Postlaunch evidence-generation studies for medical devices in Spain: the RedETS approach to integrate real-world evidence into decision making

Domains and Methods of Medical Device Technology Evaluation: A Systematic Review

Objectives

Identify, through a systematic review, the main domains and methods to support health technology assessment of Medical Devices (MD) from the perspective of technological incorporation into healthcare systems.

Methods

Performed structured searches in MEDLINE, Embase, BVS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for full studies published between 2017 and May 2023. Selection, extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two blinded reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.

Results

A total of 5,790 studies were retrieved, of which 41 were included. We grouped the identified criteria into eight domains for the evaluations.

Conclusion

Overall, studies discuss the need to establish specific methods for conducting HTA in MD. Due to the wide diversity of MD types, a single methodological guideline may not encompass all the specificities and intrinsic characteristics of the plurality of MD. Studies suggest using clustering criteria through technological characterization as a strategy to make the process as standardized as possible.

Effectiveness, safety and costs of the FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in Spain: a prospective, uncontrolled, pre-post study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and costs of FreeStyle Libre (FSL) glucose monitoring system for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in Spain.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicentre pre-post study.

SETTING

Thirteen Spanish public hospitals recruited patients from January 2019 to March 2020, with a 12-month follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS

156 patients were included.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change. Secondary: severe hypoglycaemic events (self-reported and clinical records), quality of life, diabetes treatment knowledge, treatment satisfaction, adverse events, adherence, sensor usage time and scans. Healthcare resource utilisation was assessed for cost analysis from the National Health System perspective, incorporating direct healthcare costs. Data analysis used mixed regression models with repeated measures. The intervention's total cost was estimated by multiplying health resource usage with unit costs.

RESULTS

In the whole sample, HbA1c increased significantly (0.32%; 95% CI 0.10% to 0.55%). In the subgroup with baseline HbA1c≥7.5% (n=88), there was a significant reduction at 3 months (-0.46%; 95% CI -0.69% to -0.23%), 6 months (-0.49%; 95% CI -0.73% to -0.25%) and 12 months (-0.43%; 95% CI -0.68% to -0.19%). Well-controlled patients had a significant 12-month worsening (0.32%; 95% CI 0.18% to 0.47%). Self-reported severe hypoglycaemia significantly decreased compared with the previous year for the whole sample (-0.37; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.11). Quality of life and diabetes treatment knowledge showed no significant differences, but satisfaction increased. Adolescents had lower sensor usage time and scans than children. Reduction in HbA1c was significantly associated with device adherence. No serious adverse effects were observed. Data suggest that use of FSL could reduce healthcare resource use (strips and lancets) and costs related to productivity loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of FSL in young patients with T1DM was associated with a significant reduction in severe hypoglycaemia, and improved HbA1c levels were seen in patients with poor baseline control. Findings suggest cost savings and productivity gains for caregivers. Causal evidence is limited due to the study design. Further research is needed to confirm results and assess risks, especially for patients with lower baseline HbA1c.

Development and Pilot Test of the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool: An Information Technology-Based Tool to Support and Review Registries

OBJECTIVES

Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies are increasingly making use of real-world evidence and data. High-quality registries could be an asset for this; nevertheless, there is a lack of specified standards to assess the quality of data in the registry, or the registry itself. The European Network for Health Technology Assessment Joint Action 3 led the work to develop a tool for the evaluation of clinical registries: the "Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool" (REQueST).

METHODS

REQueST was developed in 4 steps: (1) A partnership between HTA bodies across Europe drafted the assessment criteria. (2) Multiple rounds of consultation across HTA bodies and the public domain developed an Excel version of REQueST. (3) This version was transformed into a web-based application. (4) An external pilot tested this REQueST tool with SMArtCARE and NeuroTransData registries.

RESULTS

Haute Autorité de Santé, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Croatian Institute of Public Health led the development of REQueST. Another 4 HTA bodies contributed regularly to development meetings, and all European Network for Health Technology Assessment partners were invited to contribute. Eight methodological, 12 essential, and 3 supplementary criteria were identified. Both pilot registries scored well, fulfilling the requirements for >70% of criteria, with none failed. Feedback by registry holders led to streamlining of the process and clarification of the criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The REQueST tool uses an iterative and collaborative methodology with registry holders. It has the potential to maximize the utility of registry data for decision making by regulatory and HTA bodies and provides a foundation for future research.

Postlaunch evidence generation practices among health technology assessment bodies in Europe

OBJECTIVES

The term Postlaunch Evidence Generation (PLEG) refers to evidence generated after the launch or licensing of a health technology. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the implementation of these practices in the European Union in order to explore cross-border cooperation opportunities.

METHODS

In December 2019, a survey composed of nine closed-ended questions with multiple choice answers about the PLEG practices in each country was sent to all twenty-five dedicated work package (WP5B) partners of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3. In addition to the survey, the national practices were discussed during a face-to-face meeting with WP5B partners.

RESULTS

Twelve Health TechnologyAssessment (HTA) bodies completed the survey. Of these, eleven reported procedures in place for official requests for PLEGs in their remit. In the large majority of cases, the requests are made at the time of the assessment/appraisal. Several agencies participate in the definition of the scope of the PLEG or review of its protocol. Data collection and analysis mainly lie with companies for pharmaceuticals, whereas it is more the responsibility of the HTA bodies for medical devices. Only one agency owns the data and is able to exchange them without asking permission.

CONCLUSIONS

Most agencies recommend European collaboration on PLEG commence once the evidence gaps have been defined or during the production of the HTA report in the case of European joint assessment.

Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges

OBJECTIVES

Medical devices are potentially good candidates for coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes, as clinical data at market entry are often sparse and (cost-)effectiveness depends on real-world use. The objective of this research was to explore the diffusion of CED schemes for devices in Europe, and the factors that favour or hamper their utilization.

METHODS

We conducted structured interviews with 25 decision-makers from 22 European countries to explore the characteristics of existing CED programmes for devices, and how decision makers perceived 13 pre-identified challenges associated with initiating and operating CED schemes for devices. We also collected data on individual schemes that were either initiated or still ongoing in the last 5 years.

RESULTS

We identified seven countries with CED programmes for devices and 78 ongoing schemes. The characteristics of CED programmes varied across countries, including eligibility criteria, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, funding arrangements, and type of decisions being contemplated at the outset of each scheme. We observed a high variability in how decision makers perceived CED-related challenges possibly reflecting country-specific arrangements and different experiences with CED. One general finding across all countries was that relatively little attention was paid to the evaluation of schemes, both during and at their completion.

CONCLUSIONS

CED programmes for devices with different characteristics exist in Europe. Decision-makers' perceptions differ on the challenges associated with these schemes. More exchange of knowledge and experience will help decision makers anticipate the likely challenges in CED schemes for devices, and to learn from good practices existing elsewhere.