DEFINING THE RELEVANT OUTCOME MEASURES IN MEDICAL DEVICE ASSESSMENTS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEFINITION PROCESS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-92
Author(s):  
Esther Jacobs ◽  
Sunya-Lee Antoine ◽  
Barbara Prediger ◽  
Edmund Neugebauer ◽  
Michaela Eikermann
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Web Pages ◽  
Relevant Outcome ◽  
The Web

Background: Defining relevant outcome measures for clinical trials on medical devices (MD) is complex, as there is a large variety of potentially relevant outcomes. The chosen outcomes vary widely across clinical trials making the assessment in evidence syntheses very challenging. The objective is to provide an overview on the current common procedures of health technology assessment (HTA) institutions in defining outcome measures in MD trials.Methods: In 2012–14, the Web pages of 126 institutions involved in HTA were searched for methodological manuals written in English or German that describe methods for the predefinition process of outcome measures. Additionally, the institutions were contacted by email. Relevant information was extracted. All process steps were performed independently by two reviewers.Results: Twenty-four manuals and ten responses from the email request were included in the analysis. Overall, 88.5 percent of the institutions describe the type of outcomes that should be considered in detail and 84.6 percent agree that the main focus should be on patient relevant outcomes. Specifically related to MD, information could be obtained in 26 percent of the included manuals and email responses. Eleven percent of the institutions report a particular consideration of MD related outcomes.Conclusions: This detailed analysis on common procedures of HTA institutions in the context of defining relevant outcome measures for the assessment of MD shows that standardized procedures for MD from the perspective of HTA institutions are not widespread. This leads to the question if a homogenous approach should be implemented in the field of HTA on MD.

scholarly journals Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (51) ◽  
pp. 1-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Inwald ◽  
Ruth R Canter ◽  
Kerry Woolfall ◽  
Caitlin B O’Hara ◽  
Paul R Mouncey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Fluid Bolus ◽  
Site Staff ◽  
Pilot Rct ◽  
The Uk

Background There has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) of fluid bolus therapy in paediatric sepsis in the developed world despite evidence that excess fluid may be associated with harm. Objectives To determine the feasibility of the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) trial – a RCT comparing restricted fluid bolus (10 ml/kg) with current practice (20 ml/kg) in children with septic shock in the UK. Design (1) Qualitative feasibility study exploring parents’ views about the pilot RCT. (2) Pilot RCT over a 9-month period, including integrated parental and staff perspectives study. Setting (1) Recruitment took place across four NHS hospitals in England and on social media. (2) Recruitment took place across 13 NHS hospitals in England. Participants (1) Parents of children admitted to a UK hospital with presumed septic shock in the previous 3 years. (2) Children presenting to an emergency department with clinical suspicion of infection and shock after 20 ml/kg of fluid. Exclusion criteria were receipt of > 20 ml/kg of fluid, conditions requiring fluid restriction and the patient not for full active treatment (i.e. palliative care plan in place). Site staff and parents of children in the pilot were recruited to the perspectives study. Interventions (1) None. (2) Children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to 10- or 20-ml/kg fluid boluses every 15 minutes for 4 hours if in shock. Main outcome measures (1) Acceptability of FiSh trial, proposed consent model and potential outcome measures. (2) Outcomes were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between the groups, and collection and distribution of potential outcome measures. Results (1) Twenty-one parents were interviewed. All would have consented for the pilot study. (2) Seventy-five children were randomised, 40 to the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 35 to the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Two children were withdrawn. Although the anticipated recruitment rate was achieved, there was variability across the sites. Fifty-nine per cent of children in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 74% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group required only a single trial bolus before shock resolved. The volume of fluid (in ml/kg) was 35% lower in the first hour and 44% lower over the 4-hour period in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Fluid boluses were delivered per protocol (volume and timing) for 79% of participants in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and for 55% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group, mainly as a result of delivery not being completed within 15 minutes. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfers, and days alive and PICU free did not differ significantly between the groups. Two adverse events were reported in each group. A questionnaire was completed by 45 parents, 20 families and seven staff were interviewed and 20 staff participated in focus groups. Although a minority of site staff lacked equipoise in favour of more restricted boluses, all supported the trial. Conclusions Even though a successful feasibility and pilot RCT were conducted, participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Future work Further observational work is required to determine the epidemiology of severe childhood infection in the UK in the postvaccine era. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15244462. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

PP206 Health Technology Assessment Guidance In The United Kingdom: Addressing Issues Specific To Medical Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 26-26
Author(s):  
Scott Gibson ◽  
Sita Saunders ◽  
Amanda Hansson Hedblom ◽  
Maximilian Blüher ◽  
Rafael Torrejon Torres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Training Costs ◽  
Medical Technologies ◽  
The United Kingdom

IntroductionThe United Kingdom spends approximately GBP4.2 billion (USD5.6 billion; EUR4.7 billion) each year on medical devices, but healthcare providers receive little health technology assessment (HTA) guidance on cost-effective device procurement. Our objective was to assess the availability of HTA guidance for medical technologies and to identify key challenges related to the economic assessment of these technologies.MethodsNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence technology appraisal (TA) and Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP) appraisals published online between November 2009 and October 2020 were identified. The “case for adoption” recommendation, type of devices, and critiques of economic analyses for each MTEP appraisal were extracted and categorized.ResultsIn comparison to 415 publicly available TAs for pharmaceuticals, only 45 medical technologies have been appraised through the MTEP. MTEP-submitted technologies can be categorized into diagnostic (7), monitoring (3), prophylaxis (5), therapeutic (28), and other (2). Furthermore, 11 were implants, seven were used by patients, and 27 had provider interaction. Major points of MTEP criticism were a failure to model cost consequences, training costs, and organizational impact. There was also the barrier of transferring costs across budgeting divisions.ConclusionsIn comparison to HTA guidance for pharmaceuticals, there is a dearth of medical device guidance. Therapeutic and implantable devices appear to be disproportionately overrepresented in the MTEP process. This may be because their appraisal is most akin to pharmaceuticals, for which HTA processes are well established. To encourage more HTAs of medical devices, HTA guidance should elaborate on issues specifically related to medical devices.

Innovative medical devices and hospital decision making: a study comparing the views of hospital pharmacists and physicians

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathilde Billaux ◽  
Isabelle Borget ◽  
Patrice Prognon ◽  
Judith Pineau ◽  
Nicolas Martelli
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Local Health ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Hospital Pharmacists ◽  
Current Practices

Objectives Many university hospitals have developed local health technology assessment processes to guide informed decisions about new medical devices. However, little is known about stakeholders’ perceptions and assessment of innovative devices. Herein, we investigated the perceptions regarding innovative medical devices of their chief users (physicians and surgeons), as well as those of hospital pharmacists, because they are responsible for the purchase and management of sterile medical devices. We noted the evaluation criteria used to assess and select new medical devices and suggestions for improving local health technology assessment processes indicated by the interviewees. Methods We randomly selected 18 physicians and surgeons (nine each) and 18 hospital pharmacists from 18 French university hospitals. Semistructured interviews were conducted between October 2012 and August 2013. Responses were coded separately by two researchers. Results Physicians and surgeons frequently described innovative medical devices as ‘new’, ‘safe’ and ‘effective’, whereas hospital pharmacists focused more on economic considerations and considered real innovative devices to be those for which no equivalent could be found on the market. No significant difference in evaluation criteria was found between these groups of professionals. Finally, hospital pharmacists considered the management of conflicts of interests in local health technology assessment processes to be an issue, whereas physicians and surgeons did not. Conclusions The present study highlights differences in perceptions related to professional affiliation. The findings suggest several ways in which current practices for local health technology assessment in French university hospitals could be improved and studied. What is known about the topic? Hospitals are faced with ever-growing demands for innovative and costly medical devices. To help hospital management deal with technology acquisition issues, hospital-based health technology assessment has been developed to support decisions. However, little is known about the different perceptions of innovative medical devices among practitioners and how different perceptions may affect decision making. What does this paper add? This paper compares and understands the perceptions of two groups of health professionals concerning innovative devices in the university hospital environment. What are the implications for practitioners? Such a comparison of viewpoints could facilitate improvements in current practices and decision-making processes in local health technology assessment for these medical products.

scholarly journals SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON FORTHCOMING AMENDMENTS TO HTA IN POLAND

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-359
Author(s):  
Anna Zawada
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Additional Information

In reference to the article A Decade of Health Technology Assessment in Poland by I. Lipska et al. (1), I would like to provide you with some comments and additional information on the changes in reimbursement policies in the Polish healthcare system currently taking place, which is likely to lead to increased number of health technology assessments (HTAs) of medical devices (MDs).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document