Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies

ObjectivesWith complex health technologies entering the market, methods for health technology assessment (HTA) may require changes. This study aimed to identify challenges in HTA of complex health technologies.MethodsA survey was sent to European HTA organizations participating in European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA). The survey contained open questions and used predefined potentially complex health technologies and 7 case studies to identify types of complex health technologies and challenges faced during HTA. The survey was validated, tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot tested before dissemination.ResultsA total of 22 HTA organizations completed the survey (67%). Advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMPs) and histology-independent therapies were considered most challenging based on the predefined complex health technologies and case studies. For the case studies, more than half of the reported challenges were “methodological,” equal in relative effectiveness assessments as in cost-effectiveness assessments. Through the open questions, we found that most of these challenges actually rooted in data unavailability. Data were reported as “absent,” “insufficient,” “immature,” or “low quality” by 18 of 20 organizations (90%), in particular data on quality of life. Policy and organizational challenges and challenges because of societal or political pressure were reported by 8 (40%) and 4 organizations (20%), respectively. Modeling issues were reported least often (n = 2, 4%).ConclusionsMost challenges in HTA of complex health technologies root in data insufficiencies rather than in the complexity of health technologies itself. As the number of complex technologies grows, the urgency for new methods and policies to guide HTA decision making increases.     

Assessing the Economic Value of Clinical Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities

ObjectivesClinical artificial intelligence (AI) is a novel technology, and few economic evaluations have focused on it to date. Before its wider implementation, it is important to highlight the aspects of AI that challenge traditional health technology assessment methods.MethodsWe used an existing broad value framework to assess potential ways AI can provide good value for money. We also developed a rubric of how economic evaluations of AI should vary depending on the case of its use.ResultsWe found that the measurement of core elements of value—health outcomes and cost—are complicated by AI because its generalizability across different populations is often unclear and because its use may necessitate reconfigured clinical processes. Clinicians’ productivity may improve when AI is used. If poorly implemented though, AI may also cause clinicians’ workload to increase. Some AI has been found to exacerbate health disparities. Nevertheless, AI may promote equity by expanding access to medical care and, when properly trained, providing unbiased diagnoses and prognoses. The approach to assessment of AI should vary based on its use case: AI that creates new clinical possibilities can improve outcomes, but regulation and evidence collection may be difficult; AI that extends clinical expertise can reduce disparities and lower costs but may result in overuse; and AI that automates clinicians’ work can improve productivity but may reduce skills.ConclusionsThe potential uses of clinical AI create challenges for health technology assessment methods originally developed for pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Health economists should be prepared to examine data collection and methods used to train AI, as these may impact its future value.     

Do Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Account for Drug Genericization? A Literature Review and Assessment of Implications

ObjectivesWe investigated how health technology assessment (HTA) organizations around the world have handled drug genericization (an allowance for future generic drug entry and subsequent drug price declines) in their guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). We also analyzed a large sample of published CEAs to examine prevailing practices in the field.MethodsWe reviewed 43 HTA guidelines to determine whether and how they addressed drug genericization in their CEAs. We also selected a sample of 270 US-based CEAs from the Tufts Medical Center’s CEA Registry, restricting the sample to studies on pharmaceuticals published from 1991 to 2019 and to analyses taking a lifetime time horizon. We determined whether each CEA examined genericization (and if so, whether in base case or sensitivity analyses), and how inclusion of genericization influenced the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsFourteen (33%) of the 43 HTA guidelines mention genericization for CEAs and 4 (9%) recommend that base case analyses include assumptions about future drug price changes due to genericization. Most published CEAs (95%) do not include assumptions about future generic prices for intervention drugs. Only 2% include such assumptions about comparator drugs. Most studies (72%) conduct sensitivity analyses on drug prices unrelated to genericization.ConclusionsThe omission of assumptions about genericization means that CEAs may misrepresent the long run opportunity costs for drugs. The field needs clearer guidance for when CEAs should account for genericization, and for the inclusion of other price dynamics that might influence a drug’s cost-effectiveness.     

Development of an EQ-5D Value Set for India Using an Extended Design (DEVINE) Study: The Indian 5-Level Version EQ-5D Value Set

ObjectivesThis study aimed to develop the Indian 5-level version EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) value set, which is a key input in health technology assessment for resource allocation in healthcare.MethodsA cross-sectional survey using the EuroQol Group’s Valuation Technology was undertaken in a representative sample of 3548 adult respondents, selected from 5 different states of India using a multistage stratified random sampling technique. The participants were interviewed using a computer-assisted personal interviewing technique. This study adopted a novel extended EuroQol Group’s Valuation Technology design that included 18 blocks of 10 composite time trade-off (c-TTO) tasks, comprising 150 unique health states, and 36 blocks of 7 discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks, comprising 252 DCE pairs. Different models were explored for their predictive performance. Hybrid modeling approach using both c-TTO and DCE data was used to estimate the value set.ResultsA total of 2409 interviews were included in the analysis. The hybrid heteroscedastic model with censoring at ?1 combining c-TTO and DCE data yielded the most consistent results and was used for the generation of the value set. The predicted values for all 3125 health states ranged from ?0.923 to 1. The preference values were most affected by the pain/discomfort dimension.ConclusionsThis is the largest EQ-5D-5L valuation study conducted so far in the world. The Indian EQ-5D-5L value set will promote the effective conduct of health technology assessment studies in India, thereby generating credible evidence for efficient resource use in healthcare.     

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

ObjectivesAs healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a “living” systematic review approach.MethodsKey databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.ResultsOverall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.ConclusionsPresently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this “living” review.     

补肾益智方治疗阿尔兹海默病的研究进展

阿尔茨海默病（AD）是最常见的痴呆形式,目前缺少疾病修饰性的治疗药物。中医理论认为肾精亏虚是AD发生发展的内在机制,补肾益精是中医治疗AD的基本原则,贯穿AD治疗的始终。补肾益智方是治疗AD的临床经验方。补肾益智方治疗AD已有大量文献报道,但补肾益智方缺乏临床应用安全性评价,同时其基础研究薄弱,有效成分不明、多靶点作用机制不清。为阐明补肾益智方多成分、多靶点、多途径治疗AD的作用机制,该文综述了补肾益智方治疗AD的研究进展。进一步收集了16个基于高效液相色谱指纹图谱的补肾益智方主要化学成分,并对其成药性与安全性进行评价。利用基于AD重要病理生理学过程的网络药理学与文献综述相结合的方法,深入分析了补肾益智方靶向胆碱能系统、AD神经病理学特征的有效成分及可能机制。该研究为AD对症治疗、疾病修饰性治疗的药物研发提供了一系列有潜力的先导化合物,并为深入拓展补肾益智方的临床应用提供了理论依据。     

电子鼻技术应用于白及及其近似饮片快速辨识的可行性分析

目的：探讨电子鼻技术应用于白及及其近似饮片快速辨识的可行性。方法：收集134批白及及其近似饮片（白及45批、天麻30批、玉竹30批、黄花白及29批）作为待测样品,使用PEN3型电子鼻采集样品嗅觉感官数据作为自变量X,基于2020年版《中华人民共和国药典》和地方标准的鉴别结果,以及各饮片高效液相色谱法（HPLC）指纹图谱和原始采购信息,获得辨识模型的标杆数据Y,分别采用主成分分析-判别分析（PCA-DA）、偏最小二乘法-判别分析（PLS-DA）、最小二乘法-支持向量机（LS-SVM）及K-最近邻（KNN）4种化学计量学方法建立45批白及与89批非白及的二分类辨识模型和上述4种饮片的四分类辨识模型Y=F(X)。结果：经留一法交互验证,在二分类辨识中,上述4种模型分类正判率分别为97.01%、97.01%、98.51%和97.01%;在四分类辨识中,这4种模型分类正判率分别为97.76%、89.55%、98.51%和97.01%。二分类和四分类辨识模型的最高正判率均可达到98.51%,且均以LS-SVM算法为最优,最优核函数分别选择径向基核函数和线性核函数。最优模型判别结果良好,没有未分类样...     

How Assessment-Schedule Matching Limits Bias When Comparing Progression-Free Survival in Single-Arm Studies: An Application in Second-Line Urothelial Carcinoma Treatments

ObjectivesPopulation-adjusted comparisons of progression-free survival (PFS) from single-arm trials of cancer treatments can be derived using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs); however, results are still susceptible to bias, particularly if the trials had different tumor assessment schedules. This study aims to assess the effects of assessment-schedule matching (ASM) on the relative effectiveness on the PFS of avelumab versus approved comparator immunotherapies or chemotherapy after population matching in the second-line (2L) setting for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.MethodsThe MAIC used patient-level data for avelumab from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial (NCT01772004). PFS was compared with published curves for other treatments to obtain population-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). The MAIC was repeated after conducting ASM for differences in tumor assessment scheduled first at 6 weeks for avelumab and durvalumab and at 8 or 9 weeks for other treatments.ResultsMAIC adjustment alone altered the HR estimates up to 23%, whereas MAIC plus ASM resulted in up to 32.7% reductions from naive comparisons. Even in cases in which MAIC had little effect, ASM brought an additional change of 11.1% to 15.4%. Overall, the HR range of avelumab versus other treatments changed from 0.83 to 1.25 for naive comparisons to 0.76 to 0.99 after ASM plus MAIC, numerically favoring avelumab.ConclusionsSmall variations in assessment schedules can introduce bias in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons of interval-censored time-to-event outcomes. In this study, adjusted PFS was comparable across second-line urothelial carcinoma treatment options, numerically favoring avelumab versus immunotherapies and chemotherapy agents. Correcting this bias is especially important when HRs are applied in cost-effectiveness models to transition patients between states.     

Antimicrobial Resistance: Is Health Technology Assessment Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

Antimicrobial resistance is a serious challenge to the success and sustainability of our healthcare systems. There has been increasing policy attention given to antimicrobial resistance in the last few years, and increased amounts of funding have been channeled into funding for research and development of antimicrobial agents. Nevertheless, manufacturers doubt whether there will be a market for new antimicrobial technologies sufficient to enable them to recoup their investment. Health technology assessment (HTA) has a critical role in creating confidence that if valuable technologies can be developed they will be reimbursed at a level that captures their true value. We identify 3 deficiencies of current HTA processes for appraising antimicrobial agents: a methods-centric approach rather than problem-centric approach for dealing with new challenges, a lack of tools for thinking about changing patterns of infection, and the absence of an approach to epidemiological risks. We argue that, to play their role more effectively, HTA agencies need to broaden their methodological tool kit, design and communicate their analysis to a wider set of users, and incorporate long-term policy goals, such as containing resistance, as part of their evaluation criteria alongside immediate health gains.     

A Multidisciplinary,Community-Based Program to Reduce Unplanned Hospital Admissions

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of Hospital Admission Risk Program (HARP) on unplanned hospitalization, bed days, and mortality of enrolled individuals and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HARP.DesignA retrospective longitudinal analysis of hospital administrative data.InterventionIndividuals at risk of hospitalization were provided with multidisciplinary, community-based care support managed by care coordinators including integrated care planning, education, monitoring, service linkages, and general practitioner liaison over 6-9 months.Setting and ParticipantsIndividuals who were enrolled into 1 of 8 HARP chronic disease management programs between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018, at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.MethodsHospital admissions between 18 months before and 18 months after HARP enrollment were analyzed. Total hospital costs were compared between 18 months before and 12 months after HARP enrollment.ResultsA total of 1553 individuals with a median age of 71 years (interquartile range 60-81), 63.4% males, were admitted to HARP. Both unplanned hospitalizations and bed days were reduced during the HARP intervention compared to within 3 months before enrollment in each of the HARP management programs. After the HARP intervention, cardiac coach, cardiac heart failure, chronic respiratory, diabetes comanagement, and medication management programs had higher hospitalizations and bed days than individuals’ baseline of at least 3 months before HARP enrollment. Individuals in cardiac heart failure and chronic respiratory management programs had a higher mortality rate than other HARP chronic disease management programs. Individuals in cardiac coach, diabetes comanagement, and medication management programs had lower hospital costs during the HARP intervention compared to within 3 months before HARP enrollment.Conclusions and ImplicationsHARP reduced unplanned hospitalization and bed days but did not return individuals’ hospital use to baseline before the intervention. The variations in mortality between HARP chronic disease management programs implies that condition-specific goals between programs is preferable.