In recent years, several efforts have been initiated by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to increasingly incorporate patient involvement (PI) into their assessment processes. The rationale behind PI in HTA is that patients can give their perspective and experiences about health, illness and the use of health technologies, complementing clinical and healthcare system standpoints.

A recent systematic review summarized current evidence on the barriers and facilitators of PI in HTA. Barriers and facilitators were classified according to the context in which they appear, as organizational, decision-making, political and community-related.

Digital health technologies offer a singular opportunity to address some challenges faced by healthcare systems. However, we hypothesized that their intrinsic characteristics may have some implications for PI in digital HTA. We conducted a survey to gain knowledge about barriers in PI in digital HTA.

The survey was elaborated using Microsoft Forms and consisted of 31 questions divided into four blocks (organizational, decision-making, political and community-related). It was sent to three Spanish, one Catalan and one International patient umbrella organizations. The results were analysed using Microsoft Excel.

A total of four responses were received from three Spanish and one Catalan patient umbrella organizations. Results showed high, partial, and low concordance among organizations in 65 percent, 19 percent and 16 percent of the answers received, respectively. According to the results, most of the barriers for PI seem to be the same for HTA of digital health technologies as for other types of health technologies. However, two or three of the four umbrella organizations consider that HTA of digital health technologies might pose greater challenges in terms of achieving significant patient participation, sufficient patient training and knowledge of HTA processes, proper preparation and tools of the HTA experts and logistics during the HTA process.

Barriers in PI are mostly the same for digital or other types of health technologies. Few differences are related to patient training, tools, and logistics during HTA process.

Hospitals play an essential role to facilitate the appropriate introduction of health technologies into the National Health System. We aimed to analyze if the decision-making at the hospital level is based on health technology assessment (HTA).

We developed a seventeen-question survey to assess the decision-making mechanisms for the introduction of health innovation into the public hospitals of the National Health Service (NHS) of Catalonia. All questions were related to the field of HTA and health innovation. We asked about the process of new health technology acquisition, the existence of HTA units, and the impact those units might have within the center. We invited the three main public healthcare providers (n= 68 centers). We performed a quantitative analysis grouping the results by type of healthcare provider.

Thirty-five different health providers (51.5%) remitted forty-two responses. We identified two differential mechanisms for the introduction of health innovation in those centers: 51.4 percent used a directive committee for decision-making, whereas 37.1 percent employed a technical commission. Some centers (8.6%) used both options. Both the directive committees and technical commissions predominantly considered the professional experience or scientific evidence provided by the healthcare professionals of the center (80%) or external HTA reports or clinical practice guidelines (65.7%) to guide their decision-making. Using HTA products developed within the center was less frequent (34.3%). Only 57.1 percent of the healthcare providers had an HTA unit, but 75 percent of them declared that HTA products had a direct and quantifiable impact on their decision-making regarding the introduction of innovation. Healthcare providers without HTA units manifested their willingness to adopt HTA practices into their decision-making processes.

HTA at the hospital level is not a common practice when deciding to introduce innovative health technologies in the NHS of Catalonia. However, the main healthcare providers agreed that the introduction of HTA is necessary for improving their decision-making and that the HTA agency, Agency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia (AQuAS) will play a key role (training, promoting, and assessing).

The Indian healthcare landscape has witnessed several promising changes including the introduction of a comprehensive medical technology inclusion process, Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-pilot and value-based incentives for hospital services under the national public health insurance scheme. Realizing the need for a more patient-centric stance towards improving healthcare outcomes as the way forward, we propose incremental changes including greater participation of public and private care-providers in topic prioritization and the appraisal committee. We also propose a unique evidence-driven approach using reimbursement as a lever for rewarding quality and innovation in medical technologies.

We developed two discussion guides to capture the ideas around deeper involvement of care-providers and patient societies, and introduction of value-based reimbursement for incentivizing high-quality implantable medical devices in India. The guides were prepared using secondary research and key informant interviews. Over 25 key stakeholders representing payers, regulatory agencies, government authorities, clinical experts, and industry players selected through quota sampling participated in a roundtable meeting. Based on the meeting outcomes, key recommendations for leveraging medical device reimbursement for better health outcomes were developed.

This qualitative research was carried out with participation of key stakeholders across the medical device reimbursement process. The group proposed recommendations for bringing care-providers closer to the process through a structured and inclusive nomination approach involving therapy users and patient groups at various stages of evaluation. Complementing the existing value-based incentives framework for hospital services, we proposed a similar two-step pathway for incentivizing quality of implantable medical devices. The proposal includes the introduction of certification-based and outcome-based incentives built on a scientific and holistic evaluation criterion.

Through this process, we created a pragmatic and concrete call for a stronger voice from care-providers and patient groups in the evaluation process. Consecutively, the proposed innovative framework introducing value-based incentives for implantable medical devices will be instrumental in enabling access to quality health care to poor patients. These strategies follow the principles of value-based care and will go a long way in achieving better health outcomes for the population. The scientific initiative has been made possible with the support of St. Jude Medical India Pvt Ltd. (now Abbott).

The treatment of rare diseases has been a challenge for the Brazilian Unified Health System. In addition to the high costs of treatments, the characteristics inherent to this type of disease bring weaknesses to the scientific evidence of efficacy and safety. The National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation In Brazilian Public Health System (Conitec) is formed by a plenary of experts who monthly assess demands for incorporation into the public health system.

This exploratory, descriptive, and retrospective study aims to gather qualitative and quantitative data on criteria considered by healthcare decision-makers from Conitec and analyzes which rare diseases were benefited by the commission recommendations. Data from June 2012 to November 2022 were collected from the Conitec website to a specific extraction form and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

A total of 763 technologies were evaluated from June 2012 to November 2022, with 158 being drugs for rare diseases. Among these, those with the highest number of diseases benefited were multiple sclerosis 13.3 percent (n=21), cystic fibrosis 6.3 percent (n=10) and pulmonary hypertension 5.7 percent (n=9). About 70 (44.3%) technologies were incorporated into the Unified Health System to treat rare diseases. In these incorporations, 25 technologies initially had an unfavorable recommendation, and only after the public consultation they were recommended for incorporation. Reasons that contributed to this change in recommendation were the new scientific evidence presented (64%), new negotiation of the drug price (28%), and new budgetary impact by revising the calculation of the target population (8%).

The criteria for evaluating technologies for rare diseases are similar to those adopted for other clinical conditions. However, it is important to adopt specific criteria in analysis of drugs targeted at diseases considered rare for the population. Negotiating prices with industry is an important factor that was highlighted, potentially favoring access to new treatments that can modify the progress of these diseases.

Universal access to health public services was established in Brazil 32 years ago. However, health technology assessment (HTA) as a requirement for the decision-making process in the Unified Health System (SUS) was defined only in 2011 with the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation of the SUS (Conitec), which advises the Ministry of Health on the decision to incorporate health technologies into the SUS. All of Conitec’s recommendations are based on the best available scientific evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of a technology, but also include economic evaluation studies of these technologies, developed from the perspective of the SUS. Considering this an estimate of the population eligible for use of the technology under evaluation, if it is incorporated into the SUS, it is considered in the decision-making process.

This descriptive study, based on open access data from Conitec’s website, aimed at identifying the estimated number of patients potentially benefitting by the recommendations published in 2022, from January to November. Since each report includes an estimate for the first five years of incorporation of the technologies, all data were collected to check whether population growth was considered.

Finally, 38 recommendation reports were identified, with 28 reports on incorporation and 10 reports for expansion of technology use. Among them, they related to 31 medicines and seven procedures or products. In the first year after incorporating the listed technologies, a total of 7,767,321 potential beneficiary patients were estimated, while over five years the total number would increase to approximately 7,967,874 patients. There were recommended drugs for rare diseases whose benefited population did not exceed the estimate of 10 patients per year; as an example is cerliponase alfa for treating neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis. In another example, an estimate of 4,494,539 women would benefit by incorporated contraceptives into the SUS.

This study describes how accessible public health is becoming, meeting more health policies, showing potential to benefit more patients every day and showing what trends can be expected in the future.

Immunization is one of the most effective public health interventions, saving millions of lives annually. However, complex and heterogenous market access pathways can impact timely and equitable population access to vaccines. Focusing on five Asia-Pacific (APAC) countries, this study described the current vaccine market access landscape and analyzed the success factors for National Immunization Program (NIP) inclusion.

The study was conducted in two phases (i) pragmatic literature review to map current regulatory and funding pathways and identify information gaps in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Australia (ii) targeted interviews with market access and policy experts in each market to identify drivers and barriers to NIP inclusion.

Regulatory approval, driven by safety and efficacy data, followed by introduction in the private market was commonly observed in all markets. However, pathways to NIP inclusion varied within and between markets. In all markets expert panels such as National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAG) were identified to play a crucial role in providing advice to governments on NIP inclusion. Health technology assessment was increasingly used to inform decision making. However, the assessment frameworks utilized were typically designed for medicines, rather than the unique features of vaccines.

Japan, Korea and Australia provided relatively consistent coverage via national programs, despite the different processes employed to review, recommend and reimburse vaccines. In some cases, the reimbursement timeframe varied significantly for different vaccines within the same market. China and Taiwan provided coverage at the regional level, which required engagement with multiple local authorities to enable access. The key barriers to patient access were budget limitations, long reimbursement timeframes and a lack of coverage consistency. Early stakeholder engagement, local epidemiology and cost-effectiveness evidence were the main success factors for NIP inclusion.

Funding pathways for vaccines in APAC are heterogenous. Adopting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Action Plan on Vaccination Across the Life Course could increase vaccine coverage through alignment, collaboration, and improvement of reimbursement pathways in APAC.

The increasing pace at which artificial intelligence medical devices (AI-MDs) or digital health technologies (DHTs) have been introduced and integrated in healthcare has not been matched with appropriate selection criteria for health technology assessment (HTA) to inform funding decision-making. To align with international best practice and local regulatory guidance, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) developed criteria to include AI-MDs as part of its 2022 topic prioritization process for medical technologies. This abstract describes ACE’s approach to develop the inclusion criteria.

To develop key principles for including AI-MDs in ACE’s topic prioritization process, relevant information from overseas HTA agencies, local regulatory guidelines, and ACE’s existing topic selection criteria were reviewed. A search of international HTA agency websites was conducted in September 2022 to identify relevant information on inclusion of AI-MDs in healthcare for reimbursement recommendations.

Additionally, local regulatory guidelines for AI-MDs in healthcare were also identified. The inclusion criteria were then piloted with AI-MDs identified from ACE’s horizon scanning workstream to examine their feasibility for HTA topic selection.

One overseas framework on DHTs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and two local regulatory guidelines were identified. Based on the key finding that the purpose of AI-MD use in guiding clinical management and its associated risks were important considerations, the following criteria were developed: (i) full registration with the regulatory body;(ii) device characteristics should be interventional, have direct impact on patient safety, or support accurate diagnosis or treatment which is critical to avoid death and serious health deterioration; and (iii) the AI algorithm should be fixed as opposed to adaptable as per regulatory requirements. Using this inclusion criteria, eight AI-MDs surfaced from horizon scanning were screened with the above criteria and deemed suitable for HTA topic selection.

As AI technologies are increasingly used to replace or supplement current clinical practice, continuous adaptation of HTA method is needed to ensure appropriate topic selection.

Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (cCDSS) are promising digital health tools whose development and use are increasing. The Agency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia (AQuAS) received a request from the Spanish Ministry of Health, through the Spanish Network of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Agencies (RedETS), to perform an HTA of cCDSS for cancer. We present the challenges that arose during the evaluation process.

We evaluated the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness through a systematic literature review. We involved two clinicians and a technology expert to gain insight into the pathology and technology, respectively. To identify cCDSS used in Spain, we consulted with the Spanish regulatory agency (AEMPS) and the Spanish Federation of Healthcare Technology Companies (FENIN), plus did a survey among Spanish hospitals. To understand applicable regulations, we reviewed the European regulation (MDR) and consulted the Medical Device Coordination Group from the European Commission, AEMPS, and a regional regulatory expert.

The scientific literature revealed large heterogeneity in the definition of cCDSS (e.g., from simple online prognostic calculators to complex commercial software using machine learning), making the literature search and screening arduous. Many articles dealt with cCDSS that do not qualify as medical devices, are not in the market anymore, are currently used as newer versions or are developed in-house. Next, we faced the difficulty to attain a comprehensive overview of the tools in use in the country. In terms of legislation, we observed that similar tools might receive different classifications in different jurisdictions, and the complexity of the MDR might lead to the need for a case-by-case discussion at a National level.

We identified many challenges in the HTA of cCDSS. The first step for proper assessment is a clear definition of the device and version to be evaluated. Multiple stakeholders must be involved, and alignment between regulatory and HTA agencies is key. We expect that the European Database on Medical Devices (EUDAMED) will help in the identification of existing cCDSS and hence ease their assessment.

The global artificial intelligence (AI) healthcare market is predicted to grow rapidly. Various technologies for AI-based Software as Medical Device (SaMD) have been developed, and demand for their health insurance reimbursement coverage is increasing. Reimbursement policies for new medical technologies need to be thoroughly examined, despite their role in stimulating the market. The reason is that health insurance finance can have significant impact on the entire country, including patients, providers, and industry.

Based on guidelines for applying Korea’s innovative medical technologies, especially AI-based imaging medical technology, to health insurance, we examined outcome factors such as procedures and benefits. After the guidelines’ publication in 2019, we examined their impact on the medical device market through changes in the number of clinical trials and identified cases in which health insurance was listed.

The process of registering SaMD’s health insurance occurs in accordance with the existing medical technology evaluation system, and it can take up to 460 days from application to approval. If new technologies, including SaMDs demonstrate significant improvement in diagnostic capabilities and cost-effectiveness compared to existing practices, separate health insurance claims are available. Since the scheme’s announcement in 2019, items approved for SaMD clinical trials have increased (2018: ‘n=4; 2020: n=44; 2021: n=37). However, as of November 2022, only one was listed for health insurance benefits (VUNO Med-DeepBrain®), and one case was not listed on benefits but was recognized for its innovation and entered the market on the premise of suspending the health technology assessment process and accumulating real-world data (VUNO Med-DeepCARS®).™ DeepBrain® is a deep learning-based image reading technology costing about KRW80,000 (USD60) higher than conventional brain-magnetic resonance imaging and readings.

The number of SaMDs attempting clinical trials is increasing, but there is a low number of cases of reimbursement because most technologies are often classified as existing technologies and do not receive additional compensation. Since SaMD continuously is developed by accumulating data and feedback, a flexible system that can reflect this is required.

Experts highlight the need to reconsider the frameworks used in health technology assessment (HTA) in order to cover the particularities of digital health technologies (DHT). However, there is a large heterogeneity in the literature about terminologies and definitions. Our objective was to identify the methodological frameworks used worldwide for HTA of DHT and generate a proposal of domains to consider in the assessment through a thematic analysis, a qualitative data analysis method that consists of identifying, analysing and reporting patterns across the data.

Methodological frameworks were identified through a scoping review (ScR) in accordance with the PRISMA extension for ScR. We searched five different databases for peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2011 and 2021. The retrieved references were screened using Rayyan by two authors in a single-blind manner. References included were analyzed thematically by three reviewers using ATLAS.ti.

The systematic search retrieved 3,061 references (2,238 unique), of which 26 were included. These, in turn, synthesized 102 frameworks designed for the assessment of DHT. The included documents contained a wide variety of items to consider in HTA of DHT and often used different wording to refer to similar concepts. Through the thematic analysis, we reduced this heterogeneity. Specifically, in the first analysis phase we established 176 provisional codes related to different assessment domains. In the second one, these codes were grouped in 86 descriptive themes that, in turn, were clustered in the third phase in 61 analytical themes. The latter were organized through a vertical hierarchy of three levels: level 1 (13 domains), level 2 (38 dimensions), and level 3 (11 sub-dimensions).

There is a need to reconsider the frameworks and assessment domains used for HTA of DHT. Our thematic analysis of 26 references led to the definition of 13 domains, 38 dimensions and 11 sub-dimensions to consider in HTA of DHT. From our perspective, thematic analysis is the most appropriate method to identify assessment items for HTA of DHT from literature.

The fast track in drug registration by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, ANVISA, began in 2017 and is intended to prioritize analysis related to drugs relevant to public health. This process is appropriate in situations where there are no therapeutic alternative available or for technologies show significant improvement in safety, efficacy, or adherence to treatment.

The Brazilian public administration has a tool for accessing information called Transparency Portal. Thus, data on the number of drugs approved by fast track between 2018 and 2021 were requested through this tool and evaluated.

The data received by the Brazilian transparency portal shows that the number of requests for fast track had an increase from one in 2018 to 32 in 2021. There is an important increase of registrations, being drugs with phase II trials and with single-arm clinical trials. With registration based on a phase II trial, these patients are in fact receiving drugs in a context similar to clinical trials, but with funding from the healthcare system. Given that phase II studies are conducted in a limited population, there has been an increase in the registration of drugs with suboptimal efficacy and safety concerns. This scenario of uncertainty leads to non-adherence to treatment and a discrepancy in real-world outcomes in comparison to the clinical trial. About 70 percent of phase II trials, show no benefit, and only 30 percent proceed to later phases. It is noteworthy that about 50 percent of the studies that move on to later phases fail to show benefits. Nowadays the number of drugs approved by the fast track has increased, many probably with phase II studies and no comparator group.

Given the uncertainties in the efficacy and safety of a drug registered via fast track, often based on phase II studies, implementing provisional registration with real-world evaluation of outcomes, and coupled with financing based on risk-sharing agreements, may be a sustainable alternative for health systems.

The Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the biggest public health crisis of all time. Private health care plays a major role in health globally. We conducted a study to document the engagement of a Brazilian private health care organization to influence decisions to private and public health emergencies of COVID-19.

This retrospective study evaluated the outputs of the health technology assessment (HTA) group of Unimed-BH, a private Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) with 1.5 million participants in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais state. The study evaluated the impacts on the overview of health local decisions in the municipality and the national supplementary health agency (ANS) during the period from March 2020 to December 2022.

During the pandemic, Unimed-BH made all its sanitary decisions based on scientific research, such as the use of masks and appropriate medications. Even though some medicines, such as regdanvimab, were authorized for emergency use by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), Unimed-BH did not recommend their use due to uncertain evidence, and months later, ANVISA withdrew the registration.

Unimed-BH also conducted a systematic review of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, which showed no effect, and therefore did not recommend its use. Additionally, Unimed-BH provided weekly updates on COVID-19 data, including suspected and confirmed cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in their customer portfolio. The organization also actively supported the decisions made by ANS and municipal managers using evidence and statistics on the pandemic. The Unimed-BH HTA group produced a total of 167 reports from March 2020 to December 2022.

Belo Horizonte had the lowest in-hospital mortality rates with COVID-19 in Brazil. Unimed-BH’s HTA reports provided evidence-based assessments for decision-making, proposed partnership with policymakers, fomented information transparency, and strict follow-up on pandemic numbers, which may have contributed to the lower fatality rate in our city. These findings underscore the importance of private healthcare organizations in responding to COVID-19 emergencies, and their potential to support evidence-based decision-making and minimize the impact of the pandemic.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of liver cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death globally. There are unmet needs for effective systematic therapy. The findings of the RESORCE trial highlighted the improvement in overall survival with regorafenib in advanced HCC patients progressing on sorafenib treatment. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib compared with best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HCC from the Canadian healthcare system perspective.

We developed a Markov model based on four health states: live with adverse events, live without adverse events, progression, and dead. Health outcomes were measured using life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were presented in Canadian dollars (CAD). Clinical inputs were derived from the RESORCE trial. A 1.5 percent discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty in findings due to variability in parameters. TreeAge Pro software was used for model implementation.

The use of regorafenib results in a gain of 0.38 LYs and 0.25 QALYs as compared to BSC with a high incremental cost of CAD26,954 (USD22,313). The ICER for regorafenib compared with BSC was CAD105,850/QALY (USD87,624/QALY) in the base-case analysis. Further, probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed regorafenib not to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD50,000/QALY.

Regorafenib was not found to be cost-effective in the treatment of advanced HCC because of the lower health benefits and higher incremental costs. Lowering the official price of regorafenib or use for only selected patients who can achieve maximum benefits would enhance its cost-effectiveness and treatment preference value.

Immersion in water is a non-pharmacological method for pain relief during childbirth. The aim was to describe the experiences, values and preferences of women regarding water immersion during childbirth identified in the evidence.

A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence was conducted. Databases were searched from 2009 to 2022 and screened for inclusion using pre-determined criteria. Studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis to investigate the opinions of women or health professionals in hospital settings were included. Non-qualitative studies, mixed methods studies that did not separately report qualitative findings and studies in languages other than English or Spanish were excluded. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research Checklist was used to assess study quality and findings were synthesized using thematic synthesis, as described by Thomas and Harden.

The final report was reviewed by several categories of health professionals that care for mothers and infants, as well women.

Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Nine studies have been identified that reflect the experience of women in relation to immersion in water during childbirth, a study exploring the factors that determine the use of immersion during childbirth according to the point of view of both women and midwives, and three more studies on midwives’ experience with water immersion during childbirth. In the qualitative studies the following key themes emerged: Reasons identified by the women/professionals for choosing a water birth, benefits experienced in water births and barriers and facilitators of immersion in water during childbirth.

The evidence from qualitative studies indicates that women associated water birth with a sense of autonomy and control over labor, and a lower level of associated pain. Further, a water birth was considered a positive experience. From the point of view of midwives, to make water births safe, there is a need for adequate resources, as well as rigorous standardized protocols.

Certain doubts about immersion in water during birth mainly regarding the safety of the infant, warrant analysis of the data to determine whether immersion in water during childbirth is safe and effective. The aim is to describe the situation regarding the use of water immersion during childbirth in hospitals of the Spanish National Health System across Spanish Autonomous Regions and Cities.

A questionnaire was developed to assess the use of water immersion on maternity wards of National Health System hospitals. The survey was reviewed by several categories of health professionals and stakeholders. The online questionnaire was distributed via email. A database was created using the Microsoft Excel 365® computer program. Quantitative results were described through percentages and frequency distributions. In the case of free responses, a content analysis was performed, coding the responses into different categories.

Regarding the status of water birth in Spain, the availability of the option of water birth varies across hospitals of the National Health System. Forty-six hospitals in 13 autonomous regions indicated that they had birthing pools on their delivery wards. Among these hospitals, 20 percent reported having more than 10 years of experience in water births, 45 percent between five and 10 years and 35 percent less than five years. Of the 46 responses received, 78 percent of the hospitals indicated that there was a demand for information on waterbirth by pregnant women. Regarding the existence of criteria for the adequate selection of pregnant women who could opt for immersion in water during childbirth, 89 percent of the hospitals indicated that these did exist, while 11 percent indicated that they did not have agreed criteria for the selection of candidates for water birth.

The availability of the option of water birth varies in hospitals across the Spanish National System. All the hospitals that have birthing pools offer them in the first stage of labor (dilation), while 32 percent also use them in the pushing stage and 15 percent during delivery of the placenta. It would be advisable to have standardized protocols and training to ensure the possibility that all pregnant women, regardless of their place of residence, can safely opt for water immersion during childbirth with satisfactory results.

The Patient Involvement (PI) Interest Group of the Spanish Network of Health Technology Assessment Agencies (RedETS) was set up in 2017 by a group of health technology assessment (HTA) researchers interested in PI. Since its inception, training and capacity-building to support PI and patient-based evidence in HTA processes has been one of its main aims. The objective of this work was to identify the needs and priorities related to training and capacity building activities to be developed within the framework of the PI Interest Group.

The PI Interest Group met on November 14, 2022, for its Annual Meeting. The group discussed the needs, priorities and possibilities on training, and carried out a prioritization exercise. For this purpose, a self-reported and anonymous questionnaire was used, which included 16 training activities. Every item was scored with a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 10.

The questionnaire was answered by twenty participants. The most highly rated training activities (mean less than or equal to 8) were: qualitative evidence synthesis (8.75); PI case studies (basic (8.65) and advanced (8.56) level); quality assessment tools for qualitative evidence (8.37); and qualitative research (8.11). Other proposals scoring above 7 points were: ethical aspects related to PI, evaluation of patient participation and impact, identification and recruitment procedures, and discrete choice experiments. The group agreed to organize bi-monthly webinars and three structured training activities for the whole RedETS network on: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Qualitative Research and PI Case Studies.

The prioritization of training activities according to PI Interest Group members allowed planning a tailored capacity-building program adapted to the needs of RedETS.

As India makes rapid strides towards universal health coverage, focusing on medical device reimbursement is key to ensuring patient access to device-based technologies. The nascent medical device reimbursement process offers a promising opportunity for interventions driven by a diverse group of stakeholders. We conducted policy research to capture these diverse perspectives and highlight key elements to develop a structured framework for reimbursement.

This research was a two-part process, including secondary research with expert interviews followed by policy research using focus group discussions (FGDs) through an online workshop with key stakeholders. We developed a white paper proposing changes to the reimbursement pathway, based on a benchmarking study of global markets and interviews with experts in the field. As a next step, key changes proposed in the white paper were deliberated upon by three focus groups (six to eight participants). Group participants were selected by quota sampling and represented key stakeholders in the reimbursement process. A discussion guide was used to capture participants’ opinions and an addendum to the white paper was released highlighting small, actionable, and impactful changes to the reimbursement process.

FGDs with key stakeholders highlighted the need to establish a more structured, inclusive, and transparent process. Accordingly, we proposed key recommendations to the medical device reimbursement process in India. A first change is the creation of an online submission portal allowing different healthcare stakeholders to submit new technologies for consideration through a streamlined pathway. Secondly, we proposed enhancing evaluation transparency by improving availability of publicly shared information on the evaluation process, metrics, and assessment timelines. We also suggested adoption of adaptive health technology assessments to leverage existing evidence for faster, efficient decision-making.

Through this process, we created a pragmatic and concrete call for a stronger voice from care-providers and patient groups in the evaluation process. Consecutively, the proposed innovative framework introducing value-based incentives for implantable medical devices will be instrumental in enabling access to quality health care for poor patients. These strategies follow the principles of value-based care and will go a long way in achieving better health outcomes for the population. The scientific initiative has been made possible with the support of St. Jude Medical India Pvt Ltd (now Abbott).

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (Micra TPS) is a single-chamber transcatheter leadless pacemaker (LPM). LPMs do not require leads or a subcutaneous pocket, which represent the primary sources of device-related complications with conventional transvenous pacemakers (TVPMs). Complications such as infections and lead dislodgements cause significant patient burden, which have significant economic consequences. Running a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to estimate risk differences of infrequent events requires large sample sizes and long follow-up periods. Real-world observational data, while informative, requires an appropriate study design and statistical adjustments to control for potential biases.

The Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) study was a cohort study of LPM versus TVPM based on US Medicare claims data of 16,431 patients with 2-year follow up (LPM: n=6,219; TVPM: n=10,212). Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to account for differences in baseline characteristics. As no RCT was identified in the literature, this study was presented to the Australian payer as the primary source of clinical evidence, upon which a cost-utility analysis was conducted.

After PSM, the CED study demonstrated significantly more complications with TVPM versus LPM with adjusted rates of 6.5 percent and 4.6 percent (p<0.001). Significant differences favoring LPM (p<0.01) were observed in device breakdown (1.4% vs 2.0%), dislodgment (0.4% vs 1.2%) and infection (<0.1% vs 0.6%). Based on these findings, a claim of superior safety was accepted by Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) to support reimbursement. In making this decision, MSAC considered that the large sample size and propensity weighting overcame some of the potential biases and the magnitude of the benefit supported cost-effectiveness relative to TVPM.

The lack of a sufficiently powered RCT with an extended follow-up period can mean the impact and benefits of new technologies that reduce clinically important adverse events of relative infrequency are not formally incorporated into payer decision making, particularly where RCTs are a requirement. A well-designed observational study can provide valuable, real-world evidence to support a HTA for reimbursement decisions.

The National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation of the Brazilian Public Health System’ s (Conitec) principle is to advise the Ministry of Health (MS) in the tasks related to incorporation, exclusion or modification of any health technologies into the Unified Health System (SUS). Moreover, this also involves alteration of clinical protocols or therapeutic guidelines. All of the recommendations consider the international classification of diseases (CID) as a common language that allows health professionals and managers to understand standardized information, to identify trends and benefits of recommendations in each therapeutic area.

This exploratory, descriptive and retrospective study aims to provide qualitative and quantitative data from the technologies evaluated by the Conitec in the period June 2012 to November 2022. Data were extracted in Conitec’s website.

The searches resulted in 763 recommendations in total. Among them, the most evaluated therapeutic area was Infectology with 126 technologies (16.5%). In this field the highlighted diseases and conditions were Hepatitis 42 (33.3%); HIV 23 (18.3%) and COVID-19 11 (8.7%). In Oncology, 113 recommended technologies (14.8%) were identified, in order of prominence for the diseases: Breast Cancer 21 (18.6%); Colorectal Cancer 11 (9.7%); Leukemias 17 (15.0%). In the Respiratory Diseases area, 89 technologies (11.7%) were recommended, among them: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 17 (19.1%); Asthma 15 (16.9%) and COVID-19 11 (12.4%). These results clarify which diseases are most needing new technologies to be treated.

The results show what conditions and fields in health needs to be prioritized for public policies and prevention measures. This study demonstrates how important is to make accessible the public health information, improving public knowledge and social actions in SUS.

Earlier cancer diagnosis and advances in science are resulting in improved patient and societal outcomes. However, payer frameworks and methods can find it difficult to keep pace with scientific progress, evolution of endpoints, and assess the wider value of these advances.

A multidisciplinary, international group of experts working in the cancer field was brought together to reach consensus on key principles of defining and assessing of cancer treatment value. A Delphi-based approach including surveys, virtual panels, interviews and structured online discussions was used to reach consensus. This work was initiated and funded by AstraZeneca.

Twenty-four experts from across the world (including patient advocates, oncologists, health economists, regulators, members of payer and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies) reached consensus on seven key principles across two themes, oncology relevant endpoints and dimensions of value. Three of the seven principles were found to be of particular relevance to HTA bodies and payers: assessing broad economic impact of new medicines (including socio-economic and caregiver impact), where early-stage cancer treatments can enhance patients’ ability to lead productive lives and contribute to economic activity; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society; use of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) supported by ongoing evidence collection to help address decision-maker evidence needs and address clinical uncertainty.

Incentivizing access to early-stage treatments can promote cancer control, improved outcomes and generate long-term societal benefit. Furthermore, early diagnosis and treatment at earlier stages of cancer can be cost-effective, and sometimes cost-saving, as well as provide opportunities for cure. Expanding value components in therapy assessments to include, for example, insurance value, the value of choice, scientific spillovers, and wider societal perspectives, along with structured MEAs to manage clinical uncertainty and balance budgets will help realize the potential to eliminate cancer as the cause of death.