Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first

Estimating and Rewarding the Value of Healthcare Interventions Beyond the Healthcare Sector: A Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND

Evaluating healthcare interventions for their impacts beyond health outcomes may result in recognition of changes in human capital, income level, tax revenue, and government spending, which could affect economic growth and population health. In this paper, we document instances where current health technology assessment (HTA) practices fail to account for the impacts of healthcare interventions on broader society beyond the healthcare sector.

METHODS

We propose a novel conceptual framework, highlighting its three components (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis [DCEA], input-output model, and voting scheme) and their contributions to capturing the economic and societal ripple effects of healthcare interventions. This manuscript also outlines a case study in which the framework is applied to the reassessment of a previously evaluated digital health therapeutic for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) compared with standard of care, demonstrating its practical application.

RESULTS

The DCEA health value metric indicates that digital therapeutic is more equitable, favoring socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, while standard of care exacerbates health inequality by benefiting the already advantaged. Additionally, digital therapeutic shows potential for boosting productivity, raising income, and creating jobs, supporting its consideration by employer-sponsored health plans to optimize resource allocation for treating OUD.

CONCLUSION

The conceptual framework provides insights for enhancing HTAs to incorporate the broader economic and societal impacts of healthcare interventions. By integrating DCEA, extended HTA analysis with input-output modeling, and a voting scheme, decision makers can make informed choices aligned with societal priorities, although further research and validation are necessary for practical implementation across diverse healthcare contexts.

Comparing Generic Paediatric Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments: A Dimensionality Assessment Using Factor Analysis

BACKGROUND

Widely used generic instruments to measure paediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) include the EQ-5D-Y-5L, Child Health Utility 9 Dimension (CHU-9D), Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) and Health Utilities Index (HUI). There are similarities and differences in the content of these instruments, but there is little empirical evidence on how the items they contain relate to each other, and to an overarching model of HRQoL derived from their content.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the dimensionality of the instruments using exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

METHODS

Data from the Australian Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison (P-MIC) Study were used. EQ-5D-Y-5L, CHU-9D, PedsQL and HUI data were collected via proxy or child self-report data. EFA was used to investigate the underlying domain structure and measurement relationship. Items from the four instruments were pooled and domain models were identified for self- and proxy-reported data. The number of factors was determined based on eigenvalues greater than 1. A correlation cut-off of 0.32 was used to determine item loading on a given factor, with cross-loading also considered. Oblique rotation was used.

RESULTS

Results suggest a six-factor structure for the proxy-reported data, including emotional functioning, pain, daily activities, physical functioning, school functioning, and senses, while the self-report data revealed a similar seven-factor structure, with social functioning emerging as an additional factor.

CONCLUSION

We provide evidence of differences and similarities between paediatric HRQoL instruments and the aspects of health being measured by these instruments. The results identified slight differences between self- and proxy-reported data in the relationships among items within the resulting domains.

Development of a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to elicit preferences by pregnant women and policymakers for the expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening

OBJECTIVE

An instrument for measuring intervention preferences applicable to both patients and policymakers would make it possible to better confront the needs of the supply and demand sides of the health care system. This study aimed to develop a discrete choice experiments (DCE) questionnaire to elicit the preferences of patients and policymakers. The instrument was specifically developed to estimate preferences for new conditions to be added to a screening program for fetal chromosomal anomalies.

METHODS

A DCE development study was conducted. The methods employed included a literature review, a qualitative study (based on individual semi-structured interviews, consultations, and a focus group discussion) with pregnant women and policymakers, and a pilot project with 33 pregnant women to validate the first version of the instrument and test the feasibility of its administration.

RESULTS

An initial list of 10 attributes was built based on a literature review and the qualitative research components of the study. Five attributes were built based on the responses provided by the participants from both groups. Eight attributes were consensually retained. A pilot project performed on 33 pregnant women led to a final instrument containing seven attributes: 'conditions to be screened', 'test performance', 'moment at gestational age to obtain the test result', 'degree of test result certainty to the severity of the disability', 'test sufficiency', 'information provided from test result', and 'cost related to the test'.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to reach a consensus on the construction of a DCE instrument intended to be administered to pregnant women and policymakers. However, complete validation of the consensual instrument is limited because there are too few voting members of health technology assessment agencies committees to statistically ascertain the relevance of the attributes and their levels.

HTA challenges for appraising rare disease interventions viewed through the lens of an institutional multidimensional value framework

INTRODUCTION

Evaluating rare disease interventions poses challenges for HTA agencies, including uncertainties and ethical issues and tensions. INESSS has recently adopted a Statement of Principles and Ethical Foundations which proposes a multidimensional approach to value appraisal as well as five principles to frame the evaluation process.

AREAS COVERED

Our aim was to identify and analyze HTA challenges for appraising interventions for rare diseases, using the Statement's approach to value appraisal as an analytical framework, and outline how the Statement's principles can help address these challenges. Challenges, covering a diversity of aspects, were identified by leveraging institutional experience in diverse domains of expertise and consolidated through narrative literature review. Challenges were categorized by value dimension (clinical, populational, economic, organizational, and sociocultural), which allowed to pinpoint how each challenge affects the ability to appraise the value of an intervention. Key ethical tensions across dimensions were also identified. Specific approaches to addressing these challenges - related to knowledge mobilization and integration, deliberation, and recommendation-making - were outlined on the basis of the principles promulgated in the Statement.

EXPERT OPINION

A multidimensional approach can be fruitful for analyzing challenges for appraising the value of rare disease interventions and help guide approaches to tackle them.

Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective

The article deals with one of the effects of health inequalities and gaps in access to treatments for rare diseases, namely health-driven emigration. The purpose of the paper is to systematize knowledge about the phenomenon of health emigration observed among families affected by rare diseases, for which reimbursed treatment is available, but only in selected countries. The topic proved to be niche; the issue of "health emigration in rare diseases" is an area for exploration. Therefore, the further analysis used text mining and machine learning methods based on a database selected based on keywords related to this issue. The results made it possible to systematize the guesses made by researchers in management and economic fields, to identify the most common keywords and thematic clusters around the perspective of the patient, drug manufacturer and treatment reimbursement decision-maker, and the perspective integrating all the others. Since the topic of health emigration was not directly addressed in the selected sources, the authors attempted to define the related concepts and discussed the importance of this phenomenon in managing the support system in rare diseases. Thus, they indicated directions for further research in this area.

Valuation of Treatments for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review of Societal Preference Studies

INTRODUCTION

We sought to synthesize published empirical studies that elicited and characterized societal valuations of orphan drugs and the attributes that may drive different valuations for orphan drugs versus other treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to November 2, 2020. Search terms covered societal preferences and attributes of orphan drugs (e.g., disease prevalence, severity, burden, unmet needs, and benefits).

RESULTS

We identified 38 eligible publications: 33 societal preference studies and 5 reviews discussing societal valuations and attributes of orphan drugs. Most publications suggested that a majority of respondents favored allocating funds to more prevalent diseases. However, trade-off studies and discrete-choice experiments found that survey participants chose to allocate resources to orphan drugs even when the cost per unit of health benefit was greater than for therapies for more prevalent diseases. Overall, 19 of 27 studies assessing severity in treatment valuation revealed that respondents prioritized patients with severe diseases over those with milder ones for equal health benefits. Members of the general public tended to prefer treatments for diseases with no alternative or when existing alternatives had limited efficacy over diseases with clear therapeutic alternatives. There was evidence that individuals preferred sharing resources, so no patient was left without treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our SLR indicates the general public typically attaches greater value to orphan drugs than to other treatments for common diseases. This is not because of rarity per se, but primarily because of disease severity and lack of therapeutic alternatives typically associated with rare diseases.

Use of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making policies-what is the problem? A perspective paper

INTRODUCTION

Drug reimbursement decisions that spark public controversy are potential signals that processes used to reach such decisions do not adequately reflect society's goals. Such controversial decisions appear to be a characteristic of Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY)-based Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)-dominated decision-making systems. QALY-based ICER-heavy systems have several known weaknesses that lead to individual and societal preferences being either ignored or considered in an unsystematic and inconsistent manner.

AREAS COVERED

We reprise some of the key inadequacies of QALY-based ICER analyses and suggest that there are other means including multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and cost-benefit analysis based on willingness to pay (WTP) measures by which to partially mitigate these weaknesses.

EXPERT OPINION

For long, the inadequacies of QALY-based ICER-heavy decision-making systems have been rationalized with the answer: 'while the method is a second best, it is the best we currently have.' In light of the equally well-developed and widely utilized alternatives available, this resistance to improve assessment processes should not be accepted by policy makers. Health technology assessment bodies should consider and, with appropriate modifications, adopt these alternatives as they have the potential to result in more comprehensive, systematic, and accountable decision-making.

Access to Innovative Neurological Drugs in Europe: Alignment of Health Technology Assessments Among Three European Countries

Even for products centrally approved, each European country is responsible for national market access after European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval. This step can result in inequalities in terms of access, due to different opinions about the therapeutic value assessed by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new neurological drugs following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 innovative medicines authorized in Europe for five neurological diseases (cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, metachromatic leukodystrophy, migraine, and polyneuropathy in patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis), including eight drugs for genetic rare diseases. We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular the “added value” compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Despite the differences in terms of assessment, the access has been usually guaranteed even if with various types of limitations. The heterogeneity of the HTA assessment of clinical data among countries is probably related to the uncertainties about clinical value at the time of EMA approval and the lack of long-term data and of direct comparison with available alternatives. Given the importance of new medicines especially for rare diseases, it is crucial to understand and act on the causes of inconsistency among the HTA assessments, in order to ensure rapid and uniform access to innovation for patients who can benefit.

Orphan Medicine Incentives: How to Address the Unmet Needs of Rare Disease Patients by Optimizing the European Orphan Medicinal Product Landscape Guiding Principles and Policy Proposals by the European Expert Group for Orphan Drug Incentives (OD Expert Group)

Today policy makers face the challenge to devise a policy framework that improves orphan medicinal product (OMP) development by creating incentives to deliver treatments where there are none and to authorize innovative and transformative treatments where treatments already exist. The European Expert Group on Orphan Drug Incentives (hereafter, OD Expert Group) came together in 2020 to develop policy proposals to facilitate EU policy makers to meet this challenge. The group brings together representatives of the broad rare disease community, including researchers, academia, patient representatives, members of the investor community, rare disease companies and trade associations. The group’s work builds on the recognition that only an ambitious policy agenda developed in a multi-stakeholder setting can bring about the quantum leap needed to address unmet needs of rare disease patients today. Along the OMP development path, the OD Expert Group has identified four main needs that a policy revision should address: 1) Need to improve the R&D ecosystem for basic research and company take-up of development. 2) Need to improve the system of financial incentives and rewards. 3) Need to improve the flexibility, predictability and speed of the regulatory pathway. 4) Need to improve the coherence and predictability of demand and pricing for OMPs. This article presents the results of the OD Expert Group work as a set of guiding principles that the revision of the policy framework should follow and a set of 14 policy proposals that address the main needs of OMP development in Europe today.

Evaluating Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay [DCE-WTP] analysis, and Relative Social Willingness to Pay [RS-WTP] analysis in a Health Technology Assessment of a treatment for an ultra-rare childhood disease [CLN2]

BACKGROUND

: Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis [CEA] using cost per QALY thresholds may counteract other incentives introduced to foster development of treatments for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Therefore, alternative economic evaluation methods were explored, namely Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay (DCE-WTP) and Relative Social Willingness to Pay (RS-WTP), to value interventions for an ultra-rare childhood disease, Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Treatment for CLN2 was valued from a citizen's ("social") perspective using DCE-WTP and RS-WTP in a survey of 4,009 United Kingdom [UK] adults. Three attributes (initial quality of life, treatment effect, and life expectancy) were used in both analyses. For DCE-WTP a cost attribute (marginal income tax increase) was also included. Optimal econometric models were identified.

RESULTS

DCE-WTP indicated that UK adults are willing to pay incremental increases through taxation for improvements in CLN2 attributes. RS-WTP identified a willingness to allocate >40% of a pre-assigned healthcare budget to prevent child mortality and approximately 15% for improved health status.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques illustrated substantive social WTP for CLN2 interventions, despite the small number of children benefitting. This highlights a gap between UK citizens' willingness to spend on rare disease interventions and current funding policies.

How Much Does It Cost to Research and Develop a New Drug? A Systematic Review and Assessment

BACKGROUND

Debate over the viability of the current commercial research and development (R&D) model is ongoing. A controversial theme is the cost of bringing a new molecular entity (NME) to market.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate the range and suitability of published R&D cost estimates as to the degree to which they represent the actual costs of industry.

METHODS

We provided a systematic literature review based on articles found in the Pubmed, Embase and EconLit electronic databases, and in a previously published review. Articles published before March 2020 that estimated the total R&D costs were included (22 articles with 45 unique cost estimates). We included only literature in which the methods used to collect the information and to estimate the R&D costs were clearly described; therefore, three reports were excluded. We extracted average pre-launch R&D costs per NME and converted the values to 2019 US dollars (US$) using the gross domestic product (GDP) price deflator. We appraised the suitability of the R&D estimated costs by using a scoring system that captures three domains: (1) how success rates and development time used for cost estimation were obtained; (2) whether the study considered potential sources contributing to the variation in R&D costs; and (3) what the components of the cost estimation were.

RESULTS

Estimates of total average capitalized pre-launch R&D costs varied widely, ranging from $161 million to $4.54 billion (2019 US$). Therapeutic area-specific estimates were highest for anticancer drugs (between $944 million and $4.54 billion). Our analysis identified a trend of increasing R&D costs per NME over time but did not reveal a relation between cost estimates and study ranking when the suitability scores were assessed. We found no evidence of an increase in suitability scores over time.

CONCLUSION

There is no universally correct answer regarding how much it costs, on average, to research and develop an NME. Future studies should explicitly address previously neglected variables, which likely explain some variability in estimates, and consider the trade-off between the transparency and public accessibility of data and their specificity. Use of our proposed suitability scoring system may assist in addressing such issues.

Health Technology Assessment of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: Comparison Among 3 European Countries

Even for centrally approved products, each European country is responsible for the effective national market access. This step can result in inequalities in terms of access, due to different opinions about the therapeutic value assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent a major issue with regard to the HTA in order to make them available at a national level. These products are based on genes, tissues, or cells, commonly developed as one-shot treatment for rare or ultrarare diseases and mandatorily authorized by the EMA with a central procedure. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by European countries (France, Germany, and Italy) following EMA approval of ATMPs. We found a low rate of agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular the "added value" compared to the standard of care) of ATMPs. Despite the differences in terms of clinical assessment, the access has been usually guaranteed, even with different timing and limitations. In view of the importance of ATMPs as innovative therapies for unmet needs, it is crucial to understand and act on the causes of disagreement among the HTA. In addition, the adoption of the new EU regulation on HTA would be useful to reduce disparities of medicine's assessment among European countries.

Onwards and Upwards: A Systematic Survey of Economic Evaluation Methods in Oncology

INTRODUCTION

The type of methods used in economic evaluations of health technology can lead to results that may influence decisions. Despite the potential impact on decision making, there is very little documentation of methods used in economic evaluation in oncology pertaining to key assumptions and extrapolation methods of survival benefits, especially in terms of survival analysis techniques and methods for extrapolation.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this study were to identify, examine, and describe the methods used in economic evaluations in oncology over a 10-year period, while secondary objectives included examining the use of identified methods across different geographic regions.

METHODS

A systematic search of the published oncology literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations of advanced or metastatic cancers published between 2010 and 2019 using the PUBMED, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. A random sample was taken, and information on type of study, data source, modeling techniques, and survival analysis methods were abstracted and descriptively summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 8481 abstracts were identified and 76 economic evaluations were abstracted and assessed. Most identified studies were from North America (38%), East Asia (21%), continental Europe (18%), or the UK (16%), and most commonly focused on lung cancer (18%), colorectal cancer (16%), or breast cancer (13%). A large majority of studies were based on data from randomized controlled trials (82%), utilized a cost-utility approach (82%), and took a public healthcare system perspective (83%). Common model structures included Markov (49%) and partitioned survival (17%). Fitted parametric curves were the most commonly used extrapolation method (89%) for overall survival and most often utilized the Weibull distribution (64%). Secondary assessments showed modest regional variation in the use of identified methods, including the use of fitted parametric curves, testing of the proportional hazards assumption, and validation of results.

CONCLUSION

A majority of papers in the study sample reported basic characteristics of study type, data source used, modeling techniques, and utilization of survival analysis methods. However, greater detail in reporting extrapolation methods, statistical analyses, and validation of results could be potential improvements, especially across regions, in order to support greater consistency in decision making. Future research could document the diffusion of novel modeling techniques into economic evaluation.

Regulatory, Legal, and Market Aspects of Smart Wearables for Cardiac Monitoring

In the area of cardiac monitoring, the use of digitally driven technologies is on the rise. While the development of medical products is advancing rapidly, allowing for new use-cases in cardiac monitoring and other areas, regulatory and legal requirements that govern market access are often evolving slowly, sometimes creating market barriers. This article gives a brief overview of the existing clinical studies regarding the use of smart wearables in cardiac monitoring and provides insight into the main regulatory and legal aspects that need to be considered when such products are intended to be used in a health care setting. Based on this brief overview, the article elaborates on the specific requirements in the main areas of authorization/certification and reimbursement/compensation, as well as data protection and data security. Three case studies are presented as examples of specific market access procedures: the USA, Germany, and Belgium. This article concludes that, despite the differences in specific requirements, market access pathways in most countries are characterized by a number of similarities, which should be considered early on in product development. The article also elaborates on how regulatory and legal requirements are currently being adapted for digitally driven wearables and proposes an ongoing evolution of these requirements to facilitate market access for beneficial medical technology in the future.

Evidence-Based Decision Making 3: Health Technology Assessment

This chapter begins with a brief introduction to health technology assessment (HTA). HTA is concerned with the systematic evaluation of the consequences of the adoption and use of new health technologies and to improve the evidence on existing technologies. The objective of mainstream HTA is to support evidence-based decision- and policy-making that encourage the uptake of efficient and effective health-care technologies. This chapter provides a basic framework for conducting an HTA, as well as some fundamental concepts and challenges in assessing health technologies. Whether HTA is beneficial-supporting timely access to needed technologies-or detrimental depends on three critical issues: when the assessment is performed; how it is performed; and how the findings are used.

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks

Background: Decision-makers have implemented a variety of value assessment frameworks (VAFs) for orphan drugs in European jurisdictions, which has contributed to variations in access for rare disease patients. This review provides an overview of the strengths and limitations of VAFs for the reimbursement of orphan drugs in Europe, and may serve as a guide for decision-makers.

Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Only publications in English were included. Publications known to the authors were added, as well as conference or research papers, or information published on the website of reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Additionally, publications were included through snowballing or focused searches.

Results: Although a VAF that applies a standard economic evaluation treats both orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs equally, its focus on cost-effectiveness discards the impact of disease rarity on data uncertainty, which influences an accurate estimation of an orphan drug’s health benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A VAF that weighs QALYs or applies a variable incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) threshold, allows the inclusion of value factors beyond the QALY, although their methodologies are flawed. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) incorporates a flexible set of value factors and involves multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. Nevertheless, its successful implementation relies on decision-makers’ openness toward transparency and a pragmatic approach, while allowing the flexibility for continuous improvement.

Conclusion: The frameworks listed above each have multiple strengths and weaknesses. We advocate that decision-makers apply the concept of accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to justify their choice for a specific VAF for orphan drugs and to strive for maximum transparency concerning the decision-making process. Also, in order to manage uncertainty and feasibility of funding, decision-makers may consider using managed-entry agreements rather than implementing a separate VAF for orphan drugs.

The representation of public values in health technology assessment to inform funding decisions: the case of Australia's national funding bodies

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing recognition of the value of public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of public funding decisions [Street J, Stafinski T, Lopes E, Menon D. Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:87-95]. However, important challenges remain, in particular, how to reorient HTA to reflect public priorities. In a recent international survey of thirty HTA agencies conducted by the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA), public engagement in HTA was listed as one of the "Top 10" challenges for HTA agencies [O'Rourke B, Werko SS, Merlin T, Huang LY, Schuller T. The "Top 10" challenges for health technology assessment: INAHTA viewpoint. Int J Technol Assess. 2020;36:1-4].Historically, Australia has been at the forefront of the application of HTA for assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new health technologies to inform public funding decisions. However, current HTA processes in Australia lack meaningful public inputs. Using Australia as an example, we describe this important limitation and discuss the potential impact of this gap on the health system and future directions.

The political economics of cancer drug discovery and pricing

Drug discoveries can, when used appropriately, save lives. Since 1970, cancer death rates among people aged under 65 have halved in countries such as the USA and the UK. Despite pharmaceutical market imperfections and fears about the prices of new treatments, further progress should be possible during the 2020s. Anticancer medicine outlays account for 0.1-0.2% of the gross domestic product (GDP) of developed countries. Total cancer service spending typically stands at ∼0.8% of GDP. The affordability of these sums is a political calculation. Improvements in the efficiency of drug development and global access to effective therapies are desirable. However, from a public interest perspective, these goals should not be pursued in ways that understate the value of better treatment outcomes and threaten the funding available for ongoing innovation.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of duloxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia: overview of systematic reviews

Background

Duloxetine and amitriptyline are antidepressants used in the treatment of fibromyalgia. In published systematic reviews, there is no agreement about which drug is more effective and safer. This study aimed to compare evidence of the efficacy and safety of duloxetine compared with amitriptyline in the treatment of adult patients with fibromyalgia. This work contributes to guiding clinicians on the use of duloxetine or amitriptyline for the treatment of fibromyalgia and provides information for public health decision-makers.

Methods

Overview of systematic reviews of clinical trials comparing duloxetine and amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. The reviews were screened in Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, and SRDR with no restrictions on language and year of publication, considering that the research was conducted in July 2018 and updated until May 2020. The selection was based on the following criteria: adult patients with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia treated with duloxetine or amitriptyline, comparing the efficacy and safety in pain, fatigue, sleep, and mood disorder symptoms and quality of life, in addition to the acceptability of these antidepressants. The methodological quality and strength of evidence were assessed using the AMSTAR and GRADE instruments.

Results

Eight systematic reviews were selected. Amitriptyline had low evidence for pain, moderate evidence for sleep and fatigue, and high evidence for quality of life. Duloxetine had high quality of evidence in patients with mood disorders. With low evidence, duloxetine has higher acceptability, but is safer in older patients, while amitriptyline is safer for non-elderly individuals.

Conclusion

Both antidepressants are effective in the treatment of fibromyalgia, differing according to the patient’s symptoms and profile.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42019116101.

Critical Review of European Health-Economic Guidelines for the Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices

Background: Health-technology assessment (HTA) is a recognized mechanism to determine the relative benefits of innovative medical technologies. One aspect is their health-economic impact. While the process and methodology for pharmaceuticals is well-established, guidance for medical devices is sparse.

Aim: To provide an overview of the health-economic aspect in current European HTA guidelines concerning medical devices and identifying issues raised and potential improvements proposed in recent literature.

Methodology: Available guidelines by European agencies were each reviewed and summarized. To complement this, a full systematic review of current literature concerning potential improvements to existing HTA practices for medical devices, from PubMed and EMBASE, was conducted; the focus was on health economics. Authors could only review documents in English, French, or German. The systematic review yielded 518 unique articles concerning HTA for medical devices, 32 of which were considered for full-text review after screening of all abstracts.

Results: There is very limited consensus in—and mostly a complete lack of—guidance specific to medical devices in official HTA guidelines, for both clinical and economic analyses. Twenty two of 41 European countries had published official HTA guidance in English, French, or German. Among these only 4 (England, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden) dedicated a chapter or separate document to medical devices. In the literature, there is sufficient evidence to suggest medical devices need to be addressed separately from pharmaceuticals. However, mostly challenges are discussed rather than implementable solutions offered. We present the following set of frequently discussed issues and summarize any solutions that pertain to them: a weak evidence base, learning-curve effects, organizational impact, incremental innovation, diversity of devices, dynamic pricing, and transferability. We further combine reviewed information to suggest a set of possible best practices for health-economic assessment of medical devices.

Conclusion: For greater efficiency in medical-device innovation, European agencies should look to (re-)address the specific requirements of medical devices in their HTA guidelines. When both the health-economic and data requirements for the HTA of medical devices are defined, the development of practical solutions will likely follow.