Search

The attention paid by regulatory authorities to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and their related measures (PROMs) has progressively increased to allow for a more complete description of the patient’s health status. This work aimed at investigating the use of PROs/PROMs in relation to reimbursement agreement and innovativeness recognition by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). The list of European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs), downloaded from the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, was analyzed to identify drugs authorized between 2017 and 2021. The associations between the use of PROs/PROMs in the EPARs and the reimbursement and innovativeness status in Italy were explored through Chi2 test and logistic regression. In addition, each innovativeness report was analyzed to identify any further evidence about the consideration of PROs/PROM in the decision-making process. Of the 403 EPARs analyzed, 197 (48.9%) reported the use of PROs/PROMs. A subsample of 229 drugs with a reimbursement class (A, H, or C) officially assigned by AIFA was further investigated. Of them, 49.3% reported the use of PROs/PROMs. The Chi2 test revealed a statistically significant association between the use of PROs/PROMs and innovativeness (p = 0.001) and orphan status (p = 0.012). In the logistic regression, orphan status and availability of PROs/PROMs are significant predictors of the innovativeness status. However, of the 46 innovative drugs, only 9 (19.6%) explicitly reported a consideration of a PRO/PROM in their innovativeness reports. Robust instrument’s validation, reliable data collection and growing potential’s awareness are keys to increase the consideration of PROs at every step of the drug development process.

Introduction: Health state valuation and diagnostic-therapeutic pathways at the junction between non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) are not well documented. We aimed at: (i) estimating the disability weights (DWs) for health states across a continuum of disease from asymptomatic non-metastatic (nmCRPC) to symptomatic metastatic state (mCRPC); (ii) mapping the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway of nmCRPC in Italy. Methods: Structured qualitative interviews were performed with clinical experts to gather information on nmCRPC clinical pathway. An online survey was administered to clinical experts to estimate DWs for four CRPC health states defined from interviews and literature review (i.e., nmCRPC, asymptomatic mCRPC, symptomatic mCRPC, mCRPC in progression during or after chemotherapy). Clinicians’ preferences for health states were elicited using the Person-Trade-Off (PTO) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) methods. DWs associated with each health state, from 0 (best imaginable health state) and 1 (worst imaginable health state), were estimated. Results: We found that the management of nmCRPC is heterogeneous across Italian regions and hospitals, especially with respect to diagnostic imaging techniques. DWs for PTO ranged from 0.415 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.208-0.623) in nmCRPC to 0.740 (95% CI 0.560-0.920) in mCRPC, in progression during or after chemotherapy. DWs for VAS ranged between 0.246 (95% CI 0.131-0.361) in nmCRPC to 0.689 (95% CI 0.583-0.795) in mCRPC, in progression during or after chemotherapy. Conclusions: Estimated DWs suggest that delaying transition to a metastatic state might ease the disease burden at both patient and societal levels.

Health economists have written extensively on the design and implementation of coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes and have proposed theoretical frameworks based on cost-effectiveness modeling and value of information analysis. CED may aid decision-makers when there is uncertainty about the (cost-)effectiveness of a new health technology at the time of reimbursement. Medical devices are potential candidates for CED schemes, as regulatory regimes do not usually require the same level of efficacy and safety data normally needed for pharmaceuticals. The purpose of this research is to assess whether the actual practice of CED for medical devices in Europe meets the theoretical principles proposed by health economists and whether theory and practice can be more closely aligned. Based on decision-makers' perceptions of the challenges associated with CED schemes, plus examples from the schemes themselves, we discuss a series of proposals for assessing the desirability of schemes, their design, implementation, and evaluation. These proposals, while reflecting the practical challenges with developing CED programs, embody many of the principles suggested by economists and should support decision-makers in dealing with uncertainty about the real-world performance of devices.

Background The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. Methods A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. Results The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. Conclusions The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Background Regulatory agencies have been responsive to public demand for inclusion of the patient experience in evaluating and approving therapies. Over the years, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become increasingly prevalent in clinical trial protocols; however, their influence on regulators, payers, clinicians, and patients’ decision-making is not always clear. We recently conducted a cross-sectional study aimed at investigating the use of PROMs in new regulatory approvals of drugs for neurological conditions between 2017 and 2022 in Europe. Methods We reviewed European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and recorded on a predefined data extraction form whether they considered PROMs, their characteristics (e.g., primary/secondary endpoint, generic/specific instrument) and other relevant information (e.g., therapeutic area, generic/biosimilar, orphan status). Results were tabulated and summarized by means of descriptive statistics. Results Of the 500 EPARs related to authorized medicines between January 2017 and December 2022, 42 (8%) concerned neurological indications. Among the EPARs of these products, 24 (57%) reported any use of PROMs, typically considered as secondary (38%) endpoints. In total, 100 PROMs were identified, of which the most common were the EQ-5D (9%), the SF-36 (6%), or its shorter adaptation SF-12, the PedsQL (4%). Conclusions Compared to other disease areas, neurology is one where the use of patient-reported outcomes evidence is inherently part of the clinical evaluation and for which core outcome sets exist. Better harmonization of the instruments recommended for use would facilitate the consideration of PROMs at all stages in the drug development process.

This study aimed to provide normative data obtained in response to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire in Italy and compare this with data from other countries.A sample of the Italian adult population (aged ≥ 18 years) was recruited and interviewed online using videoconferencing software (Zoom) between November 2020 and February 2021. The distribution of answers was estimated as per the descriptive system of the EQ-5D-5L, and descriptive statistics were calculated for the EQ VAS score and EQ-5D-5L index value in the whole sample and relevant subgroups. An ordinary least square (OLS) regression was performed to evaluate the impact of sociodemographic variables on EQ-5D-5L results. Lastly, a comparison was made with EQ-5D-5L population norms of other countries. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and Stata 13.Overall, 1182 people representative of the Italian population (2020) in terms of sex and geographical area responded to the survey. Of the 3125 potential EQ-5D-5L health states, only 106 (3.4%) were selected, and the '11111' and '11112' states were chosen by half of the participants. In terms of EQ-5D-5L dimensions, the frequency of any problems (from slight to extreme) associated with anxiety and depression was high among the very young (18-24 years, 56.0%) and in women of all ages (49.7%). The mean index value (± standard deviation [SD]) was 0.93 (± 0.11) for the entire sample and gradually decreased with age, moving from 0.95 (± 0.06) in the youngest group (18-24 years) to 0.91 (± 0.13) in the oldest age group (≥ 75 years). Similarly, the mean EQ VAS score (± SD) was 81.8 (± 13.5), and decreased from 87.0 (± 8.9) in the 18-24 years age group to 75.1 (± 16.4) among participants 75 years of age. The existence of self-reported chronic conditions (e.g., cardiovascular disease), female sex, and social assistance recipiency were negatively associated with the EQ-5D index value, while the EQ VAS score was significantly lower in people with chronic conditions and aged 55 years. Conversely, higher income levels had a positive impact on both the EQ-5D index value and the EQ VAS score. Lastly, both the EQ-5D index value and EQ VAS score in Italy were, on average, higher than in most European countries.EQ-5D-5L population norms provide useful insights into the health status of the Italian population and can be used as a reference for other surveys using the same instrument.

Objectives The management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is rapidly evolving; however, little is known about the direct healthcare costs of nmCRPC. We aimed to estimate the cost-of-illness (COI) of nmCRPC from the Italian National Health Service perspective. Methods Structured, individual qualitative interviews were carried out with clinical experts to identify what healthcare resources are consumed in clinical practice. To collect quantitative estimates of healthcare resource consumption, a structured expert elicitation was performed with clinical experts using a modified version of a previously validated interactive Excel-based tool, EXPLICIT (EXPert eLICItation Tool). For each parameter, experts were asked to provide the lowest, highest, and most likely value. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to test the robustness of the results. Results Ten clinical experts were interviewed, and six of them participated in the expert elicitation exercise. According to the most likely estimate, the yearly cost per nmCRPC patient is €4,710 (range, €2,243 to €8,243). Diagnostic imaging (i.e., number/type of PET scans performed) had the highest impact on cost. The PSA showed a 50 percent chance for the yearly cost per nmCRPC patient to be within €5,048 using a triangular distribution for parameters, and similar results were found using a beta-PERT distribution. Conclusions This study estimated the direct healthcare costs of nmCRPC in Italy based on a mixed-methods approach. Delaying metastases may be a reasonable goal also from an economic standpoint. These findings can inform decision-making about treatments at the juncture between non-metastatic and metastatic prostate cancer disease.

Introduction: The new European Union (EU) Regulations for medical devices (MDs) and health technology assessment (HTA) are welcome developments that should increase the quality of clinical evidence for MDs and reduce fragmentation in the EU market access process. To fully exploit anticipated benefits, their respective assessment processes should be closely coordinated, particularly for promising, highly innovative MDs. Accelerated approval is worth exploring for certain categories of high-risk MDs to keep the EU regulatory process competitive compared to accelerated MD approval programs elsewhere (e.g. US). Areas Covered: Problems observed in worldwide accelerated drug and MD regulatory approval programs are reviewed, including greater uncertainty in premarket clinical evidence generation and lack of oversight for post approval evidence requirements. Implications for MD approval, HTA and coverage are explored. Expert Opinion: Through analysis of two decades of drug and MD accelerated approval programs worldwide, recommendations for an Accelerated Access Pathway for select innovative, high-risk MDs are proposed to fit the EU context, leverage the two new regulations, increase opportunities for Expert Panels to provide timely advice regarding manufacturers’ evidence generation plans along the MD lifecycle (pre, postmarket), and safely speed patient access while promoting increased collaboration among Member States on coverage decisions.

Mature overall survival (OS) data are often unavailable at the time of regulatory and reimbursement decisions for a new cancer treatment. For patients with early-stage cancers treated with potentially curative treatments, demonstrating an OS benefit may take years and may be confounded by subsequent lines of therapy or crossover to the investigational treatment. For patients with advanced-stage cancers, mature OS data may be available but difficult to interpret for similar reasons. There are strong opinions about approval and reimbursement in the absence of mature OS data, with concerns over delay in patient access set against concerns about uncertainty in long-term benefit. This position paper reflects our individual views as patient advocate, clinician or health economist on one aspect of this debate. We look at payer decisions in the absence of mature OS data, considering when and how non-OS trial outcomes could inform decision-making and how uncertainty can be addressed beyond the trial, supporting these views with evidence from the literature. We consider when it is reasonable for payers to expect or not expect mature OS data at the initial reimbursement decision (based on criteria such as cancer stage and treatment efficacy) acknowledging that there are settings in which mature OS data are expected. We propose flexible strategies for generating and appraising patient-relevant evidence, including context-relevant endpoints and quality of life measures, when survival rates are good and mature OS data are not expected. We note that fair reimbursement is important; this means valuing patient benefit as shown through prespecified endpoints and reappraising if there is ongoing uncertainty or failure to show a sustained benefit. We suggest that reimbursement systems continue to evolve to align with scientific advances, because innovation is only meaningful if readily accessible to patients. The proposed strategies have the potential to promote thorough assessment of potential benefit to patients and lead to timely access to effective medicines., Graphical Abstract

COVID-19 pandemic challenges have accelerated the reliance on digital health fuelling the expanded incorporation of mobile apps into healthcare services, particularly for the management of long-term conditions such as chronic diseases (CDs). However, the impact of health apps on outcomes for CD remains unclear, potentially owing to both the poor adoption of formal development standards in the design process and the methodological quality of studies. A systematic search of randomised trials was performed on Medline, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library and Scopus to provide a comprehensive outlook and review the impact of health apps on CD. We identified 69 studies on diabetes (n = 29), cardiovascular diseases (n = 13), chronic respiratory diseases (n = 13), cancer (n = 10) or their combinations (n = 4). The apps rarely adopted developmental factors in the design stage, with only around one-third of studies reporting user or healthcare professional engagement. Apps differed significantly in content, with a median of eight behaviour change techniques adopted, most frequently pertaining to the ‘Feedback and monitoring’ (91%) and ‘Shaping knowledge’ (72%) categories. As for the study methodologies, all studies adopted a traditional randomised control trial (RCT) design, with relatively short follow-ups and limited sample sizes. Findings were not significant for the majority of studies across all CD, with most RCTs revealing a high risk of bias. To support the adoption of apps for CD management, this review reinforces the need for more robust development and appropriate study characteristics to sustain evidence generation and elucidate whether study results reflect the true benefits of apps or a biased estimate due to unsuitable designs.

IntroductionUsing a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a primary patient-relevant outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently, that is, with shorter time, smaller sample size and lower cost. However, there is currently no consensus-driven guideline for the reporting of RCTs using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the design and reporting of these trials. As an initial step, scoping and targeted reviews will identify potential items for inclusion in the extensions and participants to contribute to a Delphi consensus process.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will search and include literature reporting on the current understanding, limitations and guidance on using surrogate endpoints in trials. Relevant literature will be identified through: (1) bibliographic databases; (2) grey literature; (3) handsearching of reference lists and (4) solicitation from experts. Data from eligible records will be thematically analysed into potential items for inclusion in extensions. The targeted review will search for RCT reports and protocols published from 2017 to 2021 in six high impact general medical journals. Trial corresponding author contacts will be listed as potential participants for the Delphi exercise.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The reviews will support the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for reporting surrogate primary endpoints (surrogate endpoint as the primary outcome). The findings will be published in open-access publications.This review has been prospectively registered in the OSF Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WP3QH.

Cancer and anticancer treatments can lead to several negative side effects, including malnutrition. Despite the recognized need for adequate nutritional support in cancer patients, in daily clinical practice, nutrition is still not considered one of the first aspects to be considered. Malnutrition negatively affects the clinical outcomes, treatment response, and overall survival of cancer patients. In this study, three of the most controversial issues related to malnutrition, which emerged during an Italian Consensus Conference, were addressed specifically for patients with head and neck as well as gastrointestinal cancer. The timing of nutritional evaluation and intervention, extension of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) protocols, and cost-effectiveness of nutritional interventions have been considered. This study aimed to illustrate the state-of-the art of each issue and hypothesize future perspectives and actions to be taken, trying to suggest a new nutritional management model for cancer patients in Italy that overcomes the critical issues encountered. Of note, the timely diagnosis of nutritional issue appears to be essential to ensure the correct management of malnourished cancer patients as well as those who are at high risk of malnutrition. Standardized protocols, screening tests, and the inclusion of nutritional parameters in patient medical records would help to achieve good clinical outcomes. Finally, appropriate nutritional support is also associated with cost savings, and it seems necessary to promote its clinical and economic value to obtain improvements in both outcomes and management costs.

Supplementary Files

Objective: The assessment of benefits and harms from experimental treatments often ignores the association between outcomes. In a randomized trial, generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) can be used to assess a Net Benefit that takes this association into account. Study design and settings: We use GPC to analyze a fictitious trial of treatment versus control, with a binary efficacy outcome (response) and a binary toxicity outcome, as well as data from two actual randomized trials in oncology. In all cases, we compute the Net Benefit for scenarios with different orders of priority between response and toxicity, and a range of odds ratios (ORs) for the association between these outcomes. Results: The GPC Net Benefit was quite different from the benefit/harm computed using marginal treatment effects on response and toxicity. In the fictitious trial using response as first priority, treatment had an unfavorable Net Benefit if OR < 1, but favorable if OR > 1. With OR = 1, the Net Benefit was 0. Results changed drastically using toxicity as first priority. Conclusion: Even in a simple situation, marginal treatment effects can be misleading. In contrast, GPC assesses the Net Benefit as a function of the treatment effects on each outcome, the association between outcomes, and individual patient priorities. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Brussels-Capital (Innoviris); EORTC Cancer Research Fund; regions of Wallonia (BioWin Consortium) [7979]

Objectives A recent debate in health economics and outcomes research community identified option value as one of the elements warranting consideration in the assessment of medical technologies. To conduct a scoping review of contributions on option value in the healthcare sector and identify relevant conceptual aspects and methods used to incorporate it in standard economic evaluations. Methods A systematic search was conducted up to July 2020 to identify contributions from electronic bibliographic database and gray literature. Data on the proposed definitions of option value, theoretical implications of its use in economic evaluations, and methods used to estimate it were extracted and analyzed. Results We found 57 eligible studies. Three different definitions emerged: insurance value, real option value, and option value of survival. Focusing on the latter (24 studies), we analyzed in depth 8 empirical applications across 7 therapeutic areas. The most relevant methodological challenges were on the perspective used in economic evaluations and how to robustly manage forecasting uncertainty, update cost-effectiveness thresholds, and avoid double-counting issues. For empirical studies assessing the total value of the technology, including option value, estimates ranged from +7% to +469% of its conventional value. Conclusions This review synthesizes theoretical and empirical aspects on option value of healthcare technologies and proposes a terminology to distinguish 3 different concepts identified. Future work should focus primarily on agreeing on whether option value should be included in economic evaluations and, if so, on developing and validating reliable methods for its ex-ante estimation.

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) solutions have proven to be effective in a wide range of patient outcomes and have proliferated over time. However, a persistent challenge of digital health technologies, including mHealth, is that they are characterized by early dropouts in clinical practice and struggle to be used outside experimental settings or on larger scales. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore barriers and enablers to the uptake of mHealth solutions used by patients with cancer undergoing treatment, using a theory-guided implementation science model, that is, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS A scoping literature review was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases in March 2022. We selected studies that analyzed the development, evaluation, and implementation of mHealth solutions for patients with cancer that were used in addition to the standard of care. Only empirical designs (eg, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative studies) were considered. First, information on the study characteristics, patient population, app functionalities, and study outcomes was extracted. Then, the CFIR model was used as a practical tool to guide data collection and interpretation of evidence on mHealth uptake. RESULTS Overall, 91 papers were included in the data synthesis. The selected records were mostly randomized controlled trials (26/91, 29%) and single-arm, noncomparative studies (52/91, 57%). Most of the apps (42/73, 58%) were designed for both patients and clinicians and could be used to support any type of cancer (29/73, 40%) and a range of oncological treatments. Following the CFIR scheme (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals, process), multistakeholder co-design, codevelopment, and testing of mHealth interventions were identified as key enablers for later uptake. A variety of external drivers emerged, although the most relevant outer incentive fostering mHealth use was addressing patient needs. Among organizational factors likely to influence technology uptake, interoperability was the most prominent, whereas other providers’ dimensions such as managerial attitudes or organizational culture were not systematically discussed. Technology-related impediments that could hamper the use of mHealth at the individual level were considered least often. CONCLUSIONS The hype surrounding mHealth in cancer care is hindered by several factors that can affect its use in real world and nonexperimental settings. Compared with the growing evidence on mHealth efficacy, knowledge to inform the uptake of mHealth solutions in clinical cancer care is still scarce. Although some of our findings are supported by previous implementation research, our analysis elaborates on the distinguishing features of mHealth apps and provides an integrated perspective on the factors that should be accounted for implementation efforts. Future syntheses should liaise these dimensions with strategies observed in successful implementation initiatives.

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.

Differing contexts have greatly influenced HTA development in various countries, with considerable effort recently made by international HTA networks (e.g., EUnetHTA) and the European Union (EU) to make HTA a more coherent, equal, and efficient process. Medical devices (MDs) present particular challenges for HTA because of frequent, rapid innovation, outcomes influenced by end-user competence, dynamic pricing and often low-quality scientific evidence. Our objective is to describe the development, structure and governance of a National HTA Program for MDs (PNHTADM) in Italy, a highly participatory, stakeholder-engaged, evidence-based process to reform a fragmented system of appraisal and approval. Based largely on EUnetHTA methods, the resulting process delineates a standardized system for proposing MDs by any stakeholders, accrediting HTA producers, setting criteria for prioritization and appraisals, and innovatively linking recommendations with coverage, reimbursement and procurement of MDs. Expected benefits include reduced disparities in pricing and reimbursement policies and improved access to new technologies across 21 regional healthcare systems in Italy's decentralized, universal system, complete with provisions to require additional evidence collection and centrally monitor diffusion. Though devised for Italy, the design, resources and underlying analysis provide a framework for other nations seeking to consolidate HTA initiatives, particularly in light of new EU regulation.

In the drive toward faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and payers are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence based on surrogate endpoints, increasing decision uncertainty. Despite the development of a small number of evaluation frameworks, there remains no consensus on the detailed methodology for handling surrogate endpoints in HTA practice. This research overviews the methods and findings of four empirical studies undertaken as part of COMED (Pushing the Boundaries of Cost and Outcome Analysis of Medical Technologies) program work package 2 with the aim of analyzing international HTA practice of the handling and considerations around the use of surrogate endpoint evidence. We have synthesized the findings of these empirical studies, in context of wider contemporary body of methodological and policy-related literature on surrogate endpoints, to develop a web-based decision tool to support HTA agencies and payers when faced with surrogate endpoint evidence. Our decision tool is intended for use by HTA agencies and their decision-making committees together with the wider community of HTA stakeholders (including clinicians, patient groups, and healthcare manufacturers). Having developed this tool, we will monitor its use and we welcome feedback on its utility.

Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a patient-relevant final outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently. However, the use of surrogates remains controversial and there is currently no guideline for the reporting of RCTs using surrogate endpoints; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the reporting of these trials. We would like to invite interested individuals (trial methodologists, journal editors, healthcare industry, regulators and payers, and patient/public representative groups), particularly those with experience in the use of surrogate endpoints in trials.

Background Mobile health (mHealth) solutions have proven to be effective in a wide range of patient outcomes and have proliferated over time. However, a persistent challenge of digital health technologies, including mHealth, is that they are characterized by early dropouts in clinical practice and struggle to be used outside experimental settings or on larger scales. Objective This study aimed to explore barriers and enablers to the uptake of mHealth solutions used by patients with cancer undergoing treatment, using a theory-guided implementation science model, that is, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Methods A scoping literature review was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases in March 2022. We selected studies that analyzed the development, evaluation, and implementation of mHealth solutions for patients with cancer that were used in addition to the standard of care. Only empirical designs (eg, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative studies) were considered. First, information on the study characteristics, patient population, app functionalities, and study outcomes was extracted. Then, the CFIR model was used as a practical tool to guide data collection and interpretation of evidence on mHealth uptake. Results Overall, 91 papers were included in the data synthesis. The selected records were mostly randomized controlled trials (26/91, 29%) and single-arm, noncomparative studies (52/91, 57%). Most of the apps (42/73, 58%) were designed for both patients and clinicians and could be used to support any type of cancer (29/73, 40%) and a range of oncological treatments. Following the CFIR scheme (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals, process), multistakeholder co-design, codevelopment, and testing of mHealth interventions were identified as key enablers for later uptake. A variety of external drivers emerged, although the most relevant outer incentive fostering mHealth use was addressing patient needs. Among organizational factors likely to influence technology uptake, interoperability was the most prominent, whereas other providers’ dimensions such as managerial attitudes or organizational culture were not systematically discussed. Technology-related impediments that could hamper the use of mHealth at the individual level were considered least often. Conclusions The hype surrounding mHealth in cancer care is hindered by several factors that can affect its use in real world and nonexperimental settings. Compared with the growing evidence on mHealth efficacy, knowledge to inform the uptake of mHealth solutions in clinical cancer care is still scarce. Although some of our findings are supported by previous implementation research, our analysis elaborates on the distinguishing features of mHealth apps and provides an integrated perspective on the factors that should be accounted for implementation efforts. Future syntheses should liaise these dimensions with strategies observed in successful implementation initiatives.

This cross-sectional study investigates the use of patient-reported outcome measures in new marketing authorizations for oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2017 and 2021.

OBJECTIVES: Although unexpected conversion during Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy is up to 23%, the effects on postoperative outcomes remain debatable. This retrospective study aimed: (i) to identify potential preoperative risk factors of VATS conversion to standard thoracotomy; (ii) to assess the impact of surgical experience in VATS lobectomy on conversion rate and patient health-related quality of life. METHODS: We extracted detailed information on VATS lobectomy procedures performed consecutively (2014-2019). Predictors of conversion were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regressions. To assess the impact of VATS lobectomy experience, observations were divided according to surgeons' experiences with VATS lobectomy. The impact of VATS lobectomy experience on conversion and occurrence of postoperative complications was evaluated using logistic regressions. The impact of VATS lobectomy experience on EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) scores at discharge was assessed using Tobit regressions. RESULTS: A total of 11,772 patients underwent planned VATS for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with 1074 (9.1%) requiring conversion to thoracotomy. The independent predictors at multivariable analysis were: FEV1% (OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-0.99, p = 0.007), clinical nodal involvement (OR = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.08-1.90, p = 0.014). Experienced surgeons performed 4079 (34.7%) interventions. Experience in VATS lobectomy did not show a relevant impact on the risk of open surgery conversion (p = 0.13) and postoperative complications (p = 0.10), whereas it showed a significant positive impact (p = 0.012) on EQ-5D scores at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical nodal involvement was confirmed as the most critical predictor of conversion. Greater experience in VATS lobectomy did not decrease conversion rate and postoperative complications but was positively associated with postoperative patient quality of life. ispartof: CANCERS vol:15 issue:2 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

Digital health and mobile medical apps (MMAs) have shown great promise in transforming health care, but their adoption in clinical care has been unsatisfactory, and regulatory guidance and coverage decisions have been lacking or incomplete. A multidimensional assessment framework for regulatory, policymaking, health technology assessment, and coverage purposes based on the MMA lifecycle is needed. A targeted review of relevant policy documents from international sources was conducted to map current MMA assessment frameworks, to formulate 10 recommendations, subsequently shared amongst an expert panel of key stakeholders. Recommendations go beyond economic dimensions such as cost and economic evaluation and also include MMA development and update, classification and evidentiary requirements, performance and maintenance monitoring, usability testing, clinical evidence requirements, safety and security, equity considerations, organizational assessment, and additional outcome domains (patient empowerment and environmental impact). The COVID-19 pandemic greatly expanded the use of MMAs, but temporary policies governing their use and oversight need consolidation through well-developed frameworks to support decision-makers, producers and introduction into clinical care processes, especially in light of the strong international, cross-border character of MMAs, the new EU medical device and health technology assessment regulations, and the Next Generation EU funding earmarked for health digitalization.

On 31st January 2020, the Italian cabinet declared a 6-month national emergency after the detection of the first two COVID-19 positive cases in Rome, two Chinese tourists travelling from Wuhan. Between then and the total lockdown introduced on 22nd March 2020 Italy was hit by an unprecedented crisis. In addition to being the first European country to be heavily swept by the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy was the first to introduce stringent lockdown measures. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and related COVID-19 pandemic have been the worst public health challenge endured in recent history by Italy. Two months since the beginning of the first wave, the estimated excess deaths in Lombardy, the hardest hit region in the country, reached a peak of more than 23,000 deaths. The extraordinary pressures exerted on the Italian Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) inevitably leads to questions about its preparedness and the appropriateness and effectiveness of responses implemented at both national and regional levels. The aim of the paper is to critically review the Italian response to the COVID-19 crisis spanning from the first early acute phases of the emergency (March–May 2020) to the relative stability of the epidemiological situation just before the second outbreak in October 2020.

No abstract available.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome.Methods and analysisThe project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums.

Objectives To test the feasibility of using videoconferencing (VC) administered interviews and to derive an EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy. Methods Preferences were collected using the EuroQol standardized valuation protocol (EQ-VT) administered via VC. Two valuation methods were employed, composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE). Technical, organizational and protocol feasibility were tested in a pilot of 198 interviews. Upon positive assessment, data collection continued with a target sample of 1000–1200 participants including the pilot. Quality control (QC) procedures were employed to monitor interviewers’ performance during the pilot and the data collection. Data were modelled using GLS, Tobit, Logit and Hybrid models with different error specifications. Monotonicity of coefficients, statistical significance, and theoretical considerations informed the model choice. Results Dropouts and technical problems occurred in less than 5% of the 198 pilot interviews. Protocol compliance was demonstrated with significant improvements in QC parameters and limited interviewers’ effects, for all interviewers. Overall, interviewers were satisfied with this mode of administration, highlighting it allows flexibility and efficient scheduling. Based on these results, VC was deemed as a feasible mode of administration. The study collected preferences for 1182 responders, including the pilot interviews. The demographic characteristics of the sample were representative of the Italian general population for age, gender and geographical macro-areas. The hybrid Tobit heteroscedastic model without constant estimated on the full sample (including pilot) was selected for the derivation of the value set. Values ranged from −0.571 for the worst health state (55555) to 1 for the best health state (11111). Pain/discomfort registered the largest decrement, followed by mobility, anxiety/depression, self-care, and usual activities. 523 health states were worse than dead. Conclusions VC is viable for the conduct of valuation interviews. The Italian value set for the EQ-5D-5L can be used for value determinations of health technologies.

In the drive towards faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence from surrogate endpoints, leading to increased decision uncertainty. This study undertook an updated survey of methodological guidance for using surrogate endpoints across international HTA agencies. We reviewed HTA and economic evaluation methods guidance from European, Australian and Canadian HTA agencies. We considered how guidelines addressed the methods for handling surrogate endpoints, including (1) level of evidence, (2) methods of validation, and (3) thresholds of acceptability. Across the 73 HTA agencies surveyed, 29 (40%) had methodological guidelines that made specific reference to consideration of surrogate outcomes. Of the 45 methods documents analysed, the majority [27 (60%)] were non-technology specific, 15 (33%) focused on pharmaceuticals and three (7%) on medical devices. The principles of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) guidelines published in 2015 on the handling of surrogate endpoints appear to have been adopted by many European HTA agencies, i.e. preference for final patient-relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate endpoints with biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence of the association between the surrogate and final endpoint. Only a small number of HTA agencies (UK National Institute for Care and Excellence; the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee; and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) have developed more detailed prescriptive criteria for the acceptance of surrogate endpoints, e.g. meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials showing strong association between the treatment effect on the surrogate and final outcomes. As the decision uncertainty associated with reliance on surrogate endpoints carries a risk to patients and society, there is a need for HTA agencies to develop more detailed methodological guidance for consistent selection and evaluation of health technologies that lack definitive final patient-relevant outcome evidence at the time of the assessment.

In this viewpoint, we discuss the approach promoted by the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) to the assessment of the value of new pharmaceuticals in the Italian Healthcare Service. On top of traditionally acknowledged components, such as quality adjusted life years gained and net costs, the overall value framework might include other elements such as productivity and adherence, equity, severity of disease, reduction in uncertainty, spillover effects. There is a residual dimension in the value framework that may capture the option value or reduction in fear of contagion for infectious disease treatments. We debate measurement issues on these elements of value and discuss open issues from a methodological and policy standpoint.

No abstract available.

Objective There is no comprehensive assessment of which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recommended in core outcome sets (COS), and how they should be measured. The aims of this study are to review COS that include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), identify their target health domains, main characteristics, and their overlap within and across different disease areas. Study design and setting We selected COS studies collected in a publicly available database that included at least one recommended PROM. We gathered information on study setting, disease area, and targeted outcome domains. Full-text of recommended instruments were obtained, and an analysis of their characteristics and content performed. We classified targeted domains according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy. Results Overall, we identified 94 COS studies that recommended 323 unique instruments, of which: 87% were included in only one COS; 77% were disease-specific; 1.5% preference-based; and 61% corresponded to a full questionnaire. Most of the instruments covered broad health-related constructs, such as global quality of life (25%), physical functioning (22%), emotional functioning and wellbeing (7%). Conclusion The wealth of recommended instruments observed even within disease areas does not fit with a vision of systematic, harmonized collection of PROM data in COS within and across disease areas.

Aim Technological and computational advancements offer new tools for the collection and analysis of real-world data (RWD). Considering the substantial effort and resources devoted to collecting RWD, a greater return would be achieved if real-world evidence (RWE) was effectively used to support Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and decision making on medical technologies. A useful question is: To what extent are RWD suitable for generating RWE? Methods We mapped existing RWD sources in Europe for three case studies: hip and knee arthroplasty, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and mitral valve repair (TMVR), and robotic surgery procedures. We provided a comprehensive assessment of their content and appropriateness for conducting the HTA of medical devices. The identification of RWD sources was performed combining a systematic search on PubMed with gray literature scoping, covering fifteen European countries. Results We identified seventy-one RWD sources on arthroplasties; ninety-five on TAVI and TMVR; and seventy-seven on robotic procedures. The number, content, and integrity of the sources varied dramatically across countries. Most sources included at least one health outcome (97.5%), with mortality and rehospitalization/reoperation the most common; 80% of sources included resource outcomes, with length of stay the most common, and comparators were available in almost 70% of sources. Conclusions RWD sources bear the potential for the HTA of medical devices. The main challenges are data accessibility, a lack of standardization of health and economic outcomes, and inadequate comparators. These findings are crucial to enabling the incorporation of RWD into decision making and represent a readily available tool for getting acquainted with existing information sources.

Objectives: Methodological challenges in the evaluation of medical devices (MDs) may be different for early and late technology adopter countries, as well as the potential health technology assessment (HTA) solutions to tackle them. This study aims to provide guidance to Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries on how to address key challenges of HTA for MDs with special focus on the transferability of scientific evidence.Methods: As part of the COMED Horizon 2020 project, a comprehensive list of issues related to MD HTA were identified based on a targeted literature review. Health technology assessment issues which pose a greater challenge or require different solutions in late technology adopter countries were selected. Draught recommendations to address these issues were developed and discussed in a focus group. The recommendations were then validated with a wider group of experts, including HTA and reimbursement decision makers from CEE countries in May and June 2020.Results: A consolidated list of 11 recommendations were developed in 3 major areas: (1) clinical value assessment, focusing on the use of joint EU work, relying on real-world evidence, use of coverage with evidence development schemes, transferring evidence from foreign countries and addressing the challenges of learning curve and centre effect; (2) economic value assessment, covering cost calculation of complex medical devices and transferability of economic evaluations of MDs; (3) HTA processes, related to the frequent product modifications and various indications of MDs.Conclusions: Central and Eastern European countries with limited resources for conducting HTA, can benefit from HTA methods and evidence generated in early technology adopter countries. Considering the appropriate reuse of international HTA materials, late technology adopter countries can still implement HTA, even for MDs, which have a more limited evidence base compared with pharmaceuticals.

Introduction: The unparalleled surge in digital health adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the potential of mHealth apps. However, the quality of available evidence is generally low, and regulatory frameworks have focused on apps with medical purposes only, overlooking apps with significant interactions with patients that may require stronger oversight. Areas covered: To support this expanded evidence generation process, we identified the reasons that distinguish mHealth apps compared to medical devices at large and that should differentially feature their assessment. mHealth apps are characterized by the iterative nature of the corresponding interventions, frequent user interactions with a non-linear relationship between technology usage, engagement and outcomes, significant organizational implications, as well as challenges associated with genericization, their broad diagnostic potential, and price setting. Expert Opinion: The renewed reliance experienced during the pandemic and the unprecedented injection of resources through recovery instruments can further boost the development of apps. Only robust evidence of the benefits of mHealth apps will persuade health-care professionals and beneficiaries to systematically deploy them. Regulatory bodies will need to question their current approaches by adopting comprehensive evaluation processes that adequately consider the specific features of mHealth apps.

Importance Although nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with an increased risk of mortality, evidence validating nonfatal MI as a surrogate end point for all-cause or cardiovascular (CV) mortality is lacking. Objective To examine whether nonfatal MI may be a surrogate for all-cause or CV mortality in patients with or at risk for coronary artery disease. Data sources In this meta-analysis, PubMed was searched from inception until December 31, 2020, for randomized clinical trials of interventions to treat or prevent coronary artery disease reporting mortality and nonfatal MI published in 3 leading journals. Study selection Randomized clinical trials including at least 1000 patients with 24 months of follow-up. Data extraction and synthesis Trial-level correlations between nonfatal MI and all-cause or CV mortality were assessed for surrogacy using the coefficient of determination (R2). The criterion for surrogacy was set at 0.8. Subgroup analyses based on study subject (primary prevention, secondary prevention, mixed primary and secondary prevention, and revascularization), era of trial (before 2000, 2000-2009, and 2010 and after), and follow-up duration (2.0-3.9, 4.0-5.9, and ≥6.0 years) were performed. Main outcomes and measures All-cause or CV mortality and nonfatal MI. Results A total of 144 articles randomizing 1 211 897 patients met the criteria for inclusion. Nonfatal MI did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause (R2 = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.08) or CV (R2 = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.27) mortality. Nonfatal MI was not a surrogate for all-cause mortality in primary (R2 = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001-0.26), secondary (R2 = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.00-0.20), mixed primary and secondary prevention (R2 = 0.001; 95% CI, 0.00-0.08), or revascularization trials (R2 = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.002-0.50). For trials enrolling patients before 2000 (R2 = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.36), between 2000 and 2009 (R2 = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.00-0.17), and from 2010 and after (R2 = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.09), nonfatal MI was not a surrogate for all-cause mortality. Nonfatal MI was not a surrogate for all-cause mortality in randomized clinical trials with 2.0 to 3.9 (R2 = 0.004; 95% CI, 0.00-0.08), 4.0 to 5.9 (R2 = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.001-0.16), or 6.0 or more years of follow-up (R2 = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.01-0.55). Conclusions and relevance The findings of this meta-analysis do not appear to establish nonfatal MI as a surrogate for all-cause or CV mortality in randomized clinical trials of interventions to treat or prevent coronary artery disease.

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to aducanumab for treating Alzheimer’s disease based on the drug’s amyloid reducing effects. This was despite evidence from several earlier studies that shrinkage of β-amyloid protein plaques does not predictably delay cognitive impairment.1 The controversial decision has drawn attention to the use of surrogate endpoints—laboratory values, radiographic images, or other physical measures that may serve as indicators of clinical outcomes such as symptom control or mortality—in clinical trials of new drugs.2 In fact, the approval of aducanumab is only the latest example of growing regulatory reliance on surrogate endpoints, even though their use can cause problems for patients, clinicians, drug regulators, and health technology assessment bodies. We argue for more selective use of surrogate endpoints when evaluating new drugs, restricting their use to chronic diseases, especially when collecting data on patient relevant clinical outcomes requires trials with unattainably long follow up.

Background Surrogate endpoints (i.e., intermediate endpoints intended to predict for patient-centered outcomes) are increasingly common. However, little is known about how surrogate evidence is handled in the context of health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives 1) To map methodologies for the validation of surrogate endpoints and 2) to determine their impact on acceptability of surrogates and coverage decisions made by HTA agencies. Methods We sought HTA reports where evaluation relied on a surrogate from 8 HTA agencies. We extracted data on the methods applied for surrogate validation. We assessed the level of agreement between agencies and fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models to test the impact of validation approaches on the agency’s acceptability of the surrogate endpoint and their coverage recommendation. Results Of the 124 included reports, 61 (49%) discussed the level of evidence to support the relationship between the surrogate and the patient-centered endpoint, 27 (22%) reported a correlation coefficient/association measure, and 40 (32%) quantified the expected effect on the patient-centered outcome. Overall, the surrogate endpoint was deemed acceptable in 49 (40%) reports ( k-coefficient 0.10, P = 0.004). Any consideration of the level of evidence was associated with accepting the surrogate endpoint as valid (odds ratio [OR], 4.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60–13.18, P = 0.005). However, we did not find strong evidence of an association between accepting the surrogate endpoint and agency coverage recommendation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23–2.20; P = 0.55). Conclusions Handling of surrogate endpoint evidence in reports varied greatly across HTA agencies, with inconsistent consideration of the level of evidence and statistical validation. Our findings call for careful reconsideration of the issue of surrogacy and the need for harmonization of practices across international HTA agencies.

Safety and effectiveness of healthcare innovations must be assessed before entering routine clinical practice. Selection of outcome measures is therefore essential to inform clinical practice and the health-related decision-making process. However, recent studies have demonstrated a largely inconsistent approach to the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in oncology, thus making it difficult to synthesize the results of different research studies. The inconsistencies due to incomparable data available on the effects of interventions could be addressed with the development of agreed standardized sets of outcomes, known as core outcome sets (COS). The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) database, a publicly available internet-based platform that includes published accounts of COS development, reveals that oncology is the most prevalent disease category (16%) among included studies, and surgery is the focus of 8% of all entries. We identified eight studies defining relevant outcome sets in surgical oncology, as mortality/survival measures, adverse events and complications, symptoms, delivery of care and resource use, quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been traditionally neglected by the clinical and performance data records. In an era of personalized medicine and patient-centered policy making, it is instead of paramount importance to include PROs in COS.

Objective There is limited evidence regarding the economic effects of nutrition support in cancer patients. This study aims at investigating the cost-effectiveness profile of systematic oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) and receiving nutritional counseling. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a RCT was performed to estimate direct medical costs, life years gained (LYG) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for nutritional counseling with or without ONS at 5-month and 6-year follow up time. Value of information analysis was performed to value the expected gain from reducing uncertainty through further data collection. Results ONS with nutritional counseling produced higher QALY than nutritional counseling alone (0.291 ± 0.087 vs 0.288 ± 0.087), however the difference was not significant (0.0027, P = 0.84). Mean costs were €987.60 vs €996.09, respectively in the treatment and control group (-€8.96, P = 0.98). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was -€3,277/QALY, with 55.4% probabilities of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000/QALY. The Expected Incremental Benefit was €95.16 and the Population Expected Value of Perfect Information was €8.6 million, implying that additional research is likely to be worthwhile. At a median 6-year follow up, the treatment group had a significantly better survival rate when adjusting for late effect (P = 0.039). Conclusion Our findings provide the first evidence to inform decisions about funding and reimbursement of ONS in combination with nutritional counseling in HNC patients undergoing RT. ONS may improve quality of cancer care at no additional costs, however further research on the cost-effectiveness of nutritional supplementation is recommended. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02055833. Registered 5th February 2014 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02055833

Introduction: The new European Union (EU) Regulations on medical devices and on in vitro diagnostics provide manufacturers and Notified Bodies with new tools to improve pre-market and post-market clinical evidence generation especially for high-risk products but fail to indicate what type of clinical evidence is appropriate at each stage of the whole lifecycle of medical devices. In this paper we address: i) the appropriate level and timing of clinical evidence throughout the lifecycle of high-risk implantable medical devices; and ii) how the clinical evidence generation ecosystem could be adapted to optimize patient access. Areas covered: The European regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) contexts are reviewed, in relation to the lifecycle of high-risk medical devices and clinical evidence generation recommended by international network or endorsed by regulatory and HTA agencies in different jurisdictions. Expert opinion: Four stages are relevant for clinical evidence generation: i) pre-clinical, pre-market; ii) clinical, pre-market; iii) diffusion, post-market; and iv) obsolescence & replacement, post-market. Each stage has its own evaluation needs and specific studies are recommended to generate the appropriate evidence. Effective lifecycle planning requires anticipation of what evidence will be needed at each stage

BACKGROUND There is currently limited evidence on the level and intensity of physical activity in individuals with hemophilia A. Mobile technologies can offer a rigorous and reliable alternative to support data collection processes but they are often associated with poor user retention. The lack of longitudinal continuity in their use can be partly attributed to the insufficient consideration of stakeholder inputs in the development process of mobile apps. Several user-centered models have been proposed to guarantee that a thorough knowledge of the end user needs is considered in the development process of mobile apps. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to design and validate an electronic patient-reported outcome mobile app that requires sustained active input by individuals during POWER, an observational study that aims at evaluating the relationship between physical activity levels and bleeding in patients with hemophilia A. METHODS We adopted a user-centered design and engaged several stakeholders in the development and usability testing of this mobile app. During the concept generation and ideation phase, we organized a need-assessment focus group (FG) with patient representatives to elicit specific design requirements for the end users. We then conducted 2 exploratory FGs to seek additional inputs for the app’s improvement and 2 confirmatory FGs to validate the app and test its usability in the field through the mobile health app usability questionnaire. RESULTS The findings from the thematic analysis of the need-assessment FG revealed that there was a demand for sense making, for simplification of app functionalities, for maximizing integration, and for minimizing the feeling of external control. Participants involved in the later stages of the design refinement contributed to improving the design further by upgrading the app’s layout and making the experience with the app more efficient through functions such as chatbots and visual feedback on the number of hours a wearable device had been worn, to ensure that the observed data were actually registered. The end users rated the app highly during the quantitative assessment, with an average mobile health app usability questionnaire score of 5.32 (SD 0.66; range 4.44-6.23) and 6.20 (SD 0.43; range 5.72-6.88) out of 7 in the 2 iterative usability testing cycles. CONCLUSIONS The results of the usability test indicated a high, growing satisfaction with the electronic patient-reported outcome app. The adoption of a thorough user-centered design process using several types of FGs helped maximize the likelihood of sustained retention of the app’s users and made it fit for data collection of relevant outcomes in the observational POWER study. The continuous use of the app and the actual level of engagement will be evaluated during the ongoing trial. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04165135; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04165135

Background There is currently limited evidence on the level and intensity of physical activity in individuals with hemophilia A. Mobile technologies can offer a rigorous and reliable alternative to support data collection processes but they are often associated with poor user retention. The lack of longitudinal continuity in their use can be partly attributed to the insufficient consideration of stakeholder inputs in the development process of mobile apps. Several user-centered models have been proposed to guarantee that a thorough knowledge of the end user needs is considered in the development process of mobile apps. Objective The aim of this study is to design and validate an electronic patient-reported outcome mobile app that requires sustained active input by individuals during POWER, an observational study that aims at evaluating the relationship between physical activity levels and bleeding in patients with hemophilia A. Methods We adopted a user-centered design and engaged several stakeholders in the development and usability testing of this mobile app. During the concept generation and ideation phase, we organized a need-assessment focus group (FG) with patient representatives to elicit specific design requirements for the end users. We then conducted 2 exploratory FGs to seek additional inputs for the app’s improvement and 2 confirmatory FGs to validate the app and test its usability in the field through the mobile health app usability questionnaire. Results The findings from the thematic analysis of the need-assessment FG revealed that there was a demand for sense making, for simplification of app functionalities, for maximizing integration, and for minimizing the feeling of external control. Participants involved in the later stages of the design refinement contributed to improving the design further by upgrading the app’s layout and making the experience with the app more efficient through functions such as chatbots and visual feedback on the number of hours a wearable device had been worn, to ensure that the observed data were actually registered. The end users rated the app highly during the quantitative assessment, with an average mobile health app usability questionnaire score of 5.32 (SD 0.66; range 4.44-6.23) and 6.20 (SD 0.43; range 5.72-6.88) out of 7 in the 2 iterative usability testing cycles. Conclusions The results of the usability test indicated a high, growing satisfaction with the electronic patient-reported outcome app. The adoption of a thorough user-centered design process using several types of FGs helped maximize the likelihood of sustained retention of the app’s users and made it fit for data collection of relevant outcomes in the observational POWER study. The continuous use of the app and the actual level of engagement will be evaluated during the ongoing trial. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04165135; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04165135