scholarly journals Acceptance of Clinically Relevant Primary Study Endpoints In The German Health Technology Assessment Process: Analysis of Five Different Disease Areas

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A543
Author(s):  
TR Staab ◽  
G Isbary ◽  
VE Amelung ◽  
J Ruof
2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 466-466
Author(s):  
J. Abelson ◽  
Y. Bombard ◽  
F. Gauvin ◽  
D. Simeonov ◽  
S. Boesveld

In the original publication of ‘Assessing the Impacts of Citizen Deliberations on the Health Technology Process’ the title was published incorrectly. The correct title should be: Assessing the Impacts of Citizen Deliberations on the Health Technology Assessment Process. The publisher regrets this error.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 10-11
Author(s):  
Sarah Khalid Khan ◽  
Sonia Garcia Gonzalez Moral ◽  
Dapo Ogunbayo ◽  
Dawn Craig

IntroductionThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory (NIHRIO) is the national Horizon Scanning (HS) organization in England, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is its key health technology assessment (HTA) stakeholder. NIHRIO has a remit to notify NICE of innovative technologies with a time horizon of three years prior to regulatory approval in the European Union (EU)/United Kingdom (UK). The notification process produces an initial ‘filtration form’ followed by a ‘technology briefing’ produced 17–20 months prior to licence for those technologies that NICE will consider for appraisal. Since April 2017, NIHRIO has produced ~400 technology briefings. We present an analysis of how this has fed into the NICE HTA process so far.MethodsThe analysis mapped NIHRIO's technology briefings (April 2017 – June 2020) with relevant NICE technology appraisal/highly specialized technologies (TA/HST) guidance during the time period. The analysis followed the timeline of technologies from identification during the horizon scanning process to filtration to briefing submission to NICE and entering the TA/HST process to outcome/recommendation given by NICE.ResultsUntil June 2020, 496 technology briefings entered the NICE TA/HST scoping process. Forty per cent are in progress, four per cent have had a TA/HST recommendation and three per cent that entered the NICE TA/HST scoping process did not complete it. On average it took less time from briefing submission to NICE recommendation for cancer indications. The time from discovery to NICE recommendation ranged from 115 months to 22 months.ConclusionsHS for TA/HST is a lengthy process from identification to final recommendation and there is considerable variation in time duration from identification to briefing submission to NICE recommendation. Average time taken from briefing submission to NICE recommendation is shorter for cancer indications and repurposed medicines. A full TA/HST may not be recommended for all technology briefings, rather they may update existing guidance or find different routes of evaluation. Technologies that enter the TA/HST scoping process might be terminated, suspended or discontinued for several reasons which may include lack of company engagement, change in development or regulatory plans by the company. Timely notification is key in achieving TA/HST recommendation at the time of market authorization but not the only influencing factor.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 591-600
Author(s):  
Antonio Olry de Labry Lima ◽  
Jaime Espín Balbino ◽  
Alexandre Lemgruber ◽  
Araceli Caro Martínez ◽  
Leticia García-Mochón ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 13-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Sweet ◽  
Celynda G Tadlock ◽  
William Waugh ◽  
Andrea Hess ◽  
Ann Nguyen

Author(s):  
Ana Toledo-Chávarri ◽  
Marie-Pierre Gagnon ◽  
Yolanda Álvarez-Pérez ◽  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez ◽  
Yolanda Triñanes Pego ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction This paper aims to describe the development of a flowchart to guide the decisions of researchers in the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS) regarding patient involvement (PI) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). By doing so, it reflects on current methodological challenges in PI in the HTA field: how best to combine PI methods and what is the role of patient-based evidence. Methods A decisional flowchart for PI in HTA was developed between March and April 2019 following an iterative process, reviewed by the members of the PI Interest Group and other RedETS members and validated during an online deliberative meeting. The development of the flowchart was based on a previous methodological framework assessed in a pilot study. Results The guidelines on how to involve patients in HTA in the RedETS were graphically represented in a flowchart. PI must be included in all HTA reports, except those that assess technologies with no relevant impact on patients’ experiences, values, and preferences. Patient organizations or expert patients related to the topic of the HTA report must be identified and invited. These patients can participate in protocol development, outcomes' identification, assessment process, and report review. When the technology assessed affects in a relevant way patient experiences, values, and preferences, patient-based evidence should be included through a systematic literature review or a primary study. Conclusions The decisional flowchart for PI in HTA contributes to the current methodological challenges by proposing a combination of direct involvement and patient-based evidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document