The aim of this study was to investigate how innovation is defined with respect to new medicines.

MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2010 and May 25, 2016 that described a relevant definition of innovation. Identified definitions were analyzed by mapping the concepts described onto a set of ten dimensions of innovation.

In total, thirty-six articles were included, and described a total of twenty-five different definitions of innovation. The most commonly occurring dimension was therapeutic benefit, with novelty and the availability of existing treatments the second and third most common dimensions. Overall, there was little agreement in the published literature on what characteristics of new medicines constitute rewardable innovation.

Alignment across countries and among regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers would help manufacturers define research policies that can drive innovation, but may be challenging, as judgements about what aspects of innovation should be rewarded vary among stakeholders, and depend on political and societal factors.

The aim of this study was to identify good practice principles for health technology assessment (HTA) that are the most relevant and of highest priority for application in Latin America and to identify potential barriers to their implementation in the region.

HTA good practice principles proposed at the international level were identified and then explored during a deliberative process in a forum of assessors, funders, and product manufacturers.

Forty-two representatives from ten Latin American countries participated. Good practice principles proposed at the international level were considered valid and potentially relevant to Latin America. Five principles were identified as priority and with the greatest potential to be strengthened at this time: transparency in the production of HTA, involvement of relevant stakeholders in the HTA process, mechanisms to appeal decisions, clear priority-setting processes in HTA, and a clear link between HTA and decision making. The main challenge identified was to find a balance between the application of these principles and the available resources in a way that would not detract from the production of reports and adaptation to the needs of decision makers.

The main recommendation was to progress gradually in strengthening HTA and its link to decision making by developing appropriate processes for each country, without trying to impose, in the short-term, standards taken from examples at the international level without adequate adaptation of these to local contexts.

Latin American countries are taking important steps to expand and strengthen universal health coverage, and health technology assessment (HTA) has an increasingly prominent role in this process. Participation of all relevant stakeholders has become a priority in this effort. Key issues in this area were discussed during the 2017 Latin American Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum.

The Forum included forty-one participants from Latin American HTA agencies; public, social security, and private insurance sectors; and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. A background paper and presentations by invited experts and Forum members supported discussions. This study presents a summary of these discussions.

Stakeholder involvement in HTA remains inconsistently implemented in the region and few countries have established formal processes. Participants agreed that stakeholder involvement is key to improve the HTA process, but the form and timing of such improvements must be adapted to local contexts. The legitimization of both HTA and decision-making processes was identified as one of the main reasons to promote stakeholder involvement; but to be successful, the entire system of assessment and decision making must be properly staffed and organized, and certain basic conditions must be met, including transparency in the HTA process and a clear link between HTA and decision making.

Participants suggested a need for establishing clear rules of participation in HTA that would protect HTA producers and decision makers from potentially distorting external influences. Such rules and mechanisms could help foster trust and credibility among stakeholders, supporting actual involvement in HTA processes.

For many years, several health technology assessment (HTA) agencies scanned the horizon to identify health technologies that were safe, effective and offer value for money. However, there is limited evidence regarding its impact. The role of horizon scanning in preparing health systems for the uptake of new and emerging health technologies was discussed during the 2018 HTA International (HTAi) Global Policy Forum Meeting.

Reflection of the discussion between seventy-two senior representatives from for-profit, not-for-profit organizations, and HTAi leadership. It was informed by a background paper, and presentations from four invited experts and seventeen Policy Forum members.

Current horizon scanning systems (HSS) mainly identify health technologies in the late stage of development, aiming to inform topic selection for HTA. Areas for improvement included the need for a clearer definition of the end user(s), purpose, scope, and focus of HSS, the long-term full health system effects, including all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, and considering smart data systems and international collaboration to improve HSS's efficiency. The way in which HSS could be further optimized and better shaped to prepare health systems was also discussed and good practice examples were presented.

HSS have not yet reached their full potential in preparing health systems. To improve the current situation, the HTA community could act as convenors, bringing together all relevant stakeholders and providing the information that decision makers need. This would require a new, more integrative approach to define and use HSS and HTA, and requires new skills.

The aim of this study was to describe the historical development of the HTAsiaLink network, draw lessons for other similar initiatives globally, and to analyze key determinants of its success and challenges for its future development.

This study is based on the collective and direct experiences of the founding members of the HTAsiaLink Network. Data were collected from presentations they made at various international forums and additional information was reviewed. Data analysis was done using the framework developed by San Martin-Rodriguez et al.

HTAsiaLink is a network of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in Asia established in 2011 with the aim of strengthening individual and institutional HTA capacity, reducing duplication and optimizing resources, transfer and sharing of HTA-related lessons among members, and beyond. During its 6 years, the network has expanded, initiating several capacity building activities and joint-research projects, raising awareness of the importance of HTA within the region and beyond, and gaining global recognition while establishing relationships with other global networks. The study identifies the determinants of success of the collaboration. The systemic factors include the favorable outlook toward HTA as an approach for healthcare priority setting in countries with UHC mandates. On organizational factors, the number of newly established HTA agencies in the region with similar needs for capacity building and peer-to-peer support was catalytic for the network development. The interactional aspects include ownership, trust, and team spirit among network members. The network, however, faces challenges notably, financial sustainability and management of the expanded network.

Severe hypercholesterolemia is a major cause of death in coronary heart disease. New adjunctive drug therapies have passed authorization processes and been launched recently. So far it is not known which properties of the new treatment options generate the highest benefit for patients. The aim was to evaluate patient priorities in the field of adjunctive drug therapy with apheresis. Therapy characteristics were examined as to their relevance to hypercholesterolemia patients.

To identify all potential patient-relevant treatment characteristics, a systematic literature review and ten interviews with patients were conducted. Seven key characteristics were identified from the patient perspective. Patients’ priorities were elicited using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP).

In total, N = 61 patients diagnosed with severe hypercholesterolemia and undergoing apheresis participated in the study. The analysis showed predominance for the attribute “reduction of LDL-C level in blood” (Wglobal:0.362). The “risk of myopathy” (Wglobal:0.164), “risk of neurocognitive impairment” (Wglobal:0.161) and “frequency of apheresis” (Wglobal:0.119) were ranked second, third and fourth. Subgroup analyses revealed that “frequency of apheresis” is of greater importance to younger patients, men and/or patients who indicated a reduction in quality of life due to apheresis.

The essential decision criteria for optimal therapy from the patients’ perspective were obtained. “Reduction of lipoprotein in blood” was ranked highest compared with the “mode of administration” and “side effects” characteristics. The study offers a transparent approach for the identification of patient priorities for adjunctive PCSK9-inhibitor therapy in apheresis-treated hypercholesterolemia. The project can be used by healthcare decision makers to understand the importance of each patient-relevant endpoint.

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.

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.

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.

The Health Technology Expert Review Panel is an advisory body to Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) that develops recommendations on health technology assessments (HTAs) for nondrug health technologies using a deliberative framework. The framework spans several domains, including the environmental impact of the health technology(ies). Our research objective was to identify articles on frameworks, methods or case studies on the environmental impact assessment of health technologies.

A literature search in major databases and a focused gray literature search were conducted. The main search concepts were HTA and environmental impact/sustainability. Eligible articles were those that described a conceptual framework or methods used to conduct an environmental assessment of health technologies, and case studies on the application of an environmental assessment.

From the 1,710 citations identified, thirteen publications were included. Two articles presented a framework to incorporate environmental assessment in HTAs. Other approaches described weight of evidence practices and comprehensive and integrated environmental impact assessments. Central themes derived include transparency and repeatability, integration of components in a framework or of evidence into a single outcome, data availability to ensure the accuracy of findings, and familiarity with the approach used.

Each framework and methods presented have different foci related to the ecosystem, health economics, or engineering practices. Their descriptions suggested transparency, repeatability, and the integration of components or of evidence into a single outcome as their main strengths. Our review is an initial step of a larger initiative by CADTH to develop the methods and processes to address the environmental impact question in an HTA.

As model-based economic evaluations (MBEEs) are widely used to make decisions in the context of policy, it is imperative that they represent clinical practice. Here, we assess the relevance of MBEEs on dabigatran for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

We performed a systematic review on the basis of a developed questionnaire, tailored to oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. Included studies had a full body text in English, compared dabigatran with a vitamin K antagonist, were not dedicated to one or more subgroup(s), and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The relevance of all MBEEs was assessed on the basis of ten context-independent factors, which encompassed clinical outcomes and treatment duration. The MBEEs performed for the United States were assessed on the basis of seventeen context-dependent factors, which were related to the country's target population and clinical environment.

The search yielded twenty-nine MBEEs, of which six were performed for the United States. On average, 54 percent of the context-independent factors were included per study, and 37 percent of the seventeen context-dependent factors in the U.S. studies. The share of relevant factors per study did not increase over time.

MBEEs on dabigatran leave out several relevant factors, limiting their usefulness to decision makers. We strongly urge health economic researchers to improve the relevance of their MBEEs by including context-independent relevance factors, and modeling context-dependent factors befitting the decision context concerned.

Colposcopes are expensive, heavy, and need specialized technical service, which may outreach the capacity of low-resource settings. Our aim was to assess the performance of smartphone-based digital images for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+).

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women recruited through a cervical cancer screening campaign had VIA/VILI assessment (visual inspection after application of acetic acid/lugol's iodine). Cervical digital images were captured with a smartphone camera, randomly coded with no prior selection and distributed on an online database (Google Forms) for evaluation. Healthcare providers were invited to evaluate the images and identify CIN2+. The gold standard was the histopathological diagnosis. The sensitivity and specificity for the detection of CIN2+ was assessed for each reader and reported with the 95 percent confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method).

One hundred twenty-five consecutive HPV-positive women were included, with 19 CIN2+ (15.2 percent). Forty-five gynecologists completed the assessment, one-third were considered as experts (>50 colposcopies) and two-thirds as novices (<50 colposcopies). The sensitivity and specificity for CIN 2+ detection was 71.3 percent (67.0–75.7 percent) and 62.4 percent (57.5–67.4 percent), respectively. The performance of novices and experts was similar. The readers assessed 73.1 percent of images as acceptable for diagnostic.

Smartphone-based digital images, with its high portability, have a great potential for the diagnosis of CIN2+ in low-resource context.

It is not yet established the advantages between amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) and liposomal (L-AmB) in patients with invasive fungal infections refractory to usual doses of conventional AmB (d-AmB), previous renal impairment, or unacceptable d-AmB renal toxicity. This systematic review aims to compare ABLC and L-AmB effectiveness and safety outcomes in these subgroups of patients.

The search was performed on Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. Inclusion criteria: treatment comparing L-AmB with ABLC; patients who had (i) refractory infection after being treated with d-AmB, (ii) previous renal impairment, or (iii) unacceptable d-AmB toxicity. Two investigators independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. A total of 1,054 articles were identified in the literature. Among those, eleven were selected for full-text reading and five met the inclusion criteria.

The five articles included reported on four separate observational studies. Overall, no significant difference was found in clinical relevant outcomes as new-onset dialysis, length of hospital stay, or mortality when comparing both lipid formulations. The studies reported a trend toward lower nephrotoxicity in patients treated with L-AmB. However, the results were imprecise and heterogeneous and the studies presented important methodological biases.

The studies included in this systematic review pointed toward less nephrotoxicity events in the L-AmB group. However, due to low quality of evidence and no statistically significant differences in other clinical relevant outcomes, there is no definitive evidence of overall superiority in effectiveness or safety outcomes regarding one lipid formulation or another in this population subgroup.