. The trial population includes frail or pre-frail patients aged ≥70 years with planned elective surgery. The intervention consists of frailty screening (Fried phenotype), a shared decision-making conference determining modality (physiotherapy and unsupervised physical exercises, nutrition counselling, etc.) and setting (inpatient, day care, outpatient etc.) of a 3-week individual multimodal prehabilitation prior to surgery. The control group receives standard preoperative care. Costs include the intervention costs, the costs of the index hospital stay for surgery, and health care resources consumed during a 12-month follow-up. Clinical effectiveness outcomes included in the economic evaluation are the level of care dependency, the degree of disability as measured by the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) derived from the EQ-5D-5L and the German utility set, and complications occurring during the index hospital stay. Each adopted perspective considers different types of costs and outcomes as outlined in the protocol. All analyses will feature Intention-To-Treat analysis. To explore methodological and parametric uncertainties, we will conduct probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses will be performed as secondary analyses. DISCUSSION: The health economic evaluation will provide insights into the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation in older frail populations, informing decision-making processes and contributing to the evidence base in this field. Potential limitation includes a highly heterogeneous trial population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRAEP-GO RCT: NCT04418271; economic evaluation: OSF ( https://osf.io/ecm74 ).

International strategies, experiences, and payment models to incentivise day surgery.

The importance of day surgery as a less costly alternative compared to conventional inpatient hospital stays is growing internationally. The rate of day surgery activities has increased across Europe. However, this trend has been heterogeneous across countries, and might still be below its potential. Since payment systems affect how providers offer care, they represent a policy instrument to further increase the rate of day surgeries. In this paper, we review international strategies to promote day surgery with a particular focus on payment models for 13 OECD countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland). We conduct a cross-country comparison based on an email survey of health policy experts and a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed papers and grey literature. Our research shows that all countries aim to strengthen day surgery activity to increase health system efficiency. Several countries used financial and non-financial policy measures to overcome misaligned incentive structures and promote day surgery activity. Financial incentives for day surgery can serve as a policy instrument to promote change. We recommend embedding these incentives in a comprehensive approach of restructuring health systems. In addition, we encourage countries to monitor and evaluate the effect of changes to payment systems on day surgeries to allow for more informed decision-making.

Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of new technologies in inpatient care is not always linked to a requirement for evidence-based evaluation of patient benefit. In Germany, every new technology approved for market was until recently eligible for reimbursement in inpatient care unless explicitly excluded. The aim of this work was (1) to investigate the type of evidence that was available at the time of introduction of 25 innovative technologies and how this evidence evolved over time, and (2) to explore the relationship between clinical evidence and utilization for these technologies in German inpatient care. METHODS: This study combined different methods. A systematic search for evidence published between 2003 and 2017 was conducted in four bibliographic databases, clinical trial registries, resources for clinical guidelines, and health technology assessment-databases. Information was also collected on funding mechanisms and safety notices. Utilization was measured by hospital procedures captured in claims data. The body of evidence, funding and safety notices per technology were analyzed descriptively. The relationship between utilization and evidence was explored empirically using a multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: The number of included publications per technology ranges from two to 498. For all technologies, non-comparative studies form the bulk of the evidence. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials per technology ranges from zero to 19. Some technologies were utilized for several years without an adequate evidence base. A relationship between evidence and utilization could be shown for several but not all technologies. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a mixed picture regarding the evidence available for new technologies, and the relationship between the development of evidence and the use of technologies over time. Although the influence of funding and safety notices requires further investigation, these results re-emphasize the need for strengthening market approval standards and HTA pathways as well as approaches such as coverage with evidence development.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect. RESULTS: We included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: We found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Challenges and Solutions for the Benefit Assessment of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Precision medicine is increasingly important in cancer treatment. Tumor-agnostic therapies are used regardless of tumor entity because they target specific biomarkers in tumors. In Germany, the benefit assessment of oncological pharmaceuticals has traditionally been entity specific. Thus, the assessment of tumor-agnostic therapies leaves stakeholders with various challenges. Our aim was to systematically identify challenges and possible solutions for the benefit assessment of therapies in tumor-agnostic indications using a 2-step sequential qualitative approach. METHODS: To identify relevant challenges, we conducted qualitative interviews with different stakeholders who were involved in previous benefit assessments of tumor-agnostic therapies in Germany. To identify possible solutions for these challenges, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the websites of European health technology assessment bodies for relevant literature. RESULTS: We identified 9 categories of challenges of which the following were deemed particularly relevant: the absence of direct comparative studies, challenges regarding the use of basket studies and indirect comparisons, challenges in determining the appropriate comparative therapy in a tumor-agnostic indication, and challenges on the system side. Seven categories of solutions were identified, including an increased use of real-world evidence, making conditional decisions in the context of systematic reassessments, splitting the field of application, and finding (new) ways to design and analyze basket studies. CONCLUSION: A range of possible solutions, which can help to meet the identified challenges in Germany, have been found. Future research should investigate the acceptance and feasibility of these solutions.

Digital health applications and the fast-track pathway to public health coverage in Germany: challenges and opportunities based on first results.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based decision-making is the sine qua non for safe and effective patient care and the long-term functioning of health systems. Since 2020 Digital Health Applications (DiHA) in Germany have been undergoing a systematic pathway to be reimbursed by statutory health insurance (SHI) which is attracting attention in other European countries. We therefore investigate coverage decisions on DiHA and the underlying evidence on health care effects, which legally include both medical outcomes and patient-centred structural and procedural outcomes. METHODS: Based on publicly available data of the Institute for Medicines and Medical Devices searched between 08/2021 and 02/2022, all DiHA listed in the corresponding registry and thus reimbursable by the SHI were systematically investigated and presented descriptively on the basis of predefined criteria, such as clinical condition, and costs. The clinical trials on DiHA permanently included in the registry were reviewed with regard to their study design, endpoints investigated, the survey instruments used, and whether an intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROB II tool. RESULTS: By February 2022, 30 DiHA had been included in the DiHA registry, one third of them permanently and two thirds conditionally. Most DiHA were therapeutic applications for mental illness based on cognitive behavioural therapy. For all permanently included DiHA, randomised controlled trials were conducted to demonstrate the impact on health care effects. While medical outcomes were investigated for all of these DiHA, patient-centred structural and procedural outcomes were rarely investigated. The majority of clinical trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly due to insufficient reporting quality. Overall, the prices for DiHA covered by SHI are on average around € 150 per month (min. € 40; max. € 248). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based decision-making on coverage of DiHA leaves room for improvements both in terms of reporting-quality and the use of patient-centred structural and procedural outcomes in addition to medical outcomes. With appropriate evidence, DiHA can offer an opportunity as an adjunct to existing therapy while currently the high risk of bias of the trials raises doubts about the justification of its high costs.

Health care patterns and policies in 18 European countries during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has developed into an unprecedented global challenge. Differences between countries in testing strategies, hospitalization protocols as well as ensuring and managing ICU capacities can illustrate initial responses to a major health system shock, and steer future preparedness activities. METHODS: Publicly available daily data for 18 European countries were retrieved manually from official sources and documented in an Excel table (March-July 2020). The ratio of tests to cases, the share of hospitalizations out of all cases and the share of ICU admissions out of all hospitalizations were computed using 7-day rolling averages per 100 000 population. Information on country policies was collected from the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Information on health care capacities, expenditure and utilization was extracted from the Eurostat health database. RESULTS: There was substantial variation across countries for all studied variables. In all countries, the ratio of tests to cases increased over time, albeit to varying degrees, while the shares of hospitalizations and ICU admissions stabilized, reflecting the evolution of testing strategies and the adaptation of COVID-19 health care delivery pathways, respectively. Health care patterns for COVID-19 at the outset of the pandemic did not necessarily follow the usual health service delivery pattern of each health system. CONCLUSIONS: This study enables a general understanding of how the early evolution of the pandemic influenced and was influenced by country responses and clearly demonstrates the immense potential for cross-country learning.

A country-level analysis comparing hospital capacity and utilisation during the first COVID-19 wave across Europe.

BACKGROUND: The exponential increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first wave of the pandemic created an extraordinary overload and demand on hospitals, especially intensive care units (ICUs), across Europe. European countries have implemented different measures to address the surge ICU capacity, but little is known about the extent. The aim of this paper is to compare the rates of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute and ICU care and the levels of national surge capacity for intensive care beds across 16 European countries and Lombardy region during the first wave of the pandemic (28 February to 31 July). METHODS: For this country level analysis, we used data on SARS-CoV-2 cases, current and/or cumulative hospitalised COVID-19 patients and current and/or cumulative COVID-19 patients in ICU care. To analyse whether capacities were exceeded, we also retrieved information on the numbers of hospital beds, and on (surge) capacity of ICU beds during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM). Treatment days and mean length of hospital stay were calculated to assess hospital utilisation. RESULTS: Hospital and ICU capacity varied widely across countries. Our results show that utilisation of acute care bed capacity by patients with COVID-19 did not exceed 38.3% in any studied country. However, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Lombardy would not have been able to treat all patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care during the first wave without an ICU surge capacity. Indicators of hospital utilisation were not consistently related to the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The mean number of hospital days associated with one SARS-CoV-2 case ranged from 1.3 (Norway) to 11.8 (France). CONCLUSION: In many countries, the increase in ICU capacity was important to accommodate the high demand for intensive care during the first COVID-19 wave.

Implementation of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: patterns of utilization and evidence development.

BACKGROUND: Innovative medical technologies are commonly associated with positive expectations. At the time of their introduction into care, there is often little evidence available regarding their benefits and harms. Accordingly, some innovative medical technologies with a lack of evidence are used widely until or even though findings of adverse events emerge, while others with study results supporting their safety and effectiveness remain underused. This study aims at examining the diffusion patterns of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care between 2005 and 2017 while simultaneously considering evidence development. METHODS: Based on a qualitatively derived typology and a quantitative clustering of the adoption curves, a representative sample of 21 technologies was selected for further evaluation. Published scientific evidence on efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the technologies was identified and extracted in a systematic approach. Derived from a two-dimensional classification according to the degree of utilization and availability of supportive evidence, the diffusion patterns were then assigned to the categories "Success" (widespread/positive), "Hazard" (widespread/negative), "Overadoption" (widespread/limited or none), "Underadoption" (cautious/positive), "Vigilance" (cautious/negative), and "Prudence" (cautious/limited or none). RESULTS: Overall, we found limited evidence on the examined technologies regarding both the quantity and quality of published randomized controlled trials. Thus, the categories "Prudence" and "Overadoption" together account for nearly three-quarters of the years evaluated, followed by "Success" with 17%. Even when evidence is available, the transfer of knowledge into practice appears to be inhibited. CONCLUSIONS: The successful implementation of safe and effective innovative medical technologies into practice requires substantial further efforts by policymakers to strengthen systematic knowledge generation and translation. Creating an environment that encourages the conduct of rigorous studies, promotes knowledge translation, and rewards innovative medical technologies according to their added value is a prerequisite for the diffusion of valuable health care.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery compared to usual preoperative care: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative functional capacity is an important predictor of postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation aims to optimise patients' functional capacity before surgery to improve postoperative outcomes. As prolonged hospital stay and postoperative complications present an avoidable use of healthcare resources, prehabilitation might also save costs.The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation programmes for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care. The results will be useful to inform decisions about the implementation of prehabilitation programmes and the design of future economic evaluations of prehabilitation programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, Embase, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for full or partial economic evaluations of preoperative prehabilitation programmes conducted in any population compared with usual preoperative care. Studies will be included regardless of the type, design and perspective of the economic evaluation, and their publication year, language or status. Initial searches were performed between 30 April and 4 May 2020.Study selection, data extraction and assessment of the included studies' risk of bias and methodological quality will initially be performed by two independent reviewers and, if agreement was sufficiently high, by one reviewer. We will extract data regarding the included studies' basic characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results.A narrative synthesis will be performed. The primary endpoint will be cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses. We will discuss heterogeneity between the studies and assess the risk of publication bias. The certainty of the evidence will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as the systematic review will not involve human participants. We plan to present our findings at scientific conferences, pass them on to relevant stakeholder organisations and publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020182813.

Reimbursement Status and Recommendations Related to Orphan Drugs in European Countries.

Objective: To review the reimbursement recommendations issued by selected European health technology assessment agencies for orphan drugs and the reimbursement status of these drugs; to assess the relationship between the type of recommendation and reimbursement status. Methods: The list of orphan drugs to be included in the analysis was obtained from the European Medicines Agency and Orphanet. Seven European states were included in the analysis: Belgium, England, France, Germany, Poland, Scotland, and Spain. For all identified orphan drugs, relevant data on the reimbursement status and type of recommendation were collected for each country. The relationship between the type of recommendation and reimbursement status was evaluated separately for each considered country, using Cohen's kappa coefficient for the measurement of agreement; sub-analyses for oncology and metabolic drugs were performed. Results: Most reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs were positive (71%), while approximately 17% were negative and almost 13% were conditional. The highest percentage of positive reimbursement recommendations was observed in Spain (97%) and France (95%) and the highest percentage of negative reimbursement recommendations was revealed for Poland (49%). On average, 65% of the 163 analyzed orphan drugs were reimbursed from public funds. The highest number of reimbursed orphan drugs was observed in Germany (n = 148), while the lowest, in Poland (n = 41). Considering all analyzed drugs, the highest agreement between recommendations and reimbursement status was observed for Spain (value of 1), and the lowest, for Germany (κ = -0.03). Conclusions: On average, more than 60% of identified orphan drugs were reimbursed from public funds in the included countries, and the majority of reimbursement recommendations were found to be positive. The agreement between reimbursement recommendations and reimbursement status differed between the countries, but overall, it did not show any patterns, as it ranged from -0.03 to 1 (κ coefficient).

Published and unpublished evidence in coverage decision-making for pharmaceuticals in Europe: existing approaches and way forward.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination bias occurs when only some results emerging from clinical research reach their intended audience in the knowledge translation process. Given that coverage decisions increasingly rely on evidence, it is important to explore the types of evidence considered. This paper aimed to examine the evidence base used by regulatory institutions involved in pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in a broad range of European countries, as well as their awareness of and approach towards dissemination bias. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was adopted. Regulatory documents and published literature were identified in systematic searches and relevant documents were analysed. An online survey was carried out to verify and expand insights. RESULTS: Forty-two relevant regulatory documents and 10 publications were included. The survey had a 35% response rate, yielding valid responses for 13 countries. A fragmented impression was obtained for most countries indicating a general lack of transparency regarding both processes of decision-making and approaches towards unpublished information. Dissemination bias was rarely consistently considered. Practices for the identification and inclusion of all available evidence varied considerably, as did the influence of missing evidence on decision-making. Differences were often attributable to the regulatory context and/or institutional principles. CONCLUSIONS: Best practice is difficult to generalize given the identified variations. Individual exemplary practices support the necessity for institutional exchange at international level. Increased institutional commitment to transparency of methods and processes should be advocated.

Pharmaceutical regulation in 15 European countries: review

In the context of pharmaceutical care, policy-makers repeatedly facethe challenge of balancing patient access to effective medicines withaffordability and rising costs. With the aim of guiding the health policydiscourse towards questions that are important to actual and potential patients,this study investigates a broad range of regulatory measures, spanningmarketing authorization to generic substitution and resulting price levels in asample of 16 European health systems (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland,Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Sweden).All countries employ a mix of regulatory mechanisms to containpharmaceutical expenditure and ensure quality and efficiency in pharmaceuticalcare, albeit with varying configurations and rigour. This variation alsoinfluences the extent of publicly financed pharmaceutical costs. Overall,observed differences in pharmaceutical expenditure should be interpreted inconjunction with the differing volume and composition of consumption andprice levels, as well as dispensation practices and their impact on measurementof pharmaceutical costs.No definitive evidence has yet been produced on the effects of differentcost-containment measures on patient outcomes. Depending on the foremostpolicy concerns in each country, different levers will have to be used to enablethe delivery of appropriate care at affordable prices.

From market access to patient access: overview of evidence-based approaches for the reimbursement and pricing of pharmaceuticals in 36 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Coverage decisions determining the benefit baskets of health systems have been increasingly relying on evidence regarding patient benefit and costs. Relevant structures, methodologies, and processes have especially been established for pharmaceuticals but approaches differ. The objective of this work was thus to identify institutions in a broad range of European countries (n = 36) in charge of determining the value of pharmaceuticals for pricing and reimbursement purposes and to map their decision-making process; to examine the different approaches and consider national and supranational possibilities for best practice. METHODS: Institutions were identified through websites of international networks, ministries, and published literature. Details on institutional practices were supplemented with information from institution websites and linked online sources. RESULTS: The type and extent of information available varied considerably across countries. Different types of public regulatory bodies are involved in pharmaceutical coverage decisions, assuming a range of responsibilities. As a rule, the assessment of scientific evidence is kept structurally separate from its appraisal. Recommendations on value are uniformly issued by specific committees within or commissioned by responsible institutions; these institutions often also act as decision-makers on reimbursement status and level or market price. While effectiveness and costs are important criteria in all countries, the latter are often considered on a case-by-case basis. In all countries, manufacturer applications, including relevant evidence, are used as one of the main sources of information for the assessment. CONCLUSION: Transparency of evidence-based coverage decisions should be enhanced. International collaboration can facilitate knowledge exchange, improve efficiency of information production, and strengthen new or developing systems.