Mapping horizon scanning systems for medical devices: similarities, differences, and lessons learned.

OBJECTIVES: This article presents the mapping of horizons scanning systems (HSS) for medical devices, conducted by the Medical Devices Working Group of the International Horizon Scanning Initiative (IHSI MDWG). It provides an overview of the identified HSS, highlights similarities and differences between the systems, and lessons learned. METHODS: Potentially relevant HSS were identified through literature searches, scan of an overview of EuroScan members, and input from the IHSI MDWG members. Structured information was collected from organizations that confirmed having an HSS for medical devices. RESULTS: Sixteen initiatives could be identified, of which 11 are currently ongoing. The purposes of the HSS range from raising awareness of trends and new developments to managing informed decisions on innovative health services in hospitals. The time-horizon is most often 3 years up to a few months before market entry. Three models of identification of new technologies crystallized: a reactive (stakeholders outside HSS inform), a pro-active (actively searching multifold sources), and a hybrid model. Prioritization is often conducted by separate committees via scoring or debate. The outputs focus either on in-depth information of single technologies or on a class of technologies or on technologies in specific disease areas. CONCLUSIONS: The identified HSS share the common experience that horizon scanning (HS) for medical devices is a resource-intensive exercise that requires a dedicated and skilled team. Insights into the identified HSS and their experiences will be used in the continued work of the IHSI MDWG on its proposal for an IHSI HSS for medical devices.

EUnetHTA relative effectiveness assessments: efforts to increase usability, transparency and inclusiveness.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3 (JA3) was to develop a sustainable European model for future collaboration on HTA, by reducing duplication in HTA production and increasing patient access to health technologies. Compared to the previous JA2, several procedural changes were made aiming to increase usability, transparency, and inclusiveness of relative effectiveness assessments (REAs). This article presents and highlights these changes, explains their rationale as well as their influence on HTA production. METHODS: Feedback from REA teams and project managers was collected. At the end of JA3, all lessons learned were mapped, resulting in a set of recommendations for a future REA production process. RESULTS: In JA3, forty-three EUnetHTA REAs have been produced. Efforts to increase the usability of the REAs were made by focussing on the needs of REA producers and users (HTA agencies) and by increasing stakeholder involvement. Huge steps were taken with regard to transparency, which was achieved through publication of guidances, templates, and up-to-date information on the EUnetHTA website. In an attempt to improve inclusiveness, (stakeholder) interaction and involvement as well as feedback procedures were enhanced and streamlined. The fine-tuned project management brought all aspects together and facilitated a consistent and reliable workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Despite that HTA agencies have different national requirements, the procedural changes made in JA3 proved to counteract some of these challenges. Nevertheless, it is of utmost importance that further perceived methodological differences are being resolved to ensure a strong base for future European collaboration on REA production.

Can Remote Patient Monitoring Be the New Standard in Primary Care of Chronic Diseases, Post-COVID-19?

Background: One lesson from the current COVID-19 pandemic is the need to optimize health care provision outside of traditional settings, and potentially over longer periods of time. An important strategy is remote patient monitoring (RPM), allowing patients to remain at home, while they transmit health data and receive follow-up services. Materials and Methods: We conducted an overview of the latest systematic reviews that had included randomized controlled trials with adult patients with chronic diseases. We summarized results and displayed these in forest plots, and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to assess our certainty of the evidence. Results: We included 4 systematic reviews that together reported on 11 trials that met our definition of RPM, each including patients with diabetes and/or hypertension. RPM probably makes little to no difference on HbA1c levels. RPM probably leads to a slight reduction in systolic blood pressure, with questionable clinical meaningfulness. RPM probably has a small negative effect on the physical component of health-related quality of life, but the clinical significance of this reduction is uncertain. We have low confidence in the finding that RPM makes no difference to the remaining five primary outcomes. Conclusion: Most of our findings are consistent with reviews of other, broader definitions of RPM. The type of RPM examined in this review is as effective as standard treatment for patients with diabetes/hypertension. If this or other types of RPM are to be used for "long covid" patients or for other chronic disease groups post-pandemic, we need to understand why RPM may negatively affect quality of life.

Developing a quality management system for the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA): toward European HTA collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was established in 2006 and comprises over eighty organizations from thirty European countries. In its fifth project phase (Joint Action 3), EUnetHTA set up a quality management system (QMS) to improve the efficiency and standardization of joint work. This article presents EUnetHTA's new QMS and outlines experiences and challenges during its implementation. METHODS: Several working groups defined processes and methods to support assessment teams in creating high-quality assessment reports. Existing guidelines, templates, and tools were refined and missing parts were newly created and integrated into the new QMS framework. EUnetHTA has contributed to Health Technology Assessment (HTA) capacity building through training and knowledge sharing. Continuous evaluation helped to identify gaps and shortcomings in processes and structures. RESULTS: Based on a common quality management concept and defined development and revision procedures, twenty-seven partner organizations jointly developed and maintained around forty standard operating procedures and other components of the QMS. All outputs were incorporated into a web-based platform, the EUnetHTA Companion Guide, which was launched in May 2018. Concerted efforts of working groups were required to ensure consistency and avoid duplication. CONCLUSIONS: With the establishment of a QMS for jointly produced assessment reports, EUnetHTA has taken a significant step toward a sustainable model for scientific and technical collaboration within European HTA. However, the definition of processes and methods meeting the numerous requirements of healthcare systems across Europe remains an ongoing and challenging task.