How does HTA addresses current social expectations? An international survey

The relative importance of severity and rarity criteria in health resource allocation: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this umbrella review were to (a) quantify the relative importance, of "severity" and "rarity" criteria in health resource allocation; and (b) analyze the contextual factors influencing the relative importance. The secondary objective was to examine how "severity" and "rarity" criteria are defined.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in PubMed and Embase to identify eligible systematic reviews. Quality appraisal of systematic reviews was undertaken. From identified systematic reviews, primary studies were extracted and further screened for eligibility. The inclusion of severity and rarity criteria and their respective weights in primary studies were examined. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine systematic reviews were screened, of which nine met the inclusion criteria. Primary studies included in these systematic reviews were retrieved and screened, resulting in forty articles included in the final analysis. Disease severity was more frequently considered (n = 29/40) than disease rarity (n = 23/40) as an evaluation criterion. Out of all cases where both were included as evaluation criteria, disease severity was assigned higher weights 84 percent of the time (n = 21/25).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found consistent evidence that disease severity is more relevant and preferred to rarity as a priority-setting criterion albeit constraints in statistical analysis imposed by limited sample size and data availability. Where funding for rare diseases is concerned, we advocate that decision-makers be explicit in clarifying the significance of disease severity and/or rarity as a value driver behind decisions. Our findings also reinforce the relevance of disease severity as a criterion in priority setting.

Understanding the Normativity of Health Technology Assessment: Ontological, Moral, and Epistemological Commitments

The inherent normativity of HTA can be conceptualized as a result of normative commitments, a concept that we further specify to encompass moral, epistemological and ontological commitments at play in the practice of HTA. Based on examples from literature, and an analysis of the example of assessing Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), we will show that inevitable normative decisions in conducting an assessment commits the HTA practitioner to moral (regarding what makes a health technology desirable), ontological (regarding which effects of health technology are conceivable), and epistemological (regarding how to obtain reliable information about health technology) norms. This highlights and supports the need for integrating normative analysis and stakeholder participation, providing guidance to HTA practitioners when making normative choices. This will foster a shared understanding between those who conduct, use, or are impacted by assessments regarding what are conceivable and desirable outcomes of using health technology, and how to collect reliable information to assess whether these outcomes are (going to be) realized. It also provides more insight into the implications of different normative choices.

Assessing medical devices: a qualitative study from the validate perspective

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to explore procedures and methods used at health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for assessing medical devices and the underlying views of HTA practitioners about appropriate methodology to identify challenges in adopting new methodologies for assessing devices. We focused on the role of normative commitments of HTA practitioners in the adoption of new methods.

METHODS

An online survey, including questions on procedures, scoping, and assessments of medical devices, was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Interviews were conducted with survey respondents and HTA practitioners involved in assessments of transcatheter aortic valve implantation to gain an in-depth understanding of choices made and views about assessing medical devices. Survey and interview questions were inspired by the "values in doing assessments of health technologies" approach towards HTA, which states that HTA addresses value-laden questions and information.

RESULTS

The current practice of assessing medical devices at HTA agencies is predominantly based on procedures, methods, and epistemological principles developed for assessments of drugs. Both practical factors (available time, demands of decision-makers, existing legal frameworks, and HTA guidelines), as well as commitments of HTA practitioners to principles of evidence-based medicine, make the adoption of a new methodology difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a broad recognition that assessments of medical devices may need changes in HTA methodology. In order to realize this, the HTA community may require both a discussion on the role, responsibility, and goals of HTA, and resulting changes in institutional context to adopt new methodologies.

Integration of ethical considerations into HTA reports: an analysis of integration levels using a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the type and level of ethical integration in published health technology assessment (HTA) reports and systematically identify the ethical approaches utilized.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted with the Google™ search engine using the keyword "ethic" between 1 January 2015 and 20 August 2019. Only HTA assessment reports with a section on ethics were retained and classified according to their level of ethical integration: no ethical analysis, ethical issues highlighted, assessments according to legal or social norms, and assessments from a moral or axiological perspective-using a qualitative methodology to distinguish such integration.

RESULTS

This review yielded 188 reports with a section identified as being on ethics, produced by seventeen HTA agencies in eleven countries. One hundred and thirty-six reports did not develop an ethical analysis, thirty-one highlighted ethical issues, seventeen conducted a norm-based ethical assessment using a descriptive approach grounded in social norms, and four developed an assessment grounded in a moral or axiological perspective. The bioethical "four-principles" framework was used, but mainly for presenting ethical issues and not as a moral framework.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of reports featuring a section on ethics mention ethical considerations without ethical analysis. Ethical issues are grouped with legal, social, and organizational issues and treated as contextual considerations that decision makers should be aware of. When reports present systematic norm-based ethical assessments from a descriptive perspective or ethical assessment based on a moral or axiological perspective, there is a tendency to ground these analyses in frameworks created for the purpose and reliant on a concept of ethics supporting them.