The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid assessment of potential health technologies that can improve health outcomes in COVID-19 patients, as well as helping pressurized health service provision. Medical technologies play a key role in the COVID-19 pandemic, especially diagnostic tests and respiratory technologies. This study evaluates the rapid response work that the medical technology evaluation programme (MTEP) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has done in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Companies routinely submit medical technologies for evaluation by NICE through HealthTech Connect, which is an online portal for devices, diagnostics and digital technologies intended for use in the NHS or wider United Kingdom health and care system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, companies were able to use a designated email address if they perceived their technology may benefit the healthcare system regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. This new system bypassed the usual full registration and data submission. All technologies were reviewed that were submitted via HealthTech connect and email between March 2020 and June 2021.

During this period, 20 technologies were submitted to MTEP. Most of these technologies were submitted via email. These technologies consisted of a mix of digital, diagnostic, and respiratory technologies. Seven technologies were selected for a rapid COVID-19 MedTech innovation briefing (MIB), with one specifically addressing issues around waiting lists because of knock-on effects of COVID-19 restricting normal clinical work. A further six technologies were not selected because of limited evidence, while one was not selected because it was not perceived as innovative. The other five technologies were progressed as normal MIBs as there was not enough evidence of potential benefits related to COVID-19 to expedite to a rapid COVID-19 MIB. In total, two technologies were selected for medical technology guidance (myCOPD and Anaconda) and are currently in development.

MTEP has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by prioritising and producing rapid COVID-19 MIBs on technologies to improve health and social care.

Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is emerging, as the focus of health technology assessment agencies shifts from traditional methods of technology adoption to managing technologies throughout their lifecycle. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates devices, digital and diagnostic technologies by producing medical technologies guidance, which could recommend for adoption, no adoption, or further research. The desire to move to a lifecycle approach in the evaluation of medical technologies is reflected in the guidance review process, which involves review of the technology every three years or upon notification of significant new evidence. The outcomes of the guidance review can be to amend, update, withdraw, or leave the guidance unchanged.

Information on all technologies which have undergone guidance review since the commencement of the process was collected, including the recommendation before and after review and the basis for this recommendation. The proportion of guidances which were not changed, amended, updated, and withdrawn was calculated and the trends, including the bases for recommendation change were analyzed.

In total, 34 medical technology guidance reviews have been performed. During the process, 15 (44%) were amended to reflect minor changes in the economic or clinical evidence, which did not change the recommendation. Ten (29%) were not changed, while three (9%) were updated respectively. Three (9%) were withdrawn. Another three (9%) represent special cases, which entered guidance review, but were paused due to external reasons. Among the guidances that progressed to update, two out of three had a cost increase, whereas one was broadened to reflect evidence for a larger population.

HTR is an important mechanism to improve patient care and system efficiency. In NICE’s evaluation of medical technologies, changes in the recommendation stemmed from changes in the technology’s (or standard care’s) cost, the evidence for clinical effectiveness, or the safety profile.