The overarching goal of this research was to (i) evaluate the impact of reports with recommendations provided by a hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) unit on the local hospital decision-making processes and implementation activities and (ii) identify the underlying factors of the nonimplementation of recommendations.

All reports produced by the HB-HTA unit between December 2003 and March 2013 were retrieved, and hospital decision makers who requested these reports were solicited for enrolment. Participants were interviewed using a mixed design survey.

Twenty reports, associated with fifteen decision makers, fulfilled the study criteria. Nine decision makers accepted to participate, corresponding to thirteen reports and twenty-three recommendations. Of the twenty-three recommendations issued, 65 percent were implemented, 9 percent were accepted for implementation but not implemented, and 26 percent were declined. In terms of the utility of each report to guide decision makers, 92 percent of the reports were considered in the decision-making process; 85 percent had one or more recommendations adopted; and 77 percent had recommendations implemented. The most frequently mentioned reasons for nonimplementation were related to contextual factors (64 percent), production/diffusion process factors (14 percent), content/format factors (14 percent), or other factors (9 percent). Among the contextual factors, the complexity of the changes (i.e., administrative reasons), budget and resources constraints, failure to identify administrative responsibility to carry out the recommendation, and nonpriority status of the HTA recommendation, were provided.

This study highlights that although HB-HTA reports are useful to hospital managers in their decision-making processes, certain barriers such as contextual factors need to be better addressed to improve HB-HTA efficiency and usefulness.

Smartphone Apps are one of the tools available to support patients who wish to quit smoking. Content analysis studies have indicated multiple deficiencies within these Apps including minimal use of evidence-based research and Nicotine Dependence Treatment Provider (NDTP) in App development. The aim of this study was to determine quality and features of smoking cessation Apps available on Android® and iOS® platforms.

The first fifty free smoking cessation Apps available for download using the search term smoking cessation on Google Play Store and Apple App Store were chosen. Each of these Apps was analyzed and categorized based on ratings, target audience age, language, and a variety of tracking functionalities noted on the Apps. Indications and suggestions regarding either the use of NDTP or evidence-based behavior change protocols were noted.

There were no significant differences in the features of smoking cessation Apps on Android and iOS. Only 15 percent of all Apps analyzed on both platforms indicated some involvement of NDTP and there was no difference between the two platforms. More than 50 percent of Apps studied were downloaded over half a million times and the average user rating was 3.89/5.00 for Android and 3.72/5.00 for iOS with no significant difference.

Most smoking cessation Apps in both platforms offer basic tracking functionalities with limited motivational tips. Only a handful of Apps have moved beyond this role and while their development is applaudable much innovation remains.

The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Latin America Policy Forum (LAPF) will meet for the third time on 23 and 24 April 2018 in Montevideo, Uruguay. The topic chosen for this meeting is ‘defining the value of health technologies in Latin America’. Due to the differing levels of maturity in the HTA systems and approaches by countries in the region, this topic deserves specific analysis and consideration for the Latin America region.

A background paper is in development for the LAPF, and will be informed by a review of policy publications in scientific databases, google scholar plus other grey literature. The background paper will summarize the relevance of value frameworks around the world (building on the 2017 HTAi Global Policy Forum background paper and discussions) and will narratively synthesize key findings globally and draw out issues and experiences relevant to the Latin America region. This will be used to provoke the discussions and debates at the LAPF.

This presentation will focus on summarizing the background paper that was used to inform the discussion over the two days of the LAPF, highlighting the key findings on value frameworks from the Latin America region. The presentation will also summarize the key questions for deliberation that were brought to the attention of the meeting attendees, plus the key questions that were posed for the guided breakout sessions will be presented.

The presentation will provide a great opportunity for HTAi members to hear about the ‘state of the art’ methodologies for valuing health technologies in the Latin America region.

The aim of this study is to review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of exercise-based interventions in the treatment of chronic conditions a decade after the publication of Roine et al. in 2009 (Roine E, Roine RP, Räsänen P, et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:427–454).

We carried out a review of published articles in PUBMED and JSTOR between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2016. Full economic evaluations of exercise programs targeting patients with a chronic condition were eligible for inclusion. Data on program, design, and economic characteristics were extracted using a predefined extraction form. The quality of the economic evaluations was appraised using the adjusted Consensus Health Economic Criteria List.

A total of 426 articles were identified and thirty-seven studies were selected. Eleven studies dealt with musculoskeletal and rheumatologic disorders, ten with cardiovascular diseases, six with neurological disorders, three with mental illnesses, three with cancers, and four with diabetes, respiratory diseases, or pelvic organ prolapse. In total, 60 percent of exercise programs were dominant or cost-effective. For musculoskeletal and rheumatologic disorders, 72 percent of programs were dominant or cost-effective while this was the case for 57 percent of programs for cardiovascular diseases using a nonsurgical comparator.

There is clear evidence in favor of exercise-based programs for the treatment of musculoskeletal and rheumatologic disorders and, to a lesser extent, for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. More research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physical activity in the treatment of neurological disorders, mental illnesses, cancers, respiratory diseases, and diabetes/obesity.

Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods guidelines for medical devices may benefit from contributions by biomedical and clinical engineers. Our study aims to: (i) review and identify gaps in the current HTA guidelines on medical devices, (ii) propose recommendations to optimize the impact of HTA for medical devices, and (iii) reach a consensus among biomedical engineers on these recommendations.

A gray literature search of HTA agency Web sites for assessment methods guidelines on devices was conducted. The International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) then convened a structured focus group, with experts from different fields, to identify potential gaps in the current HTA guidelines, and to develop recommendations to fill these perceived gaps. The thirty recommendations generated from the focus group were circulated in a Delphi survey to eighty-five biomedical and clinical engineers.

Thirty-two panelists, from seventeen countries, participated in the Delphi survey. The responses showed a strong agreement on twenty-seven of thirty recommendations. Some uncertainties remain about the methods to accurately assess the effectiveness and safety, and interoperability of a medical device with other devices or within the clinical setting.

As medical devices differ from drug therapies, current HTA methods may not accurately reflect the conclusions of their assessment. Recommendations informed by the focus group discussions and Delphi survey responses aimed to address the perceived gaps, and to provide a more integrated approach in medical device assessments in combining engineering with other perspectives, such as clinical, economic, patient, human factors, ethical, and environmental.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exposure in vivo (EXP, a cognitive-behavioral treatment targeting pain-related fear) in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I (CRPS-I), as compared to pain-contingent physical therapy (PPT).

Data from a randomized controlled trial were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of EXP versus PPT from a societal perspective. Intervention costs, other healthcare costs, costs to patient and family, and productivity losses were included. The main outcomes were changes in the SF-36 physical component scale and quality-adjusted life-years. Changes were followed until 6 months after treatment. Uncertainty was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap analysis, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check robustness of findings.

Forty-six patients were randomized and thirty-eight completed the study. Over 6 months, EXP resulted in greater improvement in physical health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years than PPT. Despite higher initial treatment costs, EXP showed a tendency to reduce all costs compared with PPT; healthcare costs were significantly reduced. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness planes were in favor of EXP. Sensitivity analyses, for different program costs and complete cases only, confirmed robustness of these findings.

EXP, a cognitive-behavioral treatment, seems more cost-effective than PPT in CRPS patients with pain-related fear. The initial higher costs for EXP are offset by a long-term reduction of costs for healthcare use, and a tendency to lower work absenteeism and reduced societal costs. Due to low sample sizes, replication of findings is required to confirm results.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data generated by generic, preference-based instruments (i.e., EQ-5D) are highly demanded in health policy decision making, because they allow for direct comparisons of HRQoL outcomes between disease areas. We aimed to quantify HRQoL outcomes in breast cancer (BC), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis (MS), rare cancers (RC), and rare disease (RD) patients and understand the patterns that differentiate HRQoL outcomes between these disease areas, and more specifically between rare and more common disease population groups.

An international, Web survey of patients measured HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L), self-perceived health (EQ-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale), and additional QoL dimensions, such as patient disability level.

We received 675 completed responses. Average utility loss was 53.5 percent, 32.5 percent, and 33.3 percent for RD, RA, and MS patients, respectively, in contrast to 18.6 percent for BC and RC patients. Statistically significant differences (p < .05) were observed between disease groups in all EQ-5D-5L domain outcomes, apart from that of “Anxiety/Depression.” Severe and/or extreme problems were reported in performing usual activities for RD and RC (34 percent and 13 percent of overall problems reported respectively), mobility for MS (18 percent), pain/discomfort for RA (13 percent), and anxiety/depression for BC (7 percent) patients.

We demonstrated significant differences in the dimensions that drive HRQoL outcomes between rare and more common diseases and showcased that the same EQ-5D utility may reflect very different severities depending on the patient population under investigation. Future research should examine whether outcomes in other, critical HRQoL domains not included in generic measures also highlight significant differences across disease areas.

In 2007, the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC) developed a decision framework to guide decision making around nondrug health technologies. In 2012, OHTAC commissioned a revision of this framework to enhance its usability and deepen its conceptual and theoretical foundations.

The committee overseeing this work used several methods: (a) a priori consensus on guiding principles, (b) a scoping review of decision attributes and processes used globally in health technology assessment (HTA), (c) presentations by methods experts and members of review committees, and (d) committee deliberations over a period of 3 years.

The committee adopted a multi-criteria decision-making approach, but rejected the formal use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Three broad categories of attributes were identified: (I) context criteria attributes included factors such as stakeholders, adoption pressures from neighboring jurisdictions, and potential conflicts of interest; (II) primary appraisal criteria attributes included (i) benefits and harms, (ii) economics, and (iii) patient-centered care; (III) feasibility criteria attributes included budget impact and organizational feasibility.

The revised Ontario Decision Framework is similar in some respects to frameworks used in HTA worldwide. Its distinctive characteristics are that: it is based on an explicit set of social values; HTA paradigms (evidence based medicine, economics, and bioethics/social science) are used to aggregate decision attributes; and that it is rooted in a theoretical framework of optimal decision making, rather than one related to broad social goals, such as health or welfare maximization.

The aim of this study was to systematically investigate existing literature on the costs of home-based telemedicine programs, and to further summarize how the costs of these telemedicine programs vary by equipment and services provided.

We undertook a systematic review of related literature by searching electronic bibliographic databases and identifying studies published from January 1, 2000, to November 30, 2017. The search was restricted to studies published in English, results from adult patients, and evaluation of home telemedicine programs implemented in the United States. Summarized telemedicine costs per unit of outcome measures were reported.

Twelve studies were eligible for our review. The overall annual cost of providing home-based telemedicine varied substantially depending on specific chronic conditions, ranging from USD1,352 for heart failure to USD206,718 for congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes as a whole. The estimated cost per-patient-visit ranged from USD24 for cancer to USD39 for CHF, COPD, or chronic wound care.

The costs of home-based telemedicine programs varied substantially by program components, disease type, equipment used, and services provided. All the selected studies indicated that home telemedicine programs reduced care costs, although detailed cost data were either incomplete or not presented in detail. A comprehensive analysis of the cost of home-based telemedicine programs and their determinants is still required before the cost efficiency of these programs can be better understood, which becomes crucial for these programs to be more widely adopted and reimbursed.

The third Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Latin America Policy Forum (LAPF) will meet on 23 and 24 April 2018 in Montevideo, Uruguay. The format of the LAPF echoes that of the HTAi Global Policy Forum and provides a unique opportunity as a leadership meeting for senior people from public and private sector organizations using HTA. The aim of the LAPF is to provide an environment where senior people can engage in strategic discussions, informed by the perspectives of their different organizations, without the constraints associated with discussions of specific products or organizational policies.

The HTAi LPF will convene around 50 senior representatives from HTA agencies and industry members active in the Latin America region. The topic that has been chosen by the organizing committee is ‘defining the value of health technologies in Latin America’ and this will be discussed over two days by attendees.

This presentation will focus on summarizing the key messages that resulted from the two days of discussions at the LAPF. The views reflected will balance those of the not-for-profit agencies and private industry sector attendees, while respecting the ‘Chatham House’ rule (whereby no quotes will be directly attributed to any attendee). It will draw out any conclusions from the plenary sessions and the guided breakout sessions from the event. Any actions that are resulting from the event will also be summarized.

The presentation will provide a great opportunity for the wider HTAi membership to hear reflections on the key messages resulting from the event. This could provide an opportunity for further questions and debate surrounding the key issues to occur, such us any difference between valuing technologies in the Latin America Region with the approaches made in the European Union and North America.

Health systems in the Asia region seek to achieve universal health care (UHC) by increasing access to essential healthcare services, while reducing health inequalities and out-of-pocket expenditure. With this in mind, the discussion for the 2017 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (APF) centered around the topic of ‘Universal Healthcare in the Asia Region: Overcoming the Barriers using HTA and Real World Data’.

As part of the background paper prepared to inform discussions at the APF, attendees from public sector HTA agencies from nine countries, and industry attendees from eight companies, were surveyed to explore issues on the barriers and challenges of establishing UHC in the region and use of real world data (RWD).

Most countries used evidence-based decision-making when considering which technologies to add to healthcare benefit packages; however, this was at times inconsistently applied. Prioritization criteria included burden of disease, unmet clinical need, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and affordability. The political agenda and deference to expert opinion also played a role. Although all countries reported using RWD to inform decision-making, they also reported issues including lack of capacity, poor quality data and lack of collaboration between private and public sectors, as well as a conservative approach to data-linkage. It became apparent that a disconnect had been identified, as industry overwhelmingly identified access to RWD in the region as a major issue.

Discussing the differences in opinion between HTA agencies and industry led to a greater understanding of issues in the Asia region, and will lead to increased dialogue and opportunities to collaborate in the future. Building capacity in the region will assist countries to deliver on their goal of achieving UHC.

Large numbers of new medical devices and diagnostics are developed and health services need to identify which ones offer real advantages. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has introduced a system for assessing technologies that are often notified by companies, based on claims made for their benefits to patients, the National Health Service, and the environment.

Detailed scrutiny of claims made for the benefits of products and the corresponding evidence, seeking associations between these and the selection of products for full evaluation to produce NICE guidance.

Between 2009 and 2015 a NICE committee considered 169 technologies, of which it selected 74 (44 percent) for full evaluation, based on the claims of benefit and the evidence available. An average of 7.5 claims were made per technology; the total number did not influence selection but presence of studies supporting all the claims (p < .001) or any of the claims (p < .05) had a positive influence, as did claims for quicker patient recovery (p < .001). A greater number of studies to support the claims made selection more likely (p < .001), as did cohort studies (p < .05) and surveys (p < .05) but, unexpectedly, not randomized trials. The Medical Device Directive class had no influence.

This study presents categories of claims that may be useful to those developing new products and to others engaged in health technology assessment. It illustrates the importance of relevant evidence and of having a clear vision of the place of new products in care pathways from an early stage.

A primary outcome in oncology trials is overall survival (OS). However, to estimate OS accurately requires a sufficient number of patients to have died, which may take a long time. If an alternative end point is sufficiently highly correlated with OS, it can be used as a surrogate. Progression-free survival (PFS) is the surrogate most often used in oncology, but does not always satisfy the correlation conditions for surrogacy. We analyze the methodologies used when extrapolating from PFS to OS.

Davis et al. previously reviewed the use of surrogate end points in oncology, using papers published between 2001 and 2011. We extend this, reviewing papers published between 2012 and 2016. We also examine the reporting of statistical methods to assess the strength of surrogacy.

The findings from 2012 to 2016 do not differ substantially from those of 2001 to 2011: the same factors are shown to affect the relationship between PFS and OS. The proportion of papers reporting individual patient data (IPD), strongly recommended for full assessment of surrogacy, remains low: 33 percent. A wide range of methods has been used to determine the appropriateness of surrogates. While usually adhering to reporting standards, the standard of scholarship appears sometimes to be questionable and the reporting of results often haphazard.

Standards of analysis and reporting PFS to OS surrogate studies should be improved by increasing the rigor of statistical reporting and by agreeing to a minimum set of reporting guidelines. Moreover, the use of IPD to assess surrogacy should increase.