Search

Although collaboration is an intensive way of working together, it is essential for such efforts to achieve shared goals. Health technology assessment (HTA) is transdisciplinary and has an important history of collaboration, with collaboration featuring increasingly in the strategic plans of HTA bodies and stakeholders. Collaboration can be between HTA bodies and between HTA bodies and other stakeholders-most notably regulators but increasingly payers, patient and caregiver organizations, clinicians-clinical societies, and academia. The 2024 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed collaborations involving HTA bodies, reviewing existing and previous collaborations to see what has worked and what can be learned. Core discussion themes included: (i) determining the collaboration purpose is essential but may be dynamic, changing over time; (ii) choosing the collaboration topic takes time, requiring upfront investment and stakeholder mapping; (iii) inviting the right participants and treating them equally is important, including those who can impact HTA, those who will be impacted by HTA and those who bring new information; (iv) collaborations need clear governance, defined roles, responsibilities, metrics, and case study-pilots can be a useful operational model; (v) resourcing collaborations sustainably is a challenge-the time, people, and money required are often under-estimated; (vi) undertaking continual, iterative learning reviews ensures ongoing value and impact of collaborations. Recommendations for future work include the development of a "go/no-go" checklist to determine when collaboration is needed, supplemented with a set of "best practice" principles for establishing and working in collaborations involving HTA bodies.

Background: At present, limited literature exists exploring patient preferences for prophylactic treatment of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD). Given low treatment completion rates to this treatment in Australia, where the burden of disease predominantly affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, an improved understanding of factors driving patient preference is required to improve outcomes. Due to limited available literature, this review sought to explore treatment preferences for conditions for which the findings might be generalisable to the ARF/RHD context., Objective: Explore treatment preferences of patients, parents/caregivers and healthcare providers towards regular injection regimens in paediatric and adolescent populations for any chronic condition. Findings will be applied to the development of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) prophylactic regimens that are informed by treatment preferences of patients and their caregivers. This in turn should contribute to optimisation of successful BPG delivery., Methods: A systematic review of databases (Medline, Embase and Global Health) was conducted using a search strategy developed with expert librarian input. Studies were selected using a two-stage process: (1) title and abstract screen and (2) full text review. Data were extracted using a reviewer-developed template and appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal tool. Data were synthesised according to a thematic analytical framework., Results: 1725 papers were identified by the database search, conducted between 12 February 2022 and 8 April 2022, and 25 were included in the review. Line-by-line coding to search for concepts generated 20 descriptive themes. From these, five overarching analytical themes were derived inductively: (1) ease of use, (2) tolerability of injection, (3) impact on daily life, (4) patient/caregiver agency and (5) home/healthcare interface., Conclusions: The findings of this review may be used to inform the development of preference-led regular injection regimens for paediatric and adolescent patient cohorts-specifically for BPG administration in ARF/RHD secondary prophylaxis., Trial Registration Number: Patient, parent and health personnel preferences towards regular injection regimes in paediatric and adolescent populations-a protocol for a systematic review. PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021284375. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021284375., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This review was completed as part of the MD Scholarly Activity programme at the University of Western Australia (UWA) Medical School. Telethon Kids Institute and UWA Medical School provided support for the work reported in the submitted manuscript., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Health technology assessment (HTA) programs inform decision making about the value and reimbursement of new and existing health technologies; however, they are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that they are a cost-effective use of finite healthcare resources themselves. The 2023 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed the value and impact of HTA, including how it is assessed and communicated, and how it could be enhanced in the future. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2023 HTAi GPF, where the challenges and opportunities related to the value and impact of HTA were debated. Core themes and recommendations identified that defining the purpose of value and impact assessment is an essential first step prior to undertaking it, and that it can be done through the use and expansion of existing tools. Further work around aligning HTA programs with underlying societal values is needed to ensure the long-term value and impact of HTA. HTA could also have a role in assessing the efficiency of the wider health system by applying HTA methods or concepts to broader budgetary allocations and organizational aspects of health care. Stakeholders (particularly patients, industry, and clinicians but also payers, wider society, and the media) should ideally be actively engaged when undertaking the value and impact assessment of HTA. More concerted efforts in communicating the role and remit of HTA bodies would also help stakeholders to better understand the value and impact of HTA, which in turn could improve the implementation of HTA recommendations and application to future actions in the lifecycle of technologies.

Lifecycle considerations have always been part of health technology assessment (HTA). However, the concept of taking a fuller, more holistic "lifecycle approach" is gaining interest in the HTA community. The 2022 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed how adopting a lifecycle approach could promote stakeholder engagement and robust evidence generation, and whether it could enhance information sharing and transparency across stakeholder groups. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2022 HTAi GPF and subsequent HTAi Annual Meeting panel session that debated some of the key challenges and opportunities, with particular focus on the pre- and postmarket and disinvestment phase activities. Core themes and recommendations identified that collaboration and patient involvement are happening but still needs to be strengthened, and moving to disease-based approaches may help, although individual contexts still need to be considered. Appropriately developed and mandated core outcome sets may help with information sharing and efficiency in all lifecycle activities. Further, methods for the appropriate use of big data and digital data collection should be developed and driven by the HTA community. The value of lifecycle activities should be reviewed; in particular, scientific advice appears valuable, but the magnitude of effect is somewhat unknown due to the challenges around the confidential nature of these activities. Not all lifecycle activities can be conducted for every technology, and while there is a move away from disinvestment phase activities, more structured prioritization criteria are required. This article ends with suggested next steps to bring forward some of the priority recommendations.

Objectives: The 2019 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (HAPF) discussed the role of horizon scanning (HS) and health technology reassessment (HTR) in supporting sustainable healthcare in Asia., Methods: Discussions and presentations at the 2019 HAPF, informed by a literature review, results of a premeeting survey, and case studies of HTA agencies from the region form the basis of this paper., Results: Five of the fourteen HTA agencies surveyed have established or are developing HS systems (HSSs), and six reported some experience with HTR. Although there were many differences in the respective HSSs, all were proactive and identified technologies within a 1-3-year time horizon. Commonalities included the criteria used to prioritize the technologies including burden and rarity of the disease, and cost to the health system and patients. Experience in HTR was not as extensive with most HTR activity being conducted on an ad hoc basis. Challenges for both HS and HTR include a lack of HTA capacity and good quality data, as well as a need for transparency and collaboration with industry., Conclusions: With developing universal health care and HTA capacity in many countries in Asia, HS and HTR are in their infancy. Whilst several countries in the region are experienced in all facets of HTA, other countries are developing their HTA skill base. As such, there was a clear appetite for setting up a collaborative network in the Asia region to facilitate information sharing around HTA activities, and more specifically, HS and HTR methodologies, experiences, and assessments.

A key working session, held as part of the Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) Global Policy Forum meeting asks members to share "What's Keeping Me Up At Night." Members-senior thought leaders from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, payer organizations, industry, and the HTAi Board-share without fear or favor the thorny issues related to HTA that are challenging them now or likely to do so in the near future. This article contains a reflection on the discussions at this session over the last 2 years and focuses on the recurrent and repeated themes: internal and external stakeholder involvement in HTA processes; globalization of HTA and the future of HTA (namely innovative technologies, tide of data and the "war for talent"). While the aim of these informal sessions is not to produce solutions, it reinforces the importance of developing a truly multi-stakeholder HTA community with working relationships built on mutual trust and long-standing engagement.

Objectives: Discussions at the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (HAPF) aimed to understand the meaning of "high-cost technologies," and to explore mechanisms to increase access to these technologies in publicly funded health systems in the Asia region., Methods: Discussions and presentations at the 2018 HAPF, informed by a literature review and a premeeting survey of HTA agencies and industry, form the basis of this paper., Results: Challenges payers in the public health system face when investing in high-cost technologies include a lack of data, especially real-world data, affordability, and the budgetary impact of high-cost technologies. Managed entry schemes (MES) are one means to enable earlier access to high-cost technologies, or at reduced cost to the system. Most countries surveyed had used an MES to introduce a new health technology and most industry representatives had experience with financial-based MES, such as discounts or rebates, with most put in place to increase access to pharmaceuticals. Little experience of outcome-based or evidence-generation MES was reported., Conclusions: Although it is early days in the implementation of MES in Asia, they have the potential to play an important role enabling access to new, mainly pharmaceutical, health technologies. The development of a "road map" of MES in the region should outline the intent and need for a MES, articulating the "rules of engagement" for all stakeholders-patients, providers, payers, and industry-which will assist countries to clearly identify the problem trying to be solved, and how an MES can be part of the solution.

Objectives: To report from the Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) on activities that are being undertaken within HTAi regarding the promotion of scientific rigor in the field of health technology assessment (HTA)., Methods: Retrieval of definitions of HTA that the SDCB committee considered reflective of the current practice of HTA, followed by a narrative synthesis of the core components of HTA., Results: Several definitions of HTA have been provided, all sharing the notion that HTA is the formal, systematic, and transparent inquiry into the meaning and value, broadly defined, of health technologies, when used in specific patient populations.Many frameworks and tools have been developed for assessing the quality of specific tasks that may be conducted in the context of HTA. Collating such frameworks and tools is likely to be helpful in developing standards and in providing guidance as to how the scientific quality of HTA may be secured. Two current trends in HTA were noted: a stronger health systems focus, and the need to involve stakeholders throughout the HTA process. A wider systems' perspective requires that plausible alternative scenarios are being developed, and wide consultation of various stakeholders is a prerequisite to the development of such scenarios with data from various sources., Conclusions: Current trends in HTA will lead to different demands on the HTA expert. The task of this emerging policy professional would be not just to provide technical information for problem-solving, but also to combine it with a new function of facilitating public deliberation and learning.

Objectives: To develop a definition of "capacity building" relevant to Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi)., Methods: A review of capacity building activities undertaken by HTAi members, members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), and regional HTA networks was compared against general literature on capacity building definitions and frameworks. The findings were reviewed by the HTAi Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee. Furthermore, the Executive Committee and Interest Groups of HTAi provided input on the draft final paper., Results: The literature demonstrated the need for a definition of capacity building specific to HTA. In the context of HTAi, it was necessary for the definition to cover (i) the broadest range of HTA-related activities, (ii) multiple stakeholders involved in the HTA process, and (iii) the spectrum of activities that compose capacity building. We propose the following definition of HTA capacity building: The process by which individuals and organizations develop or strengthen abilities related to understanding, providing input to, conducting, or utilizing HTA for health policy and decision making, as well as, developing awareness and support in the environment within which HTA is being used., Conclusion: A definition of HTA-related capacity building that was intended to provide clarity about what this term means to HTAi was developed. As HTA is context-dependent, a need for further work to develop an operationalization "menu" relevant to the specific needs in which HTA is being used was identified.

Objectives: Real-world evidence (RWE), derived from real-world data (RWD), is already used, to some extent, for health technology assessment (HTA) purposes. With the increased availability of RWD, there is potential for more widespread use but also challenges ensuring reliable RWE for HTA. Opportunities to overcome key challenges, identified at a scoping meeting, were discussed during the 2019 HTA international (HTAi) Global Policy Forum (GPF)., Methods: Reflection of discussions using Design Thinking (an interactive process aimed to solve complex problems) between seventy-three representatives from not-for-profit, for-profit organizations, and HTAi leadership. The discussions were informed by a background paper, and presentations from three invited keynote speakers and eleven GPF members., Results: Several options were listed for addressing the identified key challenges: quality and acceptability, governance and accountability, transferability, and informing decision making. The GPF emphasized that the HTA community should first understand what questions could be answered with RWE. Additionally, more clarity on methods, standards, streamlining RWD collection, data sharing across jurisdictions, replication of RWD, and expert analysis were mentioned as important priorities., Conclusions: The HTA community is currently standing at a cross-road as it is not yet fully equipped to address these key challenges. It is, therefore, time for action. The community should start aligning on what is the best source of evidence according to purpose and how the data should be collected to create reliable evidence. It should also initiate the development of actions and guidance to properly develop and manage RWD/RWE to inform decision making across the technology lifecycle.

Objectives: For many years, several health technology assessment (HTA) agencies scanned the horizon to identify health technologies that were safe, effective and offer value for money. However, there is limited evidence regarding its impact. The role of horizon scanning in preparing health systems for the uptake of new and emerging health technologies was discussed during the 2018 HTA International (HTAi) Global Policy Forum Meeting., Methods: Reflection of the discussion between seventy-two senior representatives from for-profit, not-for-profit organizations, and HTAi leadership. It was informed by a background paper, and presentations from four invited experts and seventeen Policy Forum members., Results: Current horizon scanning systems (HSS) mainly identify health technologies in the late stage of development, aiming to inform topic selection for HTA. Areas for improvement included the need for a clearer definition of the end user(s), purpose, scope, and focus of HSS, the long-term full health system effects, including all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, and considering smart data systems and international collaboration to improve HSS's efficiency. The way in which HSS could be further optimized and better shaped to prepare health systems was also discussed and good practice examples were presented., Conclusions: HSS have not yet reached their full potential in preparing health systems. To improve the current situation, the HTA community could act as convenors, bringing together all relevant stakeholders and providing the information that decision makers need. This would require a new, more integrative approach to define and use HSS and HTA, and requires new skills.

Objectives: The Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Asia Policy Forum (HAPF) met to discuss the challenges of achieving universal health care (UHC) in Asia., Methods: Group discussions and presentations at the 2017 HAPF, informed by a background paper, including a literature review and the results of pre-meeting surveys of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and industry, formed the basis of this article., Results: Affordability was identified as the greatest barrier to establishing UHC; however, other impediments include the lack of political will to implement UHC, and the cultural issue of deference to expert opinion instead of evidence-based assessments. Although HTA was identified as an important prioritization tool when adding new technologies to benefit packages, it is used inconsistently in the region, resulting in a less transparent decision-making process for stakeholders. Although regional challenges exist around real-world data (RWD), including a lack of capacity to enable information and data sharing, most policy or funding decision makers in the region have access to data. However, there appears to be a disconnect with the experience of industry, whose representatives identify the lack of RWD as their primary issue. To overcome these issues, both HTA agencies and industry agree that collaboration and transparency should be fostered to support the development of robust evidence generation in the region., Conclusions: There is a willingness for HTA agencies and industry to collaborate to develop HTA methodology for the prioritization of technologies in the Asia region that support healthcare systems to achieve the ultimate outcome of UHC.

The boundaries of medical science in the treatment of cancer are constantly extending. Developments of existing treatments, innovative approaches, new discoveries, and more targeted therapeutic options are translating into practice. With advances come increasing costs, often of a magnitude that stretches finite financial resources. When decisions about funding are made on behalf of a population, standardized processes and methods are needed in order to produce robust guidance in a fair, consistent, and transparent way. The challenges of making these difficult decisions are brought into particularly stark relief when potentially life-extending treatments for patients with a short life expectancy are appraised. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) produces guidance on the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of medicines compared with current standard practice. Approximately 40% of the technologies appraised by NICE are indicated for cancer, and the majority of these are pharmaceuticals, mostly biological agents. This article provides an overview of the current role of NICE in making new technologies for cancer available in England and Wales. This includes a summary of experiences with end-of-life treatments and the supplementary advice regarding such treatments that was issued by NICE to its decision-making committees in 2009., (©2011 AACR.)

Background: Promoting the mental health of people bereaved through suicide is a key aim of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy., Aims: To evaluate the effects of interventions to support people bereaved through suicide., Method: We conducted a systematic review of data from controlled studies of interventions for people bereaved through suicide. Studies were identified using systematic searches, the methodological quality of included studies was assessed and narrative synthesis conducted., Results: Eight studies were identified. None was UK-based and all but one study had substantial methodological limitations. When compared with no intervention, there was evidence of some benefit from single studies of a cognitive-behavioural family intervention of four sessions with a psychiatric nurse; a psychologist-led 10-week bereavement group intervention for children; and 8-week group therapy for adults delivered by a mental health professional and volunteer. The findings from studies comparing two or more active interventions were more equivocal., Conclusions: Although there is evidence of some benefit from interventions for people bereaved by suicide, this is not robust. Further methodologically sound evidence is required to confirm whether interventions are helpful and, if so, for whom.

Objectives: It is possible for baseline imbalances to occur between treatment groups for one or more variables in a randomized controlled trial, although the identification and detection of baseline imbalances remain controversial. If trials with baseline imbalances are combined in a meta-analysis, then this may result in misleading conclusions., Study Design and Setting: The identification and consequences of baseline imbalances in meta-analyses are discussed. Metaregression using mean baseline scores as a covariate is proposed as a potential method for adjusting baseline imbalances within meta-analysis. We will use a recent systematic review looking at the effect of calcium supplements on weight as an illustrative case study., Results: Meta-analysis conducted using the mean final values of the treatment groups as the outcome resulted in an apparent, statistically significant, treatment effect. However, using a meta-analysis of baseline values, this was shown to be due to the baseline imbalance between treatment groups, rather than as a result of any intervention received by the participants. Applying the method of metaregression demonstrated that there was in fact a smaller, statistically insignificant effect between treatment groups., Conclusion: The meta-analyst should always consider the possibility of baseline imbalances and adjustments should be made wherever possible.

Objectives: A systematic review was undertaken and an economic model constructed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis) in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The main comparators considered were other established chemotherapy regimens and best supportive care., Data Sources: Twenty-one resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched to April 2005., Review Methods: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Data from included studies were extracted and quality assessed. Where appropriate, outcomes were synthesised using formal analytic approaches. A new economic model was developed in order to establish the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel compared with a range of potential comparators. A separate review was undertaken to identify sources of utility data required to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken to explore the robustness of the main analysis to alternative assumptions related to quality of life. Monte Carlo simulation was used to propagate uncertainty in input parameters through the model in such a way that the results of the analysis could be presented with their uncertainty. The impact of uncertainty surrounding the decision was established using value of information and implementation approaches., Results: Seven randomised controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria. A direct comparison of docetaxel plus prednisone versus mitoxantrone plus prednisone in an open-label randomised trial showed improved outcomes for docetaxel plus prednisone in terms of overall survival, quality of life, pain and prostate-specific antigen decline. Two other chemotherapy regimens that included docetaxel: docetaxel plus estramustine and docetaxel plus prednisone plus estramustine, also showed improved outcomes in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone. Indirect comparison suggested that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be superior to corticosteroids alone in terms of overall survival. Conclusions on cost-effectiveness were primarily informed by the results of the in-house model. This indicated that mitoxantrone plus a corticosteroid is probably cheaper and more effective than corticosteroid alone. Compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone/prednisolone, the use of docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone (3-weekly) appears cost-effective only if the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with docetaxel plus prednisone (3-weekly) remained fairly robust to these variations with estimates ranging from 28,000 pounds to 33,000 pounds per QALY. Value of information analysis revealed that further research is potentially valuable. Given a maximum acceptable ratio of 30,000 pounds per QALY, the expected value of information was estimated to be approximately 13 million pounds., Conclusions: This systematic review of the research suggests that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be the most effective treatment for men with mHRPC. The economic model suggests that treatment with docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone is cost-effective in patients with mHRPC provided the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per additional QALY. Future research should include the direct assessment of quality of life and utility gain associated with different treatments, including the effect of adverse events of treatment, using generic instruments, which are suitable for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analyses.

A systematic review was performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisolone (docetaxel is licensed in the UK for use in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Prednisone is not used in the UK, but it is reasonable to use docetaxel plus prednisone data in this review of docetaxel plus prednisolone) for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. A scoping search identified a trial of docetaxel plus prednisone vs mitoxantrone plus prednisone, but did not identify any trials comparing docetaxel plus prednisolone/prednisone with any other treatments. Therefore, we considered additional indirect evidence that would enable a comparison of docetaxel plus prednisolone/prednisone with other chemotherapy regimens and active supportive care. Systematic searching (upto April 2005) identified seven randomised controlled trials. One large well-conducted trial assessed docetaxel plus prednisone vs mitoxantrone plus prednisone; this showed statistically significant improvements with 3-weekly docetaxel in terms of overall survival, quality of life, pain response and PSA decline. Two other chemotherapy regimens that included docetaxel with estramustine also showed improved outcomes in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone. Three trials that compared mitoxantrone plus corticosteroids with corticosteroids alone were identified and their results for overall survival combined, which showed very little difference between the two groups. The addition of clodronate to mitoxantrone plus prednisone showed no significant differences in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone alone. The evidence suggests that chemotherapy regimens containing 3-weekly docetaxel are superior to mitoxantrone or corticosteroids alone.

Animal studies and epidemiological studies have suggested that Ca supplementation (with Ca supplements or dairy products) may be associated with weight loss in human adults. We aimed to assess whether any association was present by reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials in human subjects. The study was a systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that used Ca supplementation as an intervention in persons 18 or more years of age, and that reported body weight as a final outcome. A total of thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. There was no association between the increased consumption of either Ca supplements or dairy products and weight loss after adjusting for differences in baseline weights between the control and intervention groups (P=0.19 and 0.85, respectively). We therefore concluded that Ca supplementation has no statistically significant association with a reduction in body weight.