scholarly journals Surrogate Endpoints in Health Technology Assessment: An International Review of Methodological Guidelines

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 1055-1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bogdan Grigore ◽  
Oriana Ciani ◽  
Florian Dams ◽  
Carlo Federici ◽  
Saskia de Groot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
International Review ◽  
Methodological Guidelines

scholarly journals Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199455
Author(s):  
Oriana Ciani ◽  
Bogdan Grigore ◽  
Hedwig Blommestein ◽  
Saskia de Groot ◽  
Meilin Möllenkamp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
International Health ◽  
Surrogate Endpoint ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Statistical Validation ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
The Impact

Background Surrogate endpoints (i.e., intermediate endpoints intended to predict for patient-centered outcomes) are increasingly common. However, little is known about how surrogate evidence is handled in the context of health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives 1) To map methodologies for the validation of surrogate endpoints and 2) to determine their impact on acceptability of surrogates and coverage decisions made by HTA agencies. Methods We sought HTA reports where evaluation relied on a surrogate from 8 HTA agencies. We extracted data on the methods applied for surrogate validation. We assessed the level of agreement between agencies and fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models to test the impact of validation approaches on the agency’s acceptability of the surrogate endpoint and their coverage recommendation. Results Of the 124 included reports, 61 (49%) discussed the level of evidence to support the relationship between the surrogate and the patient-centered endpoint, 27 (22%) reported a correlation coefficient/association measure, and 40 (32%) quantified the expected effect on the patient-centered outcome. Overall, the surrogate endpoint was deemed acceptable in 49 (40%) reports ( k-coefficient 0.10, P = 0.004). Any consideration of the level of evidence was associated with accepting the surrogate endpoint as valid (odds ratio [OR], 4.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60–13.18, P = 0.005). However, we did not find strong evidence of an association between accepting the surrogate endpoint and agency coverage recommendation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23–2.20; P = 0.55). Conclusions Handling of surrogate endpoint evidence in reports varied greatly across HTA agencies, with inconsistent consideration of the level of evidence and statistical validation. Our findings call for careful reconsideration of the issue of surrogacy and the need for harmonization of practices across international HTA agencies.

VP67 The Value Of The European Network For Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Outputs For National Health Technology Assessment: The French Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 180-180
Author(s):  
Irena Guzina ◽  
François Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Specific Work ◽  
European Network ◽  
Know How ◽  
French Experience ◽  
Methodological Guidelines

INTRODUCTION:The French National Authority for Health (HAS) has participated in the work of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) since its creation in 2006. HAS has been an active partner in most EUnetHTA activities, and the lead partner of specific work packages.METHODS:This report presents a summary of the main contribution of HAS to the two latest EUnetHTA projects (Joint Action (JA) 1 and Joint Action 2 (JA2)), their impact on national production, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) doers feedback as to the opportunities and challenges of participating to the network and using its outputs.RESULTS:In JA 1 and JA 2 projects, HAS has: coordinated activities related to Early Dialogues and Additional Evidence Generation; coordinated the development of nine JA1 methodological guidelines for rapid relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals; participated in the production of two JA2 methodological guidelines; participated in the production of one JA1 and seven JA2 rapid REA reports, and two JA2 full HTAs.The national uptake of EUnetHTA outputs included entire adoptation of one REA report and adaptation of another. EUnetHTA templates and methodological guidelines have been taken into account when updating or developing national ones. Thanks to the network, HAS HTA doers could exchange on ongoing assessments with European colleagues, have enhanced their methodological know-how and enlarged their professional network.As for the challenges encountered, it turned out that the re-use of EUnetHTA reports for a technology of interest to HAS was not always possible, mainly due to discordances in deadlines or assessment questions between EUnetHTA and national productions.CONCLUSIONS:HAS has actively participated in different EUnetHTA projects since the network's creation. This collaboration has enabled HAS HTA doers, among others, to optimize national assessments and enhance their methodological know-how.

scholarly journals Bayesian Statistical Economic Evaluation Methods for Health Technology Assessment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Gabrio ◽  
Gianluca Baio ◽  
Andrea Manca
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Bayesian Methods ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Probabilistic Approach ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Generation Process ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Methodological Guidelines

The evidence produced by healthcare economic evaluation studies is a key component of any Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process designed to inform resource allocation decisions in a budget-limited context. To improve the quality (and harmonize the generation process) of such evidence, many HTA agencies have established methodological guidelines describing the normative framework inspiring their decision-making process. The information requirements that economic evaluation analyses for HTA must satisfy typically involve the use of complex quantitative syntheses of multiple available datasets, handling mixtures of aggregate and patient-level information, and the use of sophisticated statistical models for the analysis of non-Normal data (e.g., time-to-event, quality of life and costs). Much of the recent methodological research in economic evaluation for healthcare has developed in response to these needs, in terms of sound statistical decision-theoretic foundations, and is increasingly being formulated within a Bayesian paradigm. The rationale for this preference lies in the fact that by taking a probabilistic approach, based on decision rules and available information, a Bayesian economic evaluation study can explicitly account for relevant sources of uncertainty in the decision process and produce information to identify an “optimal” course of actions. Moreover, the Bayesian approach naturally allows the incorporation of an element of judgment or evidence from different sources (e.g., expert opinion or multiple studies) into the analysis. This is particularly important when, as often occurs in economic evaluation for HTA, the evidence base is sparse and requires some inevitable mathematical modeling to bridge the gaps in the available data. The availability of free and open source software in the last two decades has greatly reduced the computational costs and facilitated the application of Bayesian methods and has the potential to improve the work of modelers and regulators alike, thus advancing the fields of economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. This chapter provides an overview of the areas where Bayesian methods have contributed to the address the methodological needs that stem from the normative framework adopted by a number of HTA agencies.

Surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment: An international comparison

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (03) ◽  
pp. 315-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcial Velasco Garrido ◽  
Sandra Mangiapane
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Second Step ◽  
Outcome Parameter ◽  
Parameter Choice ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Surrogate Outcomes ◽  
Test Characteristics ◽  
Methodological Guidelines

Objectives:Our aim was to review the recommendations given by health technology assessment (HTA) institutions in their methodological guidelines concerning the use of surrogate outcomes in their assessments. In a second step, we aimed at quantifying the role surrogate parameters take in assessment reports.Methods:We analyzed methodological papers and guidelines from HTA agencies with International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment membership as well as from institutions related to pharmaceutical regulation (i.e., reimbursement, pricing). We analyzed the use of surrogate outcomes in a sample of HTA reports randomly drawn from the HTA database. We checked methods, results (including evidence tables), and conclusions sections and extracted the outcomes reported. We report descriptive statistics on the presence of surrogate outcomes in the reports.Results:We identified thirty-four methodological guidelines, twenty of them addressing the issue of outcome parameter choice and the problematic of surrogate outcomes. Overall HTA agencies call on caution regarding the reliance on surrogate outcomes. None of the agencies has provided a list or catalog of acceptable and validated surrogate outcomes. We extracted the outcome parameter of 140 HTA reports. Only around half of the reports determined the outcomes for the assessment prospectively. Surrogate outcomes had been used in 62 percent of the reports. However, only 3.6 percent were based upon surrogate outcomes exclusively. All of them assessed diagnostic or screening technologies and the surrogate outcomes were predominantly test characteristics.Conclusions: HTA institutions seem to agree on a cautious approach to the use of surrogate outcomes in technology assessment. Thorough assessment of health technologies should not rely exclusively on surrogate outcomes.

The Spanish Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Services of the National Health System (RedETS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (03) ◽  
pp. 176-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Serrano-Aguilar ◽  
José Asua-Batarrita ◽  
María Teresa Molina-López ◽  
Mireia Espallargues ◽  
Joan Pons-Rafols ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Health System ◽  
National Health ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
National Level ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Methodological Guidelines

AbstractEarlier activities on health technology assessment (HTA) started in Spain around 1984, with the creation of a National Advisory Board on HTA, and the development of national and regional HTA organizations in the early 1990s. In 2012, the Spanish Health Ministry established the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS); funded at national level and including all public HTA organizations at national and regional levels. RedETSis focused on the assessment of nondrug health technologies to inform the revision (approval and funding or disinvestment) of the Benefit Portfolio of the Spanish NHS. In parallel with European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), RedETS has been setting-up and sharing common procedures and methodological guidelines to ensure effective cooperation and mutual recognition of the scientific and technical production in HTA. The output of RedETS is fifty to sixty annual reports, including the production of full HTA reports, Clinical Practice Guidelines, methodological guidance reports, relative effectiveness assessments, tools to support shared decision making between patients and healthcare professionals, and monitoring studies. The HTA assessments requested by the Regional Health Authorities are the biggest component of the annual RedETS working plan. These assessment needs are identified according to a yearly process and prioritized by a Commission composed of representatives from all Spanish regions with the aid of the PRITEC tool. The objectives of this study are to report and update the normative and organizational state of HTA in Spain; describing noteworthy advances witnessed over the past 10 years, as well as discussing existing challenges.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN POLAND AND SCOTLAND: COMPARISON OF PROCESS AND DECISIONS

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Kolasa ◽  
Radek Wasiak
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Drug Technology ◽  
Restricted Use ◽  
Methodological Guidelines ◽  
Further Development

Objectives: We compared Polish and Scottish Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process in order to elicit recommendations for future development of HTA methodological guidelines in Poland.Methods: We studied the differences between Polish and Scottish HTA methodological guidelines. HTA recommendations issued by Polish HTA agency (AHTAPol) in the period January 1 through December 31, 2008, were benchmarked to HTA guidance published by Scottish Medical Consortium (SMC) for the same drug technology.Results: The Scottish HTA methodological guidelines were more instructive in terms of clinical and economic evaluations than Polish guidelines. SMC evaluated forty-eight of sixty-eight drug technologies appraised by AHTAPoL. There were thirty drug technologies that received similar guidance in both countries and eighteen with contradictory HTA recommendations. In Scotland, there were more positive HTA recommendations than there were in Poland. While comments about efficacy or safety were commonplace among reasons for negative recommendations in Poland, insufficient justification of treatment's cost in relation to benefits was the most often cited reason for rejection in Scotland. SMC tended to recommend restricted use to specific sub-populations for several drug technologies negatively appraised by AHTAPoL.Conclusions: The comparison between SMC and AHTAPoL suggests that there is potential room of improvement of the Polish HTA methodological guidelines. Comparative effectiveness and safety, subgroup analysis, and adaptation of models to local settings were identified as key areas for further development of Polish HTA methodological guidelines.

scholarly journals HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oriana Ciani ◽  
Britni Wilcher ◽  
Carl Rudolf Blankart ◽  
Maximilian Hatz ◽  
Valentina Prevolnik Rupel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Site Assessment ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Methodological Guidelines

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies.Methods: HTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and methods. Agencies were primarily selected upon membership of existing HTA networks. The data collection was performed in two stages: stage 1–agency Web-site assessment using a standardized questionnaire, followed by review and validation of the collected data by a representative of the agency; and stage 2–semi-structured telephone interviews with key informants of a sub-sample of agencies.Results: In total, thirty-six HTA agencies across twenty non-EU countries assessing medical devices were included. Twenty-seven of thirty-six (75 percent) agencies were judged at stage 1 to have adopted HTA-specific approaches for medical devices (MD-specific agencies) that were largely organizational or procedural. There appeared to be few differences in the organization, process and methods between MD-specific and non–MD-specific agencies. Although the majority (69 percent) of both categories of agency had specific methods guidance or policy for evidence submission, only one MD-specific agency had developed methodological guidelines specific to medical devices. In stage 2, many MD-specific agencies cited insufficient resources (budget, skilled employees), lack of coordination (between regulator and reimbursement bodies), and the inability to generalize findings from evidence synthesis to be key challenges in the HTA of medical devices.Conclusions: The lack of evidence for differentiation in scientific methods for HTA of devices raises the question of whether HTA needs to develop new methods for medical devices but rather adapt existing methodological approaches. In contrast, organizational and/or procedural adaptation of existing HTA agency frameworks to accommodate medical devices appear relatively commonplace.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document