To systematically identify the latest versions of official economic evaluation guidelines (EEGs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and explore similarities and differences in their content.

We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature. Using a predefined checklist, we extracted the key features of economic evaluation and the general characteristics of EEGs. We conducted a comparative analysis, including a summary of similarities and differences across EEGs.

Thirteen EEGs were identified, three pertaining to lower-middle-income countries (Bhutan, Egypt, and Indonesia), nine to upper-middle-income countries (Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, and Thailand), in addition to Mercosur, and none to low-income countries. The majority (n = 12) considered cost–utility analysis and health-related quality-of-life outcome. Half of the EEGs recommended the societal perspective, whereas the other half recommended the healthcare perspective. Equity considerations were required in ten EEGs. Most EEGs (n = 11) required the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and recommended sensitivity analysis, as well as the presentation of a budget impact analysis (n = 10). Seven of the identified EEGs were mandatory for pharmacoeconomics submission. Methodological gaps, contradictions, and heterogeneity in terminologies used were identified within the guidelines.

As the importance of health technology assessment is increasing in LMICs, this systematic review could help researchers explore key aspects of existing EEGs in LMICs and explore differences among them. It could also support international organizations in guiding LMICs to develop their own EEGs and improve the methodological framework of existing ones.

The use of telemedicine has broadened as technology that both restores continuity of care during disruptions in healthcare delivery and routinely provides primary care alone or in combination with in-person care. During the Covid-19 outbreak, the use of telemedicine as a routine care modality further accelerated.

A review of scientific studies that used telemedicine to provide care from December 2019 to December 2020 is presented. From an initial set of 2,191 articles, 36 studies are analyzed. Evidence is organized and evaluated according to the country of study, the clinical specialty, the technology platform used, and satisfaction and utilization outcomes.

Thirty-one studies reported high patient satisfaction scores. Eight studies reported satisfaction from both providers and patients with no uniformly accepted assessment instrument. Eight studies conducted a descriptive analysis of telemedicine use and patient adoption patterns. Less than one-third of studies were controlled before/after studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA followed by Europe.

Reported satisfaction rates are high, consistent with previously documented research, whereas utilization rates increased significantly compared with the prepandemic period. Future work in developing standardized uniform assessment instruments, embedded with each telemedicine system, would increase versatility and agility in the assessment, boosting statistical power and the interpretation of results.

This project was implemented on behalf of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Consumer Consultative Committee (CCC) to explore training to support and retain new consumer representatives to participate effectively in HTA committees. These committees are key parts of the Australian Government's health system. Currently, there is no training available to them, specific to their roles in HTA committees. Hypothesizing that mentoring is appropriate, the project team undertook a literature review to identify definitions of mentoring, its benefits, skills requirements, resources, examples of best practice, and how mentoring might support consumer representatives in formal health technology assessment committee structures.

A rapid review was commenced by the project team and fifty-seven articles were identified and read independently. Following discussion, the team revised its approach as there was little evidence to assess and drew upon thirty-five articles where elements of mentoring were described. Discussion was followed by a thematic qualitative analysis exploring mentoring models.

The project team agreed that features of mentoring programs were necessary to design a mentoring program under the headings of definitions, mentors’ qualities, benefits of training, resources, other considerations, and evaluation. These assist the design of a pilot project to test mentoring's effectiveness.

Mentoring may assist consumers working in the health technology area to develop their skills and competencies and contribute to representing the needs of health consumers in the approval of applications. A pilot mentoring program is currently being designed and will run with one mentor and one mentee in an HTA committee.

Mini health technology assessment (HTA) reports have been used to support policy makers and health systems by providing a timely summary of scientific evidence. The objective of this meta-epidemiologic study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of mini-HTA reports published in Brazil.

An electronic search for all mini-HTA reports published between 2014 and March 2019 was conducted in the SISREBRATS and CONITEC databases. The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent assessors. The following data were extracted: bibliographic data; research question; characteristics of the population, health technologies and outcomes assessed; eligibility criteria; information about searches and study selection; risk of bias assessment; quality of evidence assessment; synthesis of results; and recommendation about the technology evaluated. A descriptive analysis was used to summarize the information retrieved from all the included mini-HTA reports.

We included 103 mini-HTA reports, the great majority of which (92.3 percent) focused on the coverage of the technologies in the healthcare system, with more than 60 percent being about drugs. Only five mini-HTA reports (4.8 percent) gave reasons for the choice of outcomes, and fifteen (14.5 percent) discriminated between primary and secondary outcomes. All mini-HTAs reported the databases searched and 99 percent of them reported using Medline. Sixty percent of the mini-HTA reported assessing the risk of bias, and 52 percent reported assessing the quality of evidence.

The quality of reporting of the mini-HTA reports performed in Brazil is insufficient and needs to be improved to guarantee transparency and replicability.

This study aims to identify and codify the facilitators and barriers to help implementing partners institutionalize health technology assessment (HTA) successfully and navigate complex systems for health-related policy making.

We searched for peer-reviewed and gray literature articles examining HTA programs globally using six databases. Keywords used as a guide for capturing articles included “health technology assessment,” “barrier,” and “facilitator” and their synonyms. Search results were scrutinized for duplicates and screened through a review of titles and abstracts. A full-text review was conducted exploring articles’ coverage of twenty-seven evaluation criteria across four primary areas of interest: barriers/facilitators, motivations, guidelines, and institutional frameworks.

A total of 18,599 records were identified for duplication check, title, and abstract review. A total of 1,594 articles underwent full-text review, leading to a final synthesis of 262 studies. We found that ninety-seven articles discussed barriers/facilitators, with fifty-three of those discussing local capacity and unavailable human resources. Out of the sixty-six articles discussing motivations, forty-two cited the interest in supporting the decision-making process for, and promoting, appropriate resource allocation. Of the sixty-one articles that discussed guidelines and institutional framework, twenty-one articles described HTA as an independent national unit, and sixteen described their HTA unit as a unit within the Ministry of Health (MOH).

This systematic review unpacks the dynamic and relevant contexts for understanding the HTA institutionalization process to help policy makers and practitioners achieve tangible progress in confronting the most critical issues facing priority setting and HTA institutionalization.

Although health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare quality improvement are distinct processes, a greater level of alignment in outcome measures used may increase the quality and efficiency of data collection. This study evaluates the agreement in outcome measures used in oncology for healthcare quality improvement and HTAs, and how these align to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard sets.

We conducted a cross-sectional comparative analysis of ICHOM sets focusing on oncological indications and publicly available measures for healthcare quality and HTA reports published by the National Health Care Institute from the Netherlands and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence from the United Kingdom.

All ICHOM sets and HTAs used overall survival, whereas quality improvement used different survival estimates. Different progression estimates for cancer were used in HTAs, ICHOM sets, and quality improvement. Data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was recommended in all ICHOM sets and all HTAs, but selectively for quality improvement. In HTAs, generic HRQoL questionnaires were preferred, whereas, in quality improvement and ICHOM sets, disease-specific questionnaires were recommended. Unfavorable outcomes were included in all HTAs and all ICHOM sets, but not always for quality improvement.

Although HTA and quality improvement use outcome measures from the same domains, a greater level of alignment seems possible. ICHOM may provide input on standardized outcome measures to support this alignment. However, residual discrepancies will remain due to the different objectives of HTA and quality improvement.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in the Brazilian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process occurs in response to a legislative mandate for “social participation.” This resulted in some limited patient participation activities, and, therefore, a more systematic approach was needed. The study describes the development of a suggested framework for action to improve PPI in HTA.

This work used formal methodology to develop a PPI framework based on three-phase mixed-methods research with desktop review of Brazilian PPI activities in HTA; workshop, survey, and interviews with Brazilian stakeholders; and a rapid review of international practices to enact effective patient involvement. Patient partners reviewed the draft framework.

According to patient group representatives, their involvement in the Brazilian HTA process is important but could be improved. Different stakeholders perceived barriers, identified values, and made suggestions for improvement, such as expansion of communication, capacity building, and transparency, to support more meaningful patient involvement. The international practices identified opportunities for earlier, more active, and collaborative PPI during all HTA stages, based on values and principles that are relevant for Brazilian patients and the public. These findings were synthesized to design a framework that defines and systematizes actions to support PPI in Brazil, highlighting the importance of evaluating these strategies.

Since the publication of this framework, some of its suggestions are being implemented in the Brazilian HTA process to improve PPI. We encourage other HTA organizations to consider a systematic and planned approach with regular evaluation when pursuing or strengthening involvement practices.

As health services increasingly make investment decisions in digital health technologies (DHTs), a DHT-specific and comprehensive health technology assessment (HTA) process is crucial in assessing value-for-money. Research in DHTs is ever-increasing, but whether it covers the content required for HTA is unknown.

To summarize current trends in primary research on DHTs that manage chronic disease at home, particularly the coverage of content recommended for DHT-specific and comprehensive HTA.

Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library (1 January 2015 to 20 March 2020) were searched for primary research studies using keywords related to DHT and HTA domains. Studies were assessed for coverage of the most frequently recommended content to be considered in a nine domain DHT-specific HTA previously developed.

A total of 178 DHT interventions were identified, predominantly randomized controlled trials targeting cardiovascular disease/diabetes in high- to middle-income countries. A coverage assessment of the cardiovascular and diabetes DHT studies (112) revealed less than half covered DHT-specific content in all but the health problem domain. Content common to all technologies but essential for DHTs was covered by more than half the studies in all domains except for the effectiveness and ethical analysis domains.

Although DHT research is increasing, it is not covering all the content recommended for a DHT-specific and comprehensive HTA. The inability to conduct such an HTA may lead to health services making suboptimal investment decisions. Measures to increase the quality of trial design and reporting are required in DHT primary research.

Health technology reassessment (HTR) is a process to manage existing health technologies to ensure ongoing optimal use. A model to guide HTR was developed; however, there is limited practical experience. This paper addresses this knowledge gap through the completion of a multi-phase HTR of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices in the intensive care unit (ICU).

The HTR consisted of three phases and here we report on the final phase: the development, implementation, and evaluation of behavior change interventions aimed at addressing inappropriate RBC transfusions in an ICU.

The interventions, comprised of group education and audit and feedback, were co-designed and implemented with clinical leaders. The intervention was evaluated through a controlled before-and-after pilot feasibility study. The primary outcome was the proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions (i.e., with a pre-transfusion hemoglobin of 70 g/L or more).

There was marked variability in the monthly proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions. Relative to the pre-intervention phase, there was no significant difference in the proportion of potentially inappropriate RBC transfusions post-intervention. Lessons from this work include the importance of early and meaningful engagement of clinical leaders; tailoring the intervention modalities; and, efficient access to data through an electronic clinical information system.

It was feasible to design, implement, and evaluate a tailored, multi-modal behavior change intervention in this small-scale pilot study. However, early evaluation of the intervention revealed no change in technology use leading to reflection on the important question of how the HTR model needs to be improved.

In England, the time gap between marketing authorization (MA) and guidance publication by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) can limit patients’ access to new medicines. In this study, our aim was to identify medicine characteristics associated with the long time gap between MA and guidance publication and explore the influencing factors.

We identified 116 single technology appraisals from 2016 to 2020 using publicly available data, and extracted information on the year of appraisal completion, application type, experiences of similar appraisals, orphan medicinal products (OMPs), cancer medicines, and accelerated assessment. Multiple regression analyses were performed to analyze the associations between the medicine characteristics and key time periods related to health technology assessment and MA processes.

OMPs were associated with a long period between MA and guidance publication. Specifically, OMPs and cancer medicines were associated with slow guidance publication after the final scope (FS) development. However, there was no association between OMPs and the period between validation of MA application and FS development. Non-double-blinded randomized clinical trials and the use of comparators not specified in the FS were associated with slow guidance publication after the FS development.

Our results demonstrate that OMPs are associated with a longer period between MA and guidance publication by the NICE than non-OMPs; this may be attributed to the slow guidance publication after the FS development. These findings indicate the necessity to shorten the appraisal process for OMPs.

The objective of this study was to investigate whether glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a valid surrogate for evaluating the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in diabetes mellitus (DM) trials.

We conducted a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of a treatment on HbA1c (mean difference between groups) and clinical outcomes (relative risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and/or kidney injury) in patients with DM. Then, we investigated the association between treatment effects on HbA1c and clinical outcomes using regression analysis at the trial level. Lastly, we interpreted the correlation coefficients (R) using the cut-off points suggested by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG). HbA1c was considered a valid surrogate if it demonstrated a strong association: lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (95 percent CI) of R greater than or equal to .85.

Nineteen RCTs were identified. All studies included adults with type 2 DM. None of the associations evaluated was strong enough to validate HbA1c as a surrogate for any clinical outcome: mortality (R = .34; 95 percent CI −.14 to .69), myocardial infarction (R = .20; −.30 to .61), heart failure (R = .08; −.40 to .53), kidney injury (R = −.04; −.52 to .47), and stroke (R = .81; .54 to .93).

The evidence from multiple placebo-controlled RCTs does not support the use of HbA1c as a surrogate to measure the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in DM studies.

The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was established in 2006. During its final project phase (joint action 3 [JA3]), it undertook an activity to define the scientific and technical principles of a model of health technology assessment (HTA) cooperation in Europe. This policy article presents the key learnings from JA3 partners about developing a model of HTA cooperation.

There were two phases to the activity: (i) A descriptive phase to describe the elements of HTA cooperation that were already in place in EUnetHTA JA3 and to identify which elements could be improved or were missing. (ii) An analytic phase synthesizing the data collected to identify learnings from the JA3 and to define the scientific and technical principles for a future model of HTA cooperation.

Learnings for developing HTA cooperation were identified in regard to the framework used to support the cooperation, the HTA activities undertaken, the involvement of internal and external actors, managing decision making and the required human resources and support services needed to undertake HTA activities and to coordinate collaboration.

These learnings coming from the experiences of the EUnetHTA JA3 are useful to inform discussions on a European Union regulation for HTA cooperation as well as subsequent work to set up the structures that will be defined in the regulation. The findings also have broader applicability and are relevant to individuals, groups, and organizations setting up HTA programs or establishing their own international collaborations.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) is an independent expert body that recommends new technologies for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Its decision-making process is evidence-based and considers a technology's clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness compared with other technologies. Since 2014, the PBAC has formally taken into account input from those impacted by the technology via an online consumer comments portal and has also reported on received comments in the Public Summary Documents (PSDs). Comments are welcomed from those whose health the technology is trying to improve, as well as carers, clinicians, and organizations. Our objective was to analyze and review consumer comments in the PBAC's decision-making process.

We extracted information about consumer comments from the PBAC PSDs from 2014–9. We conducted simple descriptive analyses.

Our findings reveal that two thirds of all submissions did not receive a single consumer comment. Of the remaining third, eight submissions (less than 1 percent) had a substantial number of consumer comments (>500). For these technologies, multiple submissions were required before a recommendation was issued. Submissions spanned multiple therapeutic areas, the therapeutic areas with the most consumer comments were genetic disease, pediatrics, and oncology.

In the light of our review, we have identified limitations to the current consumer comments process, and after an examination of the processes of other comparable health technology assessment agencies, we have identified a number of improvements that could be made to the PBAC's process to increase consumer engagement.

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the process for topic selection by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world to provide the knowledge base for the improvement of topic selection frameworks in HTA agencies.

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE to identify papers up to February 2019. Gray literature was identified by screening the Web sites of HTA agencies on the nonprofit member list of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Data were extracted for each HTA agency and synthesized, with issues including general contextual information about each agency and the process of topic selection.

Out of forty-nine nonprofit members of INAHTA, a total of seventeen HTA agencies with a framework for topic selection were identified from twenty-two included papers/documents. Multiple criteria were used for topic selection in all frameworks and agencies undertook multiple steps, which could include the specification of criteria for topic selection, identification of topics, short listing of potential topics, scoping of potential topics, scoring and ranking of potential topics, and deliberation and decision on final topics for HTA. Shortcomings were found in relation to methods of scoring and ranking as well as lack of monitoring and the evaluation of the process.

Our study provides insights into the current practice of topic selection in HTA agencies. Multiple criteria decision analysis methodology appears highly relevant to these processes. A consensus approach for the development of methods of topic selection would be valuable for the HTA community.

Presenting an approach to synthesize quantitative and qualitative information from systematic reviews of multiple health interventions.

Within the context of an EUnetHTA multi-health technology assessment of twenty-three surgical techniques, we developed synthetic single tables, using color gradients and abbreviations, with information on which technologies had been compared, estimates of the size of differences for available comparisons, their clinical relevance, and certainty of the related evidence.

The proposed methodology provided, through a single depiction, information normally included in multiple figures/tables such as network plots, league tables, and summary of findings tables.

Transferring information on benefits, risks, and certainty of the available evidence on health interventions may be challenging, especially when assessing multiple treatments: more pieces of information need to be integrated in order to show an overall picture for each of the chosen outcomes, and usual reporting tools may be targeted to researchers more than to different kinds of decision makers. While more in-depth layers of information can always be added to satisfy needs of different audiences, the proposed tools could favor a quick interpretation of articulated scientific data by both decision makers and researchers.