scholarly journals The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003–13: a multimethod evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (67) ◽  
pp. 1-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Guthrie ◽  
Teresa Bienkowska-Gibbs ◽  
Catriona Manville ◽  
Alexandra Pollitt ◽  
Anne Kirtley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Close Relationships ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Academic Quality ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme supports research tailored to the needs of NHS decision-makers, patients and clinicians. This study reviewed the impact of the programme, from 2003 to 2013, on health, clinical practice, health policy, the economy and academia. It also considered how HTA could maintain and increase its impact.MethodsInterviews (n = 20): senior stakeholders from academia, policy-making organisations and the HTA programme. Bibliometric analysis: citation analysis of publications arising from HTA programme-funded research. Researchfish survey: electronic survey of all HTA grant holders. Payback case studies (n = 12): in-depth case studies of HTA programme-funded research.ResultsWe make the following observations about the impact, and routes to impact, of the HTA programme: it has had an impact on patients, primarily through changes in guidelines, but also directly (e.g. changing clinical practice); it has had an impact on UK health policy, through providing high-quality scientific evidence – its close relationships with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) contributed to the observed impact on health policy, although in some instances other organisations may better facilitate impact; HTA research is used outside the UK by other HTA organisations and systematic reviewers – the programme has an impact on HTA practice internationally as a leader in HTA research methods and the funding of HTA research; the work of the programme is of high academic quality – theHealth Technology Assessmentjournal ensures that the vast majority of HTA programme-funded research is published in full, while the HTA programme still encourages publication in other peer-reviewed journals; academics agree that the programme has played an important role in building and retaining HTA research capacity in the UK; the HTA programme has played a role in increasing the focus on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in medicine – it has also contributed to increasingly positive attitudes towards HTA research both within the research community and the NHS; and the HTA focuses resources on research that is of value to patients and the UK NHS, which would not otherwise be funded (e.g. where there is no commercial incentive to undertake research). The programme should consider the following to maintain and increase its impact: providing targeted support for dissemination, focusing resources when important results are unlikely to be implemented by other stakeholders, particularly when findings challenge vested interests; maintaining close relationships with NICE and the NSC, but also considering other potential users of HTA research; maintaining flexibility and good relationships with researchers, giving particular consideration to the Technology Assessment Report (TAR) programme and the potential for learning between TAR centres; maintaining the academic quality of the work and the focus on NHS need; considering funding research on the short-term costs of the implementation of new health technologies; improving the monitoring and evaluation of whether or not patient and public involvement influences research; improve the transparency of the priority-setting process; and continuing to monitor the impact and value of the programme to inform its future scientific and administrative development.FundingThe NIHR HTA programme.

scholarly journals DOES HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AFFECT POLICY-MAKING AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN SWEDEN?

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Måns Rosén ◽  
Sophie Werkö
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Time Series Data ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Series Data ◽  
Moderate Degree ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze whether health technology assessment (HTA) reports published by SBU have influenced decisions, guidelines, clinical practice, or research priorities in Sweden.Methods: All twenty-six SBU reports between 2006 and 2010 were analyzed. For each project, we searched publications and documentation that reflected impact on decisions, guidelines, research or clinical practice. Written documentation, before–after surveys or register-based time series data were used when available. Based on a conceptual model and on the available evidence, we determined whether HTA reports had a high, moderate, or low impact.Results: HTA reports influenced comprehensive decisions to a high or moderate degree. In the case of fortifying flour with folic acid to a high degree. In ten cases, HTA reports were the primary source of clinical guidelines developed by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) or professional associations. In the cases of dyspepsia and gastro-esophageal reflux, as well as mild head injury, the HTA reports had a high impact on clinical practice. It was also obvious from this review that research had been initiated as a result of the knowledge gaps identified by HTA reports. In three cases, we had no adequate documentation, suggesting that the impact of the HTA report had been low.Conclusions: Many interrelated forces change practice, but the cases presented here indicate that HTA reports have had a high impact on clinical guidelines, as well as a moderate or high impact on comprehensive decisions, the initiation of research and changes in clinical practice.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN THE AREA OF PREVENTION

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tereza Mousiama ◽  
Souzana Ioakimidou ◽  
Evagelia Largatzi ◽  
Daphne Kaitelidou ◽  
Lycurgus Liaropoulus
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Mass Screening ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Normal Pregnancy ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
The Impact

Objective: To explore the impact of health technology assessment (HTA) on health policy and practice in Greece through selected screening case studies in the prevention area. The three cases studied were mammography screening, PSA screening, and routine ultrasonography in normal pregnancy.Methods: Official policy recommendations or reports, a literature review of Greek published research as well as gray literature from various sources, and interviews with specialists and medical associations were performed, and their impact on health policy formulation was examined.Results: The implementation of the screening tests does not take the form of structured mass screening programs. Almost all physicians (urologists-pathologists, gynecologists) apply PSA and routine ultrasonography in normal pregnancy respectively with the purpose of either prevention or diagnosis. Mammography is applied generally for prevention or diagnosis, but there are some mass screening programs at a local level. In addition, the results show no evidence that the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of the three screening programs have been a matter of serious concern and investigation for the purposes of policy formulation in Greece.Conclusion: The results point to a need for the implementation of HTA methods on mass screening preventive programs in which real value and cost remain unclear and whose use is based on empirical and personal assessments.

scholarly journals Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199455
Author(s):  
Oriana Ciani ◽  
Bogdan Grigore ◽  
Hedwig Blommestein ◽  
Saskia de Groot ◽  
Meilin Möllenkamp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
International Health ◽  
Surrogate Endpoint ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Statistical Validation ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
The Impact

Background Surrogate endpoints (i.e., intermediate endpoints intended to predict for patient-centered outcomes) are increasingly common. However, little is known about how surrogate evidence is handled in the context of health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives 1) To map methodologies for the validation of surrogate endpoints and 2) to determine their impact on acceptability of surrogates and coverage decisions made by HTA agencies. Methods We sought HTA reports where evaluation relied on a surrogate from 8 HTA agencies. We extracted data on the methods applied for surrogate validation. We assessed the level of agreement between agencies and fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models to test the impact of validation approaches on the agency’s acceptability of the surrogate endpoint and their coverage recommendation. Results Of the 124 included reports, 61 (49%) discussed the level of evidence to support the relationship between the surrogate and the patient-centered endpoint, 27 (22%) reported a correlation coefficient/association measure, and 40 (32%) quantified the expected effect on the patient-centered outcome. Overall, the surrogate endpoint was deemed acceptable in 49 (40%) reports ( k-coefficient 0.10, P = 0.004). Any consideration of the level of evidence was associated with accepting the surrogate endpoint as valid (odds ratio [OR], 4.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60–13.18, P = 0.005). However, we did not find strong evidence of an association between accepting the surrogate endpoint and agency coverage recommendation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23–2.20; P = 0.55). Conclusions Handling of surrogate endpoint evidence in reports varied greatly across HTA agencies, with inconsistent consideration of the level of evidence and statistical validation. Our findings call for careful reconsideration of the issue of surrogacy and the need for harmonization of practices across international HTA agencies.

CAPACITY BUILDING IN AGENCIES FOR EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debjani Mueller ◽  
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea ◽  
Tara Schuller ◽  
Marco Chiumente ◽  
Jeonghoon Ahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
Effective Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) yields information that can be ideally used to address deficiencies in health systems and to create a wider understanding of the impact of different policy considerations around technology reimbursement and use. The structure of HTA programs varies across different jurisdictions according to decision-maker needs. Moreover, conducting HTA requires specialized skills. Effective decision making should include multiple criteria (medical, economic, technical, ethical, social, legal, and cultural) and requires multi-disciplinary teams of experts working together to produce these assessments. A workshop explored the multi-disciplinary skills and competencies required to build an effective and efficient HTA team, with a focus on low- and middle-income settings.Methods: This proceeding summarizes main points from a workshop on capacity building, drawing on presentations and group discussions among attendees including different points of view.Results and Conclusions: The workshop and thus this study would have benefited from a larger variety of stakeholders. Therefore, the conclusions arising from the workshop are not the opinion of a representative sample of HTA professionals. Nonetheless, organizations and speakers were carefully selected to provide a valuable approach to this theme. Thus, these proceedings highlight some of the gaps and needs in the education and training programs offered worldwide and calls for further investigation.

scholarly journals History of health technology assessment in Belgium

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 82-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Cleemput ◽  
Philippe Van Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Drug Reimbursement ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Further Development

Objectives: This paper gives an overview of health technology assessment (HTA) in Belgium.Methods: The information included in the overview is based on legal documents and publicly available year reports of the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE).Results: Belgium has a relatively young history in HTA. The principle of evidence-based medicine (EBM) was introduced in the drug reimbursement procedure in 2001, with the establishment of the Drug Reimbursement Committee (DRC). The DRC assesses the efficacy, safety, convenience, applicability, and effectiveness of a drug relative to existing treatment alternatives. For some drugs, relative cost-effectiveness is also evaluated. The activities of the DRC can, therefore, be considered to be the first official HTA activities in Belgium. Later, in 2003, KCE was established. Its mission was to perform policy preparing research in the healthcare and health insurance sector and to give advice to policy makers about how they can obtain an efficient allocation of limited healthcare resources that optimizes the quality and accessibility of health care. This broad mission has been operationalized by activities in three domains of research: HTA, health services research, and good clinical practice. KCE is independent from the policy maker. Its HTAs contain policy recommendations that may inform policy decisions but are not binding.Conclusions: Although the Belgian history of HTA is relatively short, its foundations are strong and the impact of HTA increasing. Nevertheless KCE has many challenges for the future, including continued quality assurance, further development of international collaboration, and further development of methodological guidance for HTA.

scholarly journals Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (51) ◽  
pp. 1-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Inwald ◽  
Ruth R Canter ◽  
Kerry Woolfall ◽  
Caitlin B O’Hara ◽  
Paul R Mouncey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Fluid Bolus ◽  
Site Staff ◽  
Pilot Rct ◽  
The Uk

Background There has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) of fluid bolus therapy in paediatric sepsis in the developed world despite evidence that excess fluid may be associated with harm. Objectives To determine the feasibility of the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) trial – a RCT comparing restricted fluid bolus (10 ml/kg) with current practice (20 ml/kg) in children with septic shock in the UK. Design (1) Qualitative feasibility study exploring parents’ views about the pilot RCT. (2) Pilot RCT over a 9-month period, including integrated parental and staff perspectives study. Setting (1) Recruitment took place across four NHS hospitals in England and on social media. (2) Recruitment took place across 13 NHS hospitals in England. Participants (1) Parents of children admitted to a UK hospital with presumed septic shock in the previous 3 years. (2) Children presenting to an emergency department with clinical suspicion of infection and shock after 20 ml/kg of fluid. Exclusion criteria were receipt of > 20 ml/kg of fluid, conditions requiring fluid restriction and the patient not for full active treatment (i.e. palliative care plan in place). Site staff and parents of children in the pilot were recruited to the perspectives study. Interventions (1) None. (2) Children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to 10- or 20-ml/kg fluid boluses every 15 minutes for 4 hours if in shock. Main outcome measures (1) Acceptability of FiSh trial, proposed consent model and potential outcome measures. (2) Outcomes were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between the groups, and collection and distribution of potential outcome measures. Results (1) Twenty-one parents were interviewed. All would have consented for the pilot study. (2) Seventy-five children were randomised, 40 to the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 35 to the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Two children were withdrawn. Although the anticipated recruitment rate was achieved, there was variability across the sites. Fifty-nine per cent of children in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 74% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group required only a single trial bolus before shock resolved. The volume of fluid (in ml/kg) was 35% lower in the first hour and 44% lower over the 4-hour period in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Fluid boluses were delivered per protocol (volume and timing) for 79% of participants in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and for 55% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group, mainly as a result of delivery not being completed within 15 minutes. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfers, and days alive and PICU free did not differ significantly between the groups. Two adverse events were reported in each group. A questionnaire was completed by 45 parents, 20 families and seven staff were interviewed and 20 staff participated in focus groups. Although a minority of site staff lacked equipoise in favour of more restricted boluses, all supported the trial. Conclusions Even though a successful feasibility and pilot RCT were conducted, participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Future work Further observational work is required to determine the epidemiology of severe childhood infection in the UK in the postvaccine era. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15244462. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

TeCHO+ program in Gujarat: a protocol for health technology assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-214
Author(s):  
Somen Saha ◽  
Priya Kotwani ◽  
Apurvakumar Pandya ◽  
Deepak Saxena ◽  
Tapasvi Puwar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Newborn Care ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
The State ◽  
Family Welfare ◽  
The Impact

The Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat, is implementing a program named Technology for Community Health Operation or TeCHO+ addressing state’s priority health issues. This program envisages replacing the existing mother and child tracking system or e-Mamta application in the state. This program is based on ImTeCHO—Innovative Mobile Technology for Community Health Operations—which was piloted in Jhagadia, Bharuch district of Gujarat in 2013. The program showed improvements not only in terms of coverage of maternal and newborn care packages averting malnutrition but also was cost-effective. This paper details the protocol for health technology assessment to assess the impact of TeCHO+ program on data quality, improvement in service delivery coverage, reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as assess the cost-effectiveness. The study will be conducted in five districts of the state. A mixed-method approach will be adopted. Data will be validated in a phased manner over a period of 3 years along with an assessment of key outcome indicators. Additionally, key informant interviews will be conducted and cost data will be gathered to perform cost-effectiveness analysis. The study will inform policymakers about the impact of TeCHO+ program on quality, access and cost-effectiveness of healthcare services.

VP08 Real-World Data Use In Health Technology Assessments: A Comparison Of Five Health Technology Assessment Agencies

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 149-150
Author(s):  
Amr Makady ◽  
Ard van Veelen ◽  
Anthonius de Boer ◽  
Hans Hillege ◽  
Olaf Klunger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Real World ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data ◽  
The Impact

INTRODUCTION:Reimbursement decisions are usually based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) with high internal validity but lower external validity. Real-World Data (RWD) may provide complimentary evidence for relative effectiveness assessments (REA's) and cost-effectiveness assessments (CEA's) of treatments. This study explores to which extent RWD is incorporated in REA's and CEA's of drugs used to treat metastatic melanoma (MM) by five Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies.METHODS:Dossiers for MM drugs published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved for HTA agencies in five countries: the United Kingdom (NICE), Scotland (SMC), France (HAS), Germany (IQWiG) and the Netherlands (ZIN). A standardized data-extraction form was used to extract data on RWD mentioned in the assessment and its impact on appraisal (for example, positive, negative, neutral or unknown) for both REA and CEA.RESULTS:In total, fourty-nine dossiers were retrieved: NICE = 10, SMC = 13, IQWiG = 16, HAS = 8 and ZIN = 2. Nine dossiers (18.4 percent) included RWD in REA's for several parameters: to describe effectiveness (n = 5) and/or the safety (n = 2) of the drug, and/or the prevalence of MM (n = 4). CEA's were included in 25/49 dossiers (IQWiG and HAS did not perform CEA's). Of the twenty-five CEA's, twenty (80 percent) included RWD to extrapolate long-term effectiveness (n = 19), and/or identify costs associated with treatments (n = 7). When RWD was included in REA's (n = 9), its impact on the appraisal was negative (n = 4), neutral (n = 2), unknown (n = 1) or was not discussed in the appraisal (n = 2). When RWD was included in CEA's (n = 11), its impact on the appraisal varied between positive (n = 2), negative (n = 5) and unknown (n = 4).CONCLUSIONS:Generally, RWD is more often included in CEA's than REA's (80 percent versus 18.4 percent, respectively). When included, RWD was mostly used to describe the effectiveness of the drug (REA) or to predict long-term effectiveness (CEA). The impact of RWD on the appraisal varied greatly within both REA's and CEA's.

OP135 Confirmatory Versus Explorative Endpoints In Drug Approval Versus Health Technology Assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 63-64
Author(s):  
Ines Niehaus ◽  
Charalabos-Markos Dintsios
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Benefit Assessment ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Early Benefit Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Early Benefit

INTRODUCTION:The early benefit assessment of drugs in Germany and their preceded market authorization pursue different objectives, resulting in divergent decision-making strategies. This is reflected inter alia by the diverse inclusion of confirmatory endpoints within the assessments of oncological drugs. The pharmaceutical manufacturers are facing the challenge of meeting the requirements for both evaluation processes by the available evidence and avoiding hereby negative early benefit assessments. This is mainly due to the concept of mutually relevant clinical trials.METHODS:Identification and gathering of the endpoints is based on a specifically developed guide. The extracted data from the documents of completed assessments up to July 2015 are used to estimate both separately and together the impact of explorative in relation to confirmatory endpoints on the drug approval and early benefit assessment, by contrasting the European Medicines Agency's risk-benefit-ratio and the benefit-harm-balancing of the national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) jurisdiction.RESULTS:Twenty-one of fourty-one studies’ oncological assessments could be included in the endpoint analysis. From a procedural point of view both the drug approval and the early benefit assessment seem to be not confirmatory since they include explorative endpoints as well. Yet, drug approval is in terms of quality of endpoints more confirmatory than early benefit assessment since it contains a higher proportion of primary endpoints. The latter implies only in 67 percent of the assessments a primary endpoint to be relevant for the benefit-harm-balancing. Moreover, explorative mortality endpoints reached the highest agreement and explorative endpoints capturing health-related quality of life no agreement, referring to the mutual relevance of endpoints for the risk-benefit-ratio and the benefit-harm-balancing.CONCLUSIONS:The missing information transparency of the assessment reports compared to the information offered within the early benefit assessment makes an assignment of endpoints with respect to the mutually relevant clinical trial sometimes troublesome. To warrant, in the long run, a broader confirmatory basis for decisions in health care supported by HTA, a closer inter-institutional cooperation of approval authorities and German HTA jurisdictions seems favorable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document