The fact that HTA is a value-laden process is recognized in the literature. This is one of the reasons for promoting a better integration of ethics in HTA processes. Although what is meant by value-judgment (VJ) and how it can be used in HTA is not clear for some authors; others have proposed the elicitation of implicit VJs, to make them more explicit, as one way for clarifying the role ethics may play in HTA. In order to clarify what a VJ is, a conceptual analysis is needed to distinguish it from a factual-judgment and see how they diverge on certain aspects and converge on others.

The distinction between VJs and factual-judgments was debated in the fifties. At the core of the philosophy of language was a distinction between factual-scientific assertions about facts, considered objective, and VJs on what is right/wrong-good/bad, considered subjective. In speech-act theory these distinctions were treated as two different operations: assertive and evaluative. A conceptual analysis of VJs, considering them as specific speech-acts, was used for clarifying/deciphering the role of VJs in HTA.

VJs are intrinsically embedded in decision-making since they are the reasons justifying decisions. This is why implicit VJs can be identified at every decision-step in the HTA process. Assessment is usually considered objective while appraisal seems subjective. Since VJs are entrenched in the decisions taken throughout the assessment process, the results are not completely objective. Ethical analysis also distinguishes two types of VJs, those based on normative criteria and those based on various degrees of value actualization. Furthermore, since evaluation requires criteria based on a rational process, VJs are not totally subjective.

Elicitation of VJs in HTA is one way of integrating ethics in HTA and offers decision-makers a more thorough picture of the ethical issues involved in their decision.

Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies wish to ensure the impact of their HTAs. HTA impact assessment measures the influence of a HTA on decision-making and downstream to patient outcomes. Despite their potential to provide insights, the use of impact assessment frameworks by HTA agencies is limited. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of adopting HTA impact assessment frameworks is therefore important. Using a social cognitions lens, this study aims to provide insights into the enabling and hindering factors associated with the assessment of HTA impact by INAHTA members.

Using an interpretive description design, this cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews of INAHTA members to gain insight into attitudes, social support, self-efficacy, barriers, and intentions towards HTA impact assessment. Transcriptions were analyzed using a social cognitions lens by two researchers using a constant comparative method to identify themes.

Twenty-six of forty-seven INAHTA members participated. Preliminary results showed that interviewees most often perceived support for assessing impact from their ministry of health or from agency staff. Most interviewees noted challenges to measuring impact at the right time and a lack of human resources, methods, and tools as internal barriers. A lack of transparency and a limited impact assessment culture were perceived as the main external barriers. Interviewees reported feeling fairly confident in overcoming internal barriers, but were less confident in overcoming external barriers. Providing feedback for improvement to HTA processes and making achievements visible were the most frequently reported advantages of assessing impact, whereas its time consuming nature was the biggest disadvantage.

This is the first study to use a social cognitions model to understand HTA impact assessment. Although the results of this convenience sample need to be interpreted with caution, they contribute knowledge on factors that facilitate and hinder agencies in the assessment of impact and illuminate opportunities for developing effective strategies to support HTA agencies in this area.

Urothelial Bladder Cancer (UBC) is the ninth worldwide most common cancer. In Italy the prevalence of the disease is about 10 percent, representing the third most prevalent cancer with 180,775 cases in men and 42,757 cases in women. The increase in the incidence requires continuous surveillance and care, resulting in a significant burden on Italian Healthcare System, making any improvement to the strategy for diagnosing and treating this disease important to the medical and scientific community. The aim of this study was to evaluate the burden of UBC in the Italian context, collecting and measuring the total costs of the disease.

An economic analysis in the National Health Service perspective was carried out, evaluating in six centers direct costs in terms of outpatient, inpatient and emergency care, pharmaceuticals and follow up procedures and indirect costs in terms of productivity losses. Data were collected through aggregated form reports, focusing on patients with an existing diagnosis of UBC who were taken in charge in the last year. Statistical analysis was conducted in order to explore variations between centers.

Mean total annual cost per patients was EUR11,310, increasing for disease severity from EUR6,954 for superficial disease to EUR24,896 for metastatic stage. The analysis confirmed a proportional relation between disease severity and disability grade. The total burden of the disease considering all patients, including prevalence and incidence data coming from AIOM guidelines 2015, was EUR2,833,655,822, of which 15 percent is represented by estimated productivity losses.

Our analysis represents the first economic burden study of UBC in the Italian context as well as the first real life evidence of the current therapeutic algorithm. This study opens the possibility for further analysis on the indirect costs components that represent a great burden for the society, especially for the stages of the disease with high disability grade.

There is increased recognition of the need to include equity considerations in HTA. Despite this, a recent World Health Organization report has found that this is seldom the case. We developed a preliminary version of an equity checklist in the hopes that tangible guidance will increase such analyses in the future and contribute to smart capability building.

The checklist is based on the Equity Framework for HTA developed by Culyer & Bombard (2012). The elements presented in the framework were revised to follow the stepwise HTA process. A comprehensive literature search was used to update and complete the elements. The checklist was then piloted in an HTA in 2018 and subsequently further refined through a workshop during a national HTA conference in Canada.

These steps resulted in a 27-item checklist leading to consider different aspects of the three major phases in the HTA process. The scoping phase brings questions relative to defining and contextualizing equity, such as highlighting potential minority groups and including vulnerability factors in the logic model. The development phase leads methodological approaches facilitating the analysis of inequities as well as considering contextual realities leading to inequities. The last phase, drafting of recommendations, aims to be aware of the evidence synthesis approaches as well as the various aspects to ensure recommendations consider existing inequities and avoid contributing to their development.

Given the essence of HTA to protect health by ensuring optimal technologies and interventions are adopted to the benefit of all system users, the consideration of inequities should constitute an integral part of its process. The use of a pragmatic and simple checklist to aid the planning of an HTA could contribute to greater consideration of inequities in the future. A movement in this direction could also lead to greater methodological developments for health equity analysis in HTA.

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data are important in understanding patients’ experience of disease and treatment; however, PRO data are not universally collected or consistently included as part of a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) submission. Additionally, the HTA bodies’ response to PRO data vary, making the impact unclear. To understand the impact of PRO data on reimbursement decisions for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) indications, an in-depth analysis of HTA bodies’ appraisals of AML and analogous indications was conducted.

This analysis was conducted using IQVIA's HTA Accelerator, which contains HTA appraisals from ≥100 HTA agencies in thirty-nine countries. Included in the analysis were single-technology assessments (original submissions, resubmissions, extensions of original indications, and renewals); relevant regulatory approvals and pivotal trials were also analyzed.

Of the 185 AML appraisals from sixteen HTA bodies, 66 (36%) included PRO data. Within these, thirteen different PRO instruments were identified, none of which have been validated in patients with AML. For seven of twenty in-scope products, PRO evidence positively impacted ≥1 of the HTA decisions. Although the same HTA bodies (i.e., Scottish Medicines Consortium, pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence) generally accepted the PRO evidence, others were critical of the evidence (i.e., Haute Autorité de Santé and the Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen). The most common concerns raised by the HTA bodies regarding the PRO evidence included trial design and low patient response rate.

Of the products that included PRO evidence in their HTA submissions, 35% received positive feedback from ≥1 HTA body on their submitted PRO evidence. Attention to PRO data collection is key to demonstrate the value of AML products to HTA bodies. Without these data, a clear gap in the understanding of patients’ experience is evident.

Since the creation of the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation in the Brazilian Health System (CONITEC), a new phase started in the public Brazilian Health System (SUS): a continuous updating of the system based on Health Technology Assessment (HTA). CONITEC was created by federal law in 2012 and is responsible for advising the Ministry of Health regarding the incorporation or disinvestment of health technologies. The whole process involves a strong interaction with society, including the composition of the committee, which has the participation of the National Health Council. The objective of this study was to describe the results of CONITEC in five years of operation.

This is a retrospective descriptive study, based on information from the database (period 2012–2016) and CONITEC's website.

Since 2012, CONITEC assessed 541 technologies, including drugs (360), health products (71) and procedures (110); 303 assessment requests came from SUS agencies and institutions and the other 238 requests from pharmaceutical companies, medical societies, patient associations and the judiciary bodies. In this period, there were 190 public consultations, during which more than 24,000 feedback from society were received. The average time for evaluation was 146 days. The committee recommended the incorporation of 186 technologies into SUS, the disinvestment of 43 and was unfavorable to the incorporation of 88, generating a budgetary impact of approximately BRL2.5 billion (USD764 million).

From 2012–2016, CONITEC tripled the average annual incorporation of new technologies compared to the period 2006–2011. In this process, it was necessary to assess efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of technologies, generating positive results for the expansion of access, health gains for patients and sustainability for the system. It should be considered that the use of evidence for decision making strengthens transparency in public management and the development of active processes of information, communication and social participation.

We evaluated the early impact of a new hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) program, called Smart Innovation, at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC).

We compared the UWMC's utilization trends for two surgical procedures to control hospitals by evaluating the difference before and after adoption decisions: (i) a new filter for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures that treat aortic valve stenosis and (ii) microwave ablation (MWA) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma. We used descriptive statistics to assess the difference between the UWMC and controls for TAVR and MWA procedures and multivariate difference-in-differences (DID) analyses to test for statistical significance.

The UWMC experienced a 10 percent reduction in TAVR procedures compared with controls following the implementation of the TAVR Sentinel filter. The DID regression model indicated a 1.5 reduction in the number of TAVR procedures per quarter at the UWMC between the pre- and post period, which was not statistically significant (p-value: .87). The UWMC experienced a 51 percent reduction in utilization when compared with controls for MWA procedures in the pre- and post periods. The DID model for MWA indicated an 18.8 decrease in utilization per quarter during the study period for the UWMC, which was statistically significant (p-value: .0007). For MWA procedures, the UWMC experienced a $647,658 dollar reduction in total costs in the post period compared with controls.

When the UWMC used HB-HTA methods for technology adoption, there was a reduction in utilization and total costs when compared with controls; however, when the UWMC adopted a new technology without using HB-HTA methods, there was no difference in utilization.

To assess the clinical effectiveness of fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) versus placebo on nasal symptoms and safety in children with perennial allergic rhinitis (AR).

A comprehensive review was conducted with data obtained from Medline and Embase databases up to April 2023. The population of interest was patients aged 2–12 years with perennial AR. The selection was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing FFNS with placebo. Outcomes of interest included the reflective total nasal symptoms scores (rTNSS) and safety. To assess the minimal clinically important difference for rTNSS, the Cohen’s guideline was used. If the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and the lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) exceeded the threshold of −0.20, effects were considered clinically significant.

Three RCTs (959 pediatric patients) were selected. One study evaluated the short-term use of FFNS, another evaluated the long-term use of FFNS, and another evaluated both the short-term and long-term use of FFNS. FFNS produced a statistically significant reduction over placebo in rTNSS (SMD −0.18; 95 percent CI −0.35 to −0.01, p = 0.03) in long-term treatment studies, but not in short-term treatment studies. However, since the mean reduction did not reach the minimum clinically important difference (SMD −0.20), these results were considered clinically not relevant. Safety outcomes with FFNS were similar to placebo.

The currently available evidence suggests that FFNS, 110 μg once daily, compared to placebo, does not produce a meaningful clinical effect on nasal symptom in children with perennial AR.